1999-12-063914REPS1278701999-12-06Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports127871278712:31:0012787Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREWHE4WakefieldLP10—I would remind members on my right that the Speaker wishes to make a report to the House and that would be facilitated by them resuming their chairs.I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Greece, Turkey and Cyprus in July 1999. The report records the impressions of the Australian parliamentary delegation which visited Greece, Turkey and Cyprus in the period 6 to 21 July 1999. I had the privilege of leading the delegation and was accompanied by the Hon. Duncan Kerr as Deputy Leader, Senator Brian Gibson, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, Mr David Hawker and Mrs Danna Vale. The delegation secretary was Mr John Kain from the Department of the Parliamentary Library.The visit took place at a time of some turmoil in the eastern Mediterranean region. It was in the immediate aftermath of the Kosovo war and just prior to the devastating earthquakes which struck Turkey and, shortly thereafter, Greece with tragic loss of life and major property destruction. Australia has long-established and valuable associations with all three countries, both social and economic, as well as military. Members of the delegation felt a special feeling of kinship and familiarity with the people and the parliaments of this region. This was hardly surprising as migrants from the region have indeed made an invaluable contribution to Australia's rich and diverse cultural fabric over the last 50 years. These cultural connections no doubt contributed to the overwhelming warmth and friendliness of our reception by parliamentary and other national leaders in each of the countries.While none of these countries ranks among Australia's major trading partners, they do offer important export growth and investment opportunities. As the record attests, there has been quite significant growth in our trading relationship with Turkey, in particular, over recent years. Every listener will know that there are marked similarities between the climates of temperate Australia and the eastern Mediterranean countries. Not surprisingly, our primary producing industries have much in common and share many of the same production challenges. This is true particularly in agricultural production in semiarid areas. These similarities mean that there are opportunities for increased trade and investment and the pooling of experience and expertise to our mutual benefit. Some Australian interests are already heavily involved as joint partners in a number of irrigation and agricultural projects in the region. The rapid growth in sales of Australian fast ferries to both Greece and Turkey is a noteworthy example of Australian manufacturing export successes in the region.Further emerging opportunities for Australian trade and investment in Greece are appearing in the lead-up to the Athens 2004 Olympic Games, and the Athens organisers are working closely with their Sydney counterparts to help make both events an international success. Although large Australian construction companies are already aware of these opportunities, the sporting events offer further openings for smaller companies which will emerge. These will not be limited to the construction industry but are likely to extend to the provision of an array of other goods and services and design support. The delegation was struck by the fact that, like Australia, all three countries visited are going through rapid economic transformation and structural change. With the breakdown in international trade barriers over recent years and declining international transport costs, Australian investors and traders would be wise not to neglect this vital and rapidly growing part of the world economy.Of course, the eastern Mediterranean region has long been of prime geostrategic importance to Europe and Asia. This military importance was demonstrated most recently by the central support roles played by Greece and Turkey in the Kosovo conflict. The support of the region was also crucial to the effective conduct of the allied effort in the Gulf campaign of the early 1990s. The military links between Australia and the region date back many years and provide the foundations of some strong bilateral bonds between Australia, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. During the Second World War, Australian troops were involved in the defence of Greece and many Australian service personnel died in the Battle of Crete.The delegation noted with gratitude that these events are commemorated by both Greeks and visiting Australians to this day. The lasting legacy of Gallipoli in the collective national memories of both Australia and Turkey cannot be overestimated. Its importance to the Turks was continually emphasised to us by Turkish national leaders. The symbolism of the ANZAC connection is very real and the delegation felt especially honoured to visit the historical sites and memorials of Gallipoli where, in 1915, Australia and Turkey first met. While adversaries at this time, the bravery and gallantry of both sides in the Gallipoli campaign has shaped the way both Turkey and Australia see themselves in the world today.Australia's longstanding civil police function undertaken in support of the United Nations peacekeeping forces on Cyprus has represented a very significant commitment of Australian resources over the past 35 years. It is a valuable indicator of the importance which successive Australian governments have placed on the maintenance of peace and stability in the region.The delegation was pleased to have the opportunity to meet with Australian Federal Police members stationed on Cyprus. We learned at first-hand the nature of their responsibilities along the UN buffer zone which delineates the northern Turkish Cypriot controlled part of the island from the Greek Cypriot portion of the south. We were impressed with the capacity the AFP members have shown to uphold the Australian tradition, particularly in the circumstances in which they work.During the course of its discussions with parliamentarians in Greece and Turkey, the delegation was continually reminded of the interdependence of these two regional neighbours and of the complex web of social, political and religious factors which, over the generations, have tended to keep relationships between the two countries at best `cool' and at worst `hostile'. Although the Cyprus problems lies at the heart of many of these difficulties, there are other areas of longstanding dispute, such as territorial claims in the Aegean Sea and conflicting claims over air rights.A lasting impression from our discussions with respective national leaders is that the prospects for immediate resolution of these difficulties are not at all clear, notwithstanding some recent thawing in Greece-Turkey relations. The apparent intractability of the Cyprus problem is a continuing concern. However, there have been some recent positive moves by the EU to accept Turkey as a candidate for EU entry. The support that Greece has given to this accession is to be lauded. The possibility of full EU membership may offer greater long-term prospects for resolving some of the historic differences than have existed for many years.I express the delegation's deep appreciation to the parliaments of Greece, Turkey and Cyprus for welcoming us so warmly, to the heads of mission and staff in the Australian posts in Athens, Ankara and Nicosia—particularly Ambassadors Burns and Forsyth, and High Commissioner Brown—for their strong support, and to those officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Parliamentary Library for the thoroughness of their briefing material prepared before the delegation's departure.I conclude by recognising the cohesiveness of the delegation which I led, and I express my particular appreciation to all delegation members for the way in which they operated as a team and so effectively represented Australia in what was quite a lengthy overseas visit. I offer my particular appreciation to the deputy leader of the delegation, Mr Kerr, the member for Denison, for his support throughout the events.12:40:0012788Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Mr Speaker, might I reciprocate by firstly saying that this was certainly the most harmonious of delegations, and your role in that regard I think warrants the recognition of all members of the delegation. You have canvassed most of the issues that the delegation addressed. Simply to put some personal reflections on the record, might I say that I particularly welcome the new warming in relations between Greece and Turkey that seems evident in the aftermath of the response to each country from the tragedies that arose from the recent earthquakes. That has been followed by, or was associated with, a withdrawal of Greek objection to Turkey's membership of the EU. And there are, I understand, currently talks in New York between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities which may have some prospect of addressing the otherwise intractable separation between those two communities.It is very plain that, unless there is either substantial change in terms of international intervention in relation to that matter or a willingness for cooperative solutions between the two parties, the status quo is likely to remain. That was made very clear to us by our Turkish interlocutors who plainly indicated that they regarded the status quo where the Turkish component of Cyprus essentially asserts its right to independent statehood to be supported by the Turkish government. The opportunities therefore that might emerge for agreement in New York are to be welcomed.I might indicate that plainly, of the things that struck home with all of us, one was the real sense of mutual interest in the celebration of Gallipoli. I do not think people who have not been to Turkey would have had that sense. It can be spoken of, but nothing really can lead you to the kind of emotional response you have when you stand beside the monument that has been erected and is inscribed with the words of Kemal Ataturk recognising the tragedy of the lives lost on both sides, but doing so in terms which commend all to the soil of Turkey and seeking to show that, in this one conflict perhaps uniquely in the world, people emerged more closely as friends rather than as bitter enemies. There are, however, areas of misunderstanding. One of those was brought home to us in a tense meeting with the Turkish Speaker of the Grand National Assembly where he raised concerns about the New South Wales parliament commemoration of claimed instances of Armenian genocide. There does need to be some work done in order to make certain that there is no misunderstanding in relation to what now is, I think, a well-known instance where there was massive loss of life—whether it could properly be termed a genocide or not is a matter of contention but no doubt it was a massive loss of life—when Turkey was not the Republic of Turkey but the last of the Ottoman Empire.Why this should now be such a contentious matter in bilateral relationships was difficult for me to understand, but nonetheless it is, and it is an issue where we need to be sure that those who have dealings with us on the other side of the Australian Turkish negotiating positions understand that there will be a wide range of views expressed in the Australian community, not always a single voice, and that that is inherently part of that process, notwithstanding the disquiet the government may have.Nonetheless, there were some very rewarding signs that our views in relation to human rights issues were being seriously considered. There were some substantial improvements that the delegation noted in relation to the way in which the Ocalan matter was addressed and a very important recognition that there needed to be an engagement with the international community, notwithstanding what we all have to accept is a very difficult on-the-ground situation with respect to the separatist interests of the PKK and the role it has played in disrupting Turkish society. I will conclude my remarks there to allow other members of the delegation to express their views.12:46:0012789Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I would like to join with you, Mr Speaker, and the member for Denison to say a few words about this report. I will start by echoing some of the words that you and the member for Denison have already expressed, that is, that it was a very successful visit: it was a very good and cooperative delegation, and a very well led delegation. It should be noted that your efforts, Mr Speaker, bore fruit as far as making sure it was a very successful and cooperative visit.Many of the issues have already been canvassed, but I would like to revisit a couple of them. We were very fortunate with the level of contact we had in all three countries. We were certainly given the opportunity to meet with people at the highest level, including the President of the Hellenic Republic in Greece, the President of the Greek Chamber of Deputies and Mr Papandreou, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Likewise, in Turkey we had the opportunity to meet with the Speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the Prime Minister and also the President. This occurred again when we went to Cyprus and we were given access to the President of the House of Representatives and the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr Clerides. That shows the feeling towards Australia and the recognition that we received there.It is also worth echoing the words that have already been uttered about the fact that the delegation did have an opportunity to see first-hand the relationships between the three countries and also the growing cooperation that has occurred, particularly following the absolute tragedy of the earthquakes in Turkey just after our visit. It seems that sometimes out of adversity comes new opportunities and I dare say this was one that we were rather pleased to see develop.The role that Australia is playing in the UN peacekeeping force in Cyprus is to be commended. The commitment and quality of the people we send over there is always a credit to Australia. They always make sure that they acquit themselves in a very fine way and in their own way they are ambassadors for Australia and certainly make a contribution. The intractability of the Cyprus problem has already been mentioned and it is of continuing concern. As the report concludes, we do not see any easy solution there.One would hope that, with Greece hosting the Olympic Games in the year 2004, Australia will be in a very good position to help in many ways from our own experiences with the Sydney Olympics next year both in a supporting role and in a tangible way. We should be able to use that opportunity for the mutual benefit of both countries.I would also like to congratulate the diplomatic staff on the excellent support we received from Ambassador Ross Burns in Greece and Ian Forsyth in Turkey, and High Commissioner Howard Brown in Cyprus. All of them gave tremendous support and were very professional in their approach.The final point I would like to make is that the importance of parliamentary delegations cannot be overestimated. This delegation demonstrated yet again that it is of significant benefit to the nation to have these visiting delegations. There is no doubt that it not only helps promote Australia in a diplomatic way but also helps promote some of the trade opportunities that can come from greater cooperation between countries. Members of the delegation took that responsibility very seriously.I conclude by again endorsing your words, Mr Speaker, for the support the delegation received and also particularly mentioning John Kain, the secretary to the delegation, who did an outstanding job. He was highly professional in his approach and very dedicated. The way he supported the delegation in such a professional manner was a credit to him, and he assisted in so many ways to ensure the success of the delegation.Committees12790127901279012:51:0012790Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled World debt—a report on the proceedings of a seminar, 27 August 1999 , including evidence received by the committee and the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—I am pleased to present this report of the proceedings of a seminar on world debt hosted by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on 27 August of this year. The seminar was opened by the parliamentary secretary responsible for Australia's aid program, the Hon. Kathy Sullivan MP. The panel of speakers on the day included representatives of Jubilee 2000 and several other non-government organisations. The seminar was balanced by the inclusion of academics and officers of government departments and was very well attended by members of the diplomatic corps, representatives of government and non-government organisations and other interested parties, as well as members of parliament.The debt of the world's poorest nations is an issue that all sides of politics have a great concern for, a concern shared by many people in Australia and around the world. The petition of 385,000 signatures from Australians presented to members of parliament clearly demonstrates the depth of feeling in the community about the debt issue. The Australian petition formed a part of the global petition of some 17 million signatures which was delivered to the June 1999 meeting of the G7 nations in Cologne. The debate about development has evolved in recent years. Debt is one of the fundamental problems inhibiting growth in the poorest nations of the world. There is the belief that debt and a failure to develop are intrinsically linked. Indeed, indebted nations are unable to attract investment or to invest in their own social capital, because of the debt burden they carry.In 1996, the World Bank and the IMF launched the Highly Indebted Poor Country initiative to alleviate some of the debt of the poorest nations. Criticisms have focused on the initiative's strict qualifying criteria, the limited amount of debt forgiveness and the long compliance period that countries must adhere to before debt forgiveness is offered. In response to the continuing debt crisis and the perceived shortcomings of the HIPC initiative, a broad coalition of interested parties began campaigning for greater debt forgiveness for the poorest nations by the year 2000 on moral and ethical grounds. In June 1999, G7 leaders agreed to the Cologne debt initiative, which would relax some of the criteria for access to debt relief and, most importantly, substantially increase the amount of money offered for debt forgiveness.Australia bears little responsibility for the indebtedness of other nations. We accept that the scope that the Australian government can play in reducing the debt of developing countries is somewhat limited. The committee report, therefore, focuses on the concrete objectives that Australia can pursue to reduce poverty in the world's poorest and in other developing nations. In our report, we recognise the need for a fine balance between the monetary cost of the Jubilee 2000 proposal for debt relief and the human costs of doing nothing and the debt crisis continuing. It is on this basis that the committee recommends that the government continue support of the HIPC initiative.Australia does not have a great deal of bilateral debt owed to it by other nations, and even less of that debt is not being serviced. This is largely a result of prudent decisions to offer development assistance in the form of grants, not loans. At the seminar, the committee was told that the size of these debts totalled less than $80 million. In the spirit of the HIPC initiative, the committee recommended that Australia offer this bilateral debt to be considered as part of any future contributions to the revised HIPC initiative where those countries are permitted to agree to meet the HIPC conditions.Despite the IMF proposal to revalue some of the reserves of gold in order to pay for the HIPC initiative, the initiative will not be fully funded. It is on the basis of this expected shortfall that the committee recommended the Australian government give consideration to additional contributions towards the HIPC initiative, in line with Australia's level of obligation to the IMF and World Bank. Debt relief may be a circuit breaker, but it is not a panacea for the development of the world's poorest countries. Development will flow only from a genuine commitment to improving material conditions of its people, along with basic policies and robust institutions that are essential to growth. I commend the report to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Throsby wish to move a motion in connection with the report to allow it to be debated on a future occasion?12792Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member for Throsby will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.127921279212:57:0012792Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I present the committee's advisory report on the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—The introduction of digital technology has a major impact on many aspects of modern life, especially the enhanced communications of ideas and information. This report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is the result of a brief but intense study of the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999. The committee recognises that this bill presents the most significant amendments to Australia's copyright law since the passage of the Copyright Act 1968. Redefining the bundle of property rights that is copyright, in the context of emerging digital technologies, is a complex task. The committee endorses the stated aim of Australia's copyright legislation in seeking to support an appropriate balance between the competing public interests of promoting creative endeavour and allowing reasonable access to copyright material. The committee supports much of the bill as it was introduced to the parliament. However, the committee recommends some readjustments to the balance of interests, as suggested by the bill, because of the perceived increased risk of copyright infringement within a digital environment.Evidence to the committee suggested that access which is reasonable in the print environment may not be reasonable in the digital environment. This is because the risk of unauthorised use of copyright material in the digital environment is far greater than in the print environment. As honourable members will appreciate, a digitised copy is, in effect, a mint copy of the original, able to be further reproduced easily. The committee believes that the digital environment cannot be likened to the print environment in all respects.Some members of the committee advocated imposing strong restrictions on access to copyright material in digital form. However, for the purposes of this advisory report, the committee resolved that the same rights of access should apply to material in digital form as apply to material in print form. In order to protect copyright owners, however, the committee endorses the restriction on the right of copyright users to convert material into digital form in the first place.The right to digitised material ought to be the exclusive right of the copyright owner, except in certain limited circumstances. The committee agreed that users may only digitise copyright material for the following purposes: firstly, criticism and review; secondly, reporting the news or judicial proceedings; and, thirdly, professional advice and preservation.The committee also agreed that libraries could digitise material in their collections for the purposes of delivering it electronically to a user in a remote location where delivery of a print copy by post would be unreasonably slow. The decision to provide a work in a digital form should be the considered decision of the copyright owner. The committee considers that the ability to control the first digitisation of a work at the frontier between the print and digital environments is a fundamental principle that should be given special recognition under copyright law. The measures proposed in this report not only provide a statement of support for copyright owners but also recognise the special access needs of users.Another change introduced by the bill affecting access to copyright material relates to the definition of `library'. The bill narrows the definition to exclude libraries conducted for profit. The committee has recommended that this proposed change be omitted from the bill. The committee has also examined the way in which the bill extends the scheme for the reproduction of copyright material by educational and other institutions to material in digital form. The committee concluded that the statutory licence scheme envisaged will work satisfactorily subject to some minor amendments.Before concluding my remarks, I would like to thank the members of the committee for their contributions during the course of this inquiry and the finalisation of the report. The report is a testament to the committee's desire to aid the parliamentary process by resolving complex issues, often from widely divergent starting positions. In particular, I would like to extend the committee's thanks to the members of the secretariat of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, in particular our secretary, Claressa Surtees; the research officers on this report, Jennifer Cochran, Sara Cousins, Andrew Grimm and, for some time, Margus Karilaid; and the administrative officers, Jane Sweeney and Frances Wilson. I commend the report to the House.13:02:0012793Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—The tabling today of the advisory report on the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is the result of a speedy yet detailed and challenging review of the proposed new copyright laws which attempt to bring the act up to date with the technological advances of recent times. Even before the mass use of computer technology, copyright law has been a difficult area, not just because of the technical questions to be addressed but because it is an area of law which seeks to balance a number of competing public interests. In general terms, copyright law is designed to protect the creator and owner of copyright from the world at large copying, using or profiting from the owner's creative endeavours unless proper payment is made. At the same time, the law has sought to recognise and balance the importance of public access to information for the purposes of public debate, learning and furthering the education and wellbeing of our nation as a whole.With the technology boom in recent years, many—including me—have seen the great potential for information to become more widely available and more readily accessible in our community. Schools, libraries and families in low income areas like my electorate of Gellibrand and regional areas have been excited by the hope that the technology will provide a chance to overcome some inequities of the past. Nevertheless, access to information for individuals can be contrasted with larger scale use, copying and distribution, particularly with the intention of avoiding payment, and copyright owners have a legitimate interest in seeking to be paid for such uses. It is against this background that the committee has written its unanimous report aiming to strike an appropriate balance in light of quickly changing technology.Although many witnesses sought to review the adequacy of existing copyright laws in meeting the competing interests of owners and users, the committee largely focused on new questions that arose as a result of changing technology rather than use this as an opportunity to revisit more general concerns. There are other reviews on foot that will more appropriately address these questions. With some exceptions, as the chairman, the member for Menzies, has already pointed out, the committee concluded that the existing laws that apply in the print environment should also apply in the digital environment; that is, reproducing print material in print form and reproducing digital material in digital form should largely be covered by the same rules with reasonable portions being able to be used for specific purposes such as research and study, and that a statutory licence scheme in educational institutions be extended to cover such usage. The committee was, however, alive to the ease with which reproductions can be made with new technology and to the quality of such reproductions.By maintaining similar rules for the print environment serious concerns have been raised about the risk of abusing current exemptions. While the potential clearly exists, from my point of view no convincing evidence was presented about abuse under the current exceptions such as by students, universities or libraries. The desire for libraries, for example, to set up to provide illicit competition to publishers seemed fanciful. Nevertheless, the concerns are there because the potential exists and is growing exponentially with new technological developments.The chairman has already touched on the committee's recommendation with respect to the right of first digitisation and an owner being able to control such digitisation of his or her work. It is hoped that such control will protect copyright owners to some extent from exploitation of this new medium of electronic communication. Whilst this right is proposed to be exclusive to the owner with very few narrow exemptions, an important exemption is proposed which will allow libraries to scan and email material to regional users who would otherwise not be able to access information within a reasonable time. This compromise recognises an important aim to ensure that new technology benefits all Australians, not just those in metropolitan areas.The committee's recommendations as a whole mean that industry participants will have to commercially negotiate the terms and uses for material in digital form. Evidence before us showed that this is already occurring with licence arrangements between publishers and libraries, for example, but they will become more central. In my view, creators, publishers, libraries and educational institutions will all have an additional responsibility to ensure that their commercial negotiations adequately protect their interests in the new environment. I would encourage library representatives to ensure that they can present views on behalf of the whole library sector including community libraries, not only the major public and state institutions. Practical considerations may well be different. Students and user groups should also be encouraged to be more actively involved.Copyright owners, particularly authors, often complain about copyright laws preventing them from obtaining adequate remuneration. However, evidence was not presented, despite requests, of the loss that authors were suffering rather than publishers, who I suspect are commonly the copyright owners after publication and feel most aggrieved by unpaid uses of copyright material. Creators when negotiating and assigning rights to a publisher must be mindful of the new market for their works. Publishers will, as they already do, take into account such uses when striking appropriate terms with libraries, universities and schools. (Time expired)13:07:0012794Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Back in 1995, Nicholas Negroponte, the director of the media laboratory at MIT, wrote a very entertaining contemplative book entitled Being Digital . At one point he lamented that copyright law was so totally out of date that it could be likened to a Gutenberg artefact. He suggested that, as it was a reactive process, for it to apply to the digital world, it would probably have to break down completely before it could be corrected to deal with the dramatic changes that have, and will, occur as a result of the world being digital.I suspect that at times during our deliberations the committee felt the same way, that the task of amending, or modifying or re-working copyright laws—laws established and applied in an analogue world, with print medium—with a view to applying traditional copyright concepts and philosophies to the new technologies, with the seemingly endless possibilities for change that the digital environment opens up, was altogether too hard. The temptation for me was to suggest we scrap the Copyright Act altogether and start again with a blank screen.Fortunately, that has not been necessary. I pay tribute to the chairman, the deputy chair and the secretariat for their exceptional commitment to the whole exercise. The committee reviewed the bill in some considerable detail and, in supporting much of the bill, recognises that it is an extensive attempt to ensure Australia is at the forefront of online copyright reform. After reading numerous submissions and hearing evidence, and considering the merits of some quite eloquent and persuasive arguments during the roundtable sessions, the committee has made a number of recommendations in its report—some substantial, others less so—that it hopes will enhance the operation of the legislation.The committee was conscious that the legislation is to apply in the rapidly developing technological world of the 21st century. As the Attorney said in his second reading speech:This extraordinary pace of development threatens the delicate balance which has existed between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of copyright users.The central aim of the bill therefore is to ensure that copyright law continues to promote creative endeavour and, at the same time, allow reasonable access to copyright information in the digital environment.This is indeed a delicate balance. In the old environment most people worried about copyright in terms of the ease of making copies. In the digital world not only the ease is at issue but also the fact that the digital copy is as perfect as the original and, with some clever computing, even better. A copy can be cleaned up, it can be enhanced and it can have noise removed. The copy is perfect.But in the digital world it is not just a matter of copying being easier and copies more faithful. When I read something in a book or a magazine and, like a clipping from a newspaper, wish to send a copy of it to somebody else or to a mailing list of people this is harmless enough. But if I read something on the Internet, with less than a dozen key strikes I could redeliver that material to literally thousands of people all over the planet.In the irrational economics of the Internet, it costs me nothing to do so. It seems that Internet use is practically free—nobody has a clear idea of who pays for what. But even if this were to change in the future—with some rational economic model overlaid on the Internet—it would still only cost a fraction to distribute millions of words or images or sounds to millions of people. Certainly it would cost nothing like postage or fax or couriers.The committee was aware that the new technologies bring a whole new suite of questions to issues of copyright. The committee is totally supportive of the proposed review of the legislation after three years. Experience will be the key to the success of a number of the legislative changes and certainly to the recommendations of the committee.The notion of first digitisation is perhaps the most radical departure from the bill. The bill provides that existing exceptions for the copy material in the print environment be carried over to the digital environment. The committee was persuaded to the view that in certain circumstances one cannot simply equate digital technology with photocopying. Hence, the committee's recommendation that, where there is to be a conversion of copyright material from print to digital, the copyright owner must be able to consent to that process—except in the limited circumstances set out in recommendation 1. The exceptions for print-to-print copying and for digital-to-digital copying remain.Time does not permit expansion on the detail of the report—suffice to say that the committee believes its recommendations will improve the operation of the bill, having had the opportunity in some instances, such as the issue concerning definition of library in recommendation 2, to understand more of the consequences of proposed changes—(Time expired)13:12:0012795Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Plainly, the most fundamental philosophical issue that was addressed has been the subject of substantial comment. I will draw attention to a few other specifics that have been addressed. There has been a tidying up of some of the issues in relation to education or statutory licences. The question of what were previously regarded as insubstantial parts of use was dealt with. Substantial attention was given to the issue of circumvention devices and a proposal that, whilst there is no complete prohibition on the use of those devices, there be a civil remedy for intentionally using a circumvention device for the purpose of infringing copyright in work.There is a provision in relation to retransmission issues—again, providing a civil remedy for the use of commercial purposes decoding devices in order to receive encoded free-to-air broadcasts. There is a recommendation that the definition of licence in section 136 not include a licence to broadcast a sound recording, to enable the opportunity for developing online delivery systems by the record and recording industry to be established, but with a recommendation for a review after three years.There is also that recommendation that, in relation to retransmission on pay TV, the statutory remuneration scheme include provision for payment to film directors amongst the class of underlying rights holders. Another recommendation is that the legislation when it comes in makes certain that any inconsistency between the bill and the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is addressed in that environment so that the scheme can get up without any suggestion of inconsistency.I commend and thank all members of the committee. It was a very tough time frame to work within. The processes involved in having roundtables certainly helped to illuminate the issues. The chair did a very substantial job, the deputy chair gave an intellectual tour de force through the exercise and all our colleagues worked very well in relation to this report. I defer to my colleague for a couple of minutes to conclude.13:15:0012796Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I would like to support the comments of the member for Denison and also of the chairman of the committee on the advisory report on the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999. If the taxpayers had a window on the intellectual and physical rigour that was brought to the committee and the secretariat's work—and they are sitting over there and need to be congratulated, too—I am sure that they would feel that everyone earned their money.The report certainly emphasises the profound effect that digital technology is having on the world at large in today's environment. Of course, the bill primarily reflects a respon sibility to ensure that we protect the owners of copyright. Also, from our deliberations it is quite obvious that the inquiry revealed that we can understand only too well how the owners of copyright must feel when their works are pirated or stolen. This report recognises that and the importance of the need to balance the rights of those in our community who must continue to get public access in a digital form to a wide range of information for the purposes of learning, education and public debate. Access to information and the use of information in furthering education and strengthening our position as a knowledge nation are all fundamental to our wellbeing as a vibrant country which should provide opportunities for each and every one of us.The government has already proposed a review in three years, and the community should be confident that the Labor Party will take a keen interest in assessing whether the new legislation has improved or exacerbated the differences between the haves and the have-nots in our community. At all costs, we hope to prevent the creation of a new category of information haves and have-nots. The bill, along with the committee's recommendations, does not lead necessarily to this, but it does leave an emergent new information industry largely in the hands of industry players. Individual users are not readily represented in this environment, and libraries are not listened to often enough. This means that Labor needs to monitor, on behalf of many less privileged users, their capacity to access information and, in particular, whether libraries can maintain and improve the services they already offer to our community under the new regime.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Menzies wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?13:17:0012796Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.127971279713:18:0012797Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I present the report of the committee entitled Street legal: The involvement of the National Crime Authority in controlled operations , together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—The report Street legal examines the NCA's involvement in controlled operations, and the adequacy of the current legislative arrangements. The report recommends wider powers for covert investigations, matched by a more independent approval and accountability system. In controlled operations, police, agents or informants work under cover and become involved in illegal activity in order to investigate more serious criminality, such as the drug trade. A recent report by the Queensland Crime Commission estimated that law enforcement recovers only about 1.3 per cent of the heroin available annually on the Queensland market. Therefore, to be effective, law enforcement needs to infiltrate the sophisticated organisations behind the drug trade and gather intelligence about how they operate. The same applies to criminal organisations involved in other kinds of organised crime.Controlled operations legislation immunises law enforcement officers against the consequences of their unlawful actions and secures the admissibility of the evidence obtained. But it also imposes statutory limitations and appropriate accountability. Across Australia, however, legislation differs. Under the Commonwealth regime in part 1AB of the Crimes Act 1914, the NCA is only covered in relation to controlled operations in the investigation of offences involving the importation of narcotics. New South Wales and South Australia also enacted controlled operations legislation, but those schemes differ from the Commonwealth regime in a number of respects. Other jurisdictions, such as Queensland, have no legislation at all. As the NCA operates on a national basis, it is severely hamstrung by the disparate arrangements between the states and territories. The committee urges the states and territories either to introduce uniform legislation or promote national uniformity to ensure the NCA's effectiveness in counteracting organised crime.This report recommends expanding the scope of controlled operations to the range of offences that the NCA is able to investigate under the National Crime Authority Act 1984. The NCA could then conduct controlled operations, in relation to other organised crime, with legislative approval. In particular, the NCA should be able to conduct controlled deliveries of cash to follow the money trail to the core of a criminal enterprise.Civil liberties groups claimed that the current internal approval process for controlled operations allows room for the inappropriate use of power. Law enforcement agencies argued that an external approval system would adversely affect operational efficiency. On balance, the committee recommended a two-tiered approval process, requiring external approval for longer-term operations. The current arrangements for urgent approval should be retained for where, say, drugs arrive at the barrier.In relation to accountability, the committee was concerned that an appropriate balance should be struck between transparency and operational necessity. The committee decided that the regime implemented in New South Wales, involving independent oversight by the Ombudsman, is the preferred option.Other significant recommendations include: extending the period of the validity of certificates authorising controlled operations from one month to three months; adopting the strictly limited provision in the New South Wales model for retrospective approval of controlled operations where the unlawful conduct was engaged in solely for the purpose of preventing death or serious injury; and extending the immunity under the act to innocent civilians who assist police. The situation of informants who assist police, however, is different. We believe the current arrangements, where certain representations can be made on their behalf during the prosecution process or at the time of sentencing, are appropriate.I express my appreciation to the officers of the secretariat: Mick McLean, the committee secretary; Yvonne Marsh, the inquiry secretary, and Debbie McMahon, the executive assistant. I commend the report to the House.13:22:0012798Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I rise to speak on the report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority entitled, Street Legal: the involvement of the National Crime Authority in controlled operations . Firstly, this is a welcome opportunity for the parliament to have the product of an extensive examination of this issue. When controlled operations legislation was first introduced into this House by me as minister, there was not then a body of understanding as to the complexities. In large measure, it was driven by the need to respond in a legislative way to the implications of the Ridgeway decision.Whilst the house committee had the opportunity to examine that legislation and to make a number of recommended changes, which the then government implemented and adopted, I think this is a welcome opportunity to completely revisit the issue. Much has moved on because, since that time, states have enacted different legislative regimes. We are now recommending that we move towards greater commonality in relation to the way in which controlled operations are governed and supervised. We accept that they are a necessary tool of law enforcement, but we also want to ensure that there are proper regimes of accountability and appropriate arrangements for approval and for the examination of the management of those schemes by external audit. That is reflected in the recommendations of the report.Particularly, the committee wants to ensure that, where controlled operations of any complexity are used, law enforcement agencies arrange appropriate training and education courses to ensure that the carriage of those operations is in accordance not only with the legal framework but also, importantly, with the interests of those law enforcement officials whose lives are extraordinarily stressed as a result of their participation in undercover work. It requires little imagination to realise the kind of stresses inherent in that kind of work and the need to make certain that such officers are successfully reintegrated into a normal working environment. We heard some evidence of the consequences that can occur to officers who are not properly debriefed in those circumstances.We want to make sure that the no entrapment provisions in section 15MB of part 1AB of the Crimes Act are enunciated with greater clarity. A point we were all agreed on was that it will discredit the operation of controlled operations if there is any sense that they are being used for the purposes of entrapment. The committee makes recommendations to address that. We want to make certain that there are proper systems of accountability and that the regime of controlled operations is oversighted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, in identical terms to those required of the New South Wales Ombudsman under the New South Wales legislation. We also want the Ombudsman to be able to report to the parliamentary committee so that the parliamentary committee, in keeping with its oversight responsibilities, has that information before it.We also addressed the matter of covert operatives and possible civil liability—a matter which is obviously of concern to those within the law enforcement community who might be placed in that position. We recommend that, where the conduct was in good faith for the purposes of executing the act regarding controlled operations, civil immunity be provided. However, we go further than the provisions that currently exist by saying that there should be an express acknowledgment that, where an individual suffers loss or injury as a result of a controlled operation which goes wrong, that individual—notwithstanding the immunity to the individual who was acting in good faith—can maintain their action against the state, meaning the state or Commonwealth in the broader sense, for compensation in respect of that loss or injury. The burden of meeting any loss that falls as a result of such an incident should not fall on the individual citizen who was an innocent bystander in the process who got caught up in something.This is a balanced recommendation that goes through a whole range of the complexities of this legislation. I believe this report will assist in the government's response to this, but it also has implications for the states. I thank all the members of the committee. I particularly thank the chair for his good work on this, the deputy chair in the Senate, and all members of the committee who applied themselves to this very thoughtfully.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Aston wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?UT4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr NUGENT—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.127991279913:28:0012799Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the following reports, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee: Report 27, Termination of social security agreement with the United Kingdom and International plant protection convention , and Report 28, Fourteen treaties tabled on 12 October 1999 .Ordered that the reports be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The two reports I have just tabled deal with a total of 16 proposed treaty actions. The two proposed treaty actions reviewed in report 27 were tabled in parliament on 11 August 1999. The rest of that group was reviewed in report 25. These two were held over in order to provide interested groups with the opportunity to comment on the proposals before us. In the same way, 17 proposed treaty actions were tabled on 12 October this year. We have held three of that group over to allow interested groups more time to give us their views. The relevant ministers have been informed of this. We will report on these matters as soon as practicable.Of the agreements in the two reports, the most noteworthy is probably the proposed termination of the social security agreement with the United Kingdom. That is in report 27. For its own reasons, the UK government has refused under this longstanding agreement to index pensions paid to its pensioners who live in this country. We have supported termination of the agreement, but we have recommended that an additional year's notice should be given to reduce the chances of hardship to those who might be affected.The department responsible for this agreement, the Department of Family and Community Services, appeared before us but, sadly, without having undertaken any consultations with community groups that might be affected—a puzzling omission. It was, of course, the first time that this department had encountered our committee and its processes. The committee has now been in existence for 3½ years and, in terms of its emphasis on consultation, has been very consistent, due no less to the efforts of some of the members, including Mr Hardgrave, the member for Moreton. I would have thought that the importance of consultation with interested groups and individuals about any proposed treaty actions should really have dawned on every government department by now, but it is not always the case.You could say it was alarming to find another example of this lack of consultation in the treaties reviewed in report 28. This was in relation to the consular agreement with the People's Republic of China. While there are many Australia-China business groups, many of them based in the particular regions of China from which those Chinese-Australians come, it has to be said that there was no attempt made to contact any of these groups to ascertain what they might have thought about this proposed treaty. We have to say that this lack of action actually came from the agency responsible for managing the revised treaty making process itself, that is, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—upon which be peace and salutations in the normal course of events, but in this case the lapse was rather puzzling.That said, our processes in the treaties committee have really settled down now, and we have attempted to extend our own consultative mechanisms. For example, in June this year, the committee held a landmark seminar where we dealt with the involvement of parliament—not just the federal parliament, but the state parliaments—in the treaty making process. One of the outcomes of that seminar was the expansion of our efforts to seek, and to try to use, the views of state and territory parliaments about proposed treaty actions. Although we did not receive a huge number of comments from them on the treaties reviewed in these reports, it does seem true that a number of parliaments around Australia are looking at ways in which they can participate a bit more in the whole treaty making process. We look forward to greater contributions from our brethren in state and territory parliaments.These two reports review a wide range of proposed treaty actions. We have made some additional comments, as well as recommending that binding treaty action be taken in these cases. We hope the sponsoring agencies will take note of these comments of ours. That said, I commend both reports 27 and 28 to the House. This being perhaps the last time that I will be on my feet this year as the chairman of this committee, I thank all committee members for their diligence and good humour in some trying times this year, and I look forward to another mighty year for the treaties committee.13:34:0012800Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—We have been very lucky on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Over the years, we have dealt with 200 proposed treaty actions—and that is a considerable number—and we have had two chairmen who understood the significance and bipartisan nature of committees. Those of us who sit on the back bench and work on these committees alongside government members do so in a way that I think achieves a considerable amount. We are very pleased to have a chairman who appreciates that and understands that committees do not belong to one side of the House but belong to the whole House, and they need to be dealt with that way. Not that, jointly, we always agree on things. There have been, of course, dissenting reports, and not only from opposition parties but from the government side as well.There were two proposals in report 27; I think the chairman dealt with them. Report 27 covers the termination of the social security agreement with the UK. There are something like 60,000 British pensioners in Australia who do not have the missing indexation made good by the Australian age pension supplement because their incomes are too high. Therefore, these people are missing out on a complete UK pension because the UK government does not pay it to them. I understand that, in that country, you pay a certain amount of tax from your salary towards the pension. So 60,000 people who have migrated are missing out because the government there will not go into a fair agreement with us and, therefore, the recommendation is that the agreement be terminated. I fully support that concept.Our main concern on the issue of the international plant protection convention was to make sure that Australia was not lowering its standards to meet other countries' standards. We should not be going down to meet some sort of world standard; we should—especially when we are trying to prevent the spread of pests on plants and on plant products—stand firm on the highest possible standards that we have. There is a fair bit of weakening of some of these in some parts of the world. That will not occur under this convention, which has received support to go forward.I wanted to mention report 28, Fourteen treaties tabled on 12 October 1999, specifically the fish stocks agreement. This is an agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and relates to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. Of course, we saw the straddling fish stocks in the Tasman rise this year below Tasmania right on the 200-mile limit where the southern roughy poise over a mountain below the sea. We saw the South African large boats rape and pillage that stock of fish which, managed correctly, could possibly go on indefinitely. It could be sustained if good management techniques were used. But having a foreign country come in and do that destroyed all sorts of management opportunities that were being put in place.As with the migratory fish that move around the great oceans of the world, we have to take stock of this and endeavour to pull together the countries that harvest them so that we can get good agreements that protect the stocks. We know what has happened in many other parts of the world. Fish stocks have become depleted—and you think about the great cod fields of Canada and the northern seas. This is a very good agreement that we are signing up to and will be a part of. I recommend report 28 to the House and look forward to serving with the committee in the coming year.13:39:0012801Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The two reports before us today are significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, they are the 10th and 11th reports to be tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties since March this year. Secondly, the 16 proposed treaty actions that they review cover a wider variety than most of the reports that have been tabled in the 3½ years since the committee came into being. Thirdly, they give an indication of both the number and the variety of the various treaties that Australia has entered into—everything from telecommunications through to peacekeeping missions in Sinai, pension agreements with the UK and the international plant protection convention. A wide variety of work is done by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.Incidentally, if I understand the various positions correctly, some people in this nation still do not believe that Australia should have any sorts of treaties in any area with any other country. But, of course, in today's world, this is simply an unrealistic position to have. We do need contracts and arrangements. We need that in commercial life. We need that in the dealings we have between worker and employer. We need that between countries because nations do not act in good faith, and what occurred in Seattle last week where President Clinton took purely domestic imperatives instead of getting the right result for the world trade situation—the latest round of talks in that area—in itself proves the case that countries do not act in good faith.So the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties helps to bring the average Australian out of any isolation or any detachment they may feel from the process of treaty making and gives them a chance to participate. These reports, as the chairman has already said, are proof positive of the consultation that we have undertaken on behalf of all members in this place and in the Senate in the revised treaty making process.As a committee, we have gone to considerable lengths to receive views on proposed treaty actions. The two that are reviewed in report 27, being tabled now, were held over from an earlier report to ensure that interested groups were in fact given the chance to express their views on that matter. While we normally operate on a 15-sitting-day period between tabling of treaty documentation and tabling our reports, our process is designed, nevertheless, to ensure that people are given the maximum time possible to comment on treaty matters that are tabled in the parliament.Our material is widely available. It is posted on the Internet. We advertise nationally—in a limited way perhaps, but this is primarily because of budgetary reasons. We have also built up a list of people who have expressed direct interest in treaty making matters—a database to which the documentation is automatically sent after each tabling. In fact, people around the world comment that the Australian treaty making process and the database that has been established gives them something that they do not have in their own country. No other nation exposes treaty making and trusts the people in the way that we do.To seek and receive the various material by whatever means is a right of citizens of this nation. While I support strongly the rights of citizens to have their say, I would remind everyone in this place that we should actively encourage citizens to exercise their responsibility of participating in the decisions that are made in this place, not just on treaties but on other matters. If people do hold a view on international treaties, gain some information about what is proposed and seek to offer comment on it, that is all part of the process of being an effective forum for discussion and debate. That is what the parliament is all about.This committee examines each proposed treaty action in detail at public hearings, and also during our own private discussions through the submissions that we receive. We delay the tabling of the results of some of our reviews, particularly treaty action, to receive additional information. It may not be a totally perfect process, but it is certainly far more thorough and detailed than anything that existed before 1996 when this revised treaty making procedure came into place.Australians from all walks of life now have an opportunity to contribute to this very important process of treaty making. As I said, no other nation has this sort of openness, this sort of inclusion that we offer the people of Australia, and I believe this process proves that this parliament trusts the people of Australia to participate in a sober and reasonable way. We will continue to seek the trust of the people of Australia to continue this review and examination process that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties does. On behalf of all honourable senators and members, I say that the role of the parliament is to provide the forum for debate and discussion. That is why this particular treaty making process now has taken on such a great parameter for all Australians. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for statements on these reports has expired. Does the honourable member for Wentworth wish to move a motion in connection with the reports to enable them to be debated on a future occasion?12802Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I move:That the House take note of the reports.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debates will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 101 the time for consideration of committee and delegation reports has concluded.Statements by Members128021280212802O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I rise today to offer my wholehearted congratulations to the organisers of Gone South, which was a youth orientated musical festival held in Launceston on Saturday. This concert showcased the talents of local high school bands and big name acts such as Killing Heidi, Grimspoon, Paul Kelly, Powderfinger and silverchair. It is the first concert of this size to be held in northern Tasmania and was much appreciated by the some 12,000 people who attended it. I want to point out that of those 12,000 people the majority were aged in their teens or early 20s, so some members of parliament felt particularly old. Particular congratulations must go to those people in the audience who were impeccably behaved during the 13-hour concert in quite some heat and quite some queues at times.The Launceston City Council is to be congratulated for supporting the event, which was held at the Inveresk rail yards, a site that has emerged as a social hub of Launceston thanks to its development funded originally by Better Cities funding. In particular, I must pass my congratulations to the promoter, Charles Touber, and the coordinator, Mark Walsh, all of the security and the catering staff and especially St John Ambulance for their hard work and commitment to this youth event. Young people are often criticised in our community and their normal answer is: `You don't give us enough to do, so this is probably why you have problems with us.' This event showcased just how much they appreciate access to youth orientated events. (Time expired)1280312803Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Australia has performed superbly well in many sporting events in recent times, winning a number of world championships. But we won another world championship last week which went relatively unnoticed throughout the media and that was the world fly-fishing championships held in the Snowy Mountains last week.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Shayne Murphy.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—Australia came out on top in the teams event. It was a great effort by the team and one member of the team was the individual winner as well. It was a great opportunity to showcase the Snowy Mountains to many countries from right around the world. There were 20 countries competing in the fly-fishing championship. Many of the Europeans I think had more trouble with the snakes than they did catching fish, unfortunately, but it was a great effort all round. I congratulate the members of the team: Ross Stewart from Victoria, who came first in the individual event; Shayne Murphy, as the members opposite called out, who came fourth in the individual event; Steve Seclier from Western Australia; Andrew Scott from Victoria; Pat Kennedy from my electorate of Eden-Monaro, who lives close to Queanbeyan; and the team captain Malcolm Crosse. Congratulations to that team on their world championship win. France came second in the championship and the third placing went to New Zealand. It was a great week in the mountains, with beautiful weather, and I hope that many of the fishers will come back to the area in the future. (Time expired)1280312803Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Last week I had the pleasure of attending Gilmore Primary School in my electorate. Gilmore is named after Dame Mary Gilmore and the school has adopted a tradition of having an annual writing competition. Last week the winners of the Dame Mary Gilmore competition were announced, and it was more than a pleasure to see children from kindergarten up stand up and claim prizes for writing poetry and stories. The kindergarten winner was Matthew Laing; years 1 and 2 winner, Kathryn Daish; years 3 and 4 winner, Joanne Kirchner; years 5 and 6 winner, Stefanie Webb—all very worthy winners. I have to confess surprise and delight to see the enthusiasm and the talent of children so young producing prose and stories so well written.The highly commended awards went to Emily Walker, Hanna Brown, Tegan Sloan, Julian Brown, Talia Chalmers, Jennifer Daish, Nicole Smith, Sean Martin, Rebecca Lea and Renee Newton. There was also a long list of commended awards. My very warm congratulations to the principal, the teachers, the parents and the P&C at this school. This is now some years that they have been holding the Dame Mary Gilmore writing competition and, as I said, it is an absolute delight, particularly when you see kindergarten children standing up and claiming a prize for writing wonderful poetry and wonderful stories. It is part of my electorate that I think bodes well for the future when you see this example amongst such young children. (Time expired)1280312803Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—At around 8.30 last Thursday morning a crowded Blue Mountains commuter train slammed into the back of the Indian Pacific just east of Glenbrook station. Tragically, seven people were killed—five from the mountains, one from Lithgow and one from the city. Over 50 others were injured, though thankfully it seems none critically. I would like at this time to express my deep sympathy to the families and friends of those killed in this horrific accident. I want to assure these people that they are not alone. As they attempt to deal with their grief, our thoughts and prayers are with them. For them, this Christmas will be a particularly sad and painful one, but they do have the support of the local community.I would also like to express my thanks to all those who helped at the scene of the accident and its terrible aftermath. The SES, police, bushfire brigade, ambulance officers and paramedics were magnificent. Their professionalism ensured speedy and effective attention to the injured. Others, including nearby residents, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, ministers of local churches and the staff and management of the Glenbrook Bowling Club provided tremendous support to traumatised passengers. They played an essential part in easing the impact of this tragedy. It was another example of our Blue Mountains community pulling together in a crisis, and we gratefully acknowledge their valuable support.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Just before calling the next member, I believe I would speak on behalf of all members of the chamber if I were to identify the chamber with the sentiments expressed by the member for Macquarie.1280412804Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I want to lend my support to the third player, Virgin Airlines, coming into the domestic aviation industry in Australia. We have two domestic airlines but only one timetable in this country. We have two domestic airlines but only one price structure for air travel. This duopoly has not produced competition. It has not brought air travel within the reach of the ordinary working family in this country. This is something that members of parliament know well. We know the lack of competition between Ansett and Qantas. I believe the third entrant is most welcome, wherever it comes from. I look forward to flying Virgin Airlines and I believe we, as members of this parliament, should show our commitment to competition and affordability in this industry not only by declaring our support but also by declaring Virgin as our preferred carrier at least until such time as it can get on its feet and provide effective competition in this important industry.As a new entrant, it will need deep pockets and a good balance sheet. It will also need effective access to terminals around the country, and I hope that can be provided, notwithstanding the poor decision many years ago to lock up a long-term lease for Ansett and Qantas. I also note that Sydney, unhappily enough, is not likely to become the headquarters for Virgin. We do not have enough airport capacity in Sydney, and we are likely to miss out on the 300 jobs that would come from the headquarters. That is all the more reason, of course, for building Badgerys Creek airport as quickly as possible to provide jobs in Western Sydney. (Time expired)1280412804Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—The week beginning 22 November this year was a special week for the city of Dubbo. There were many celebrations in recognition of the 150th anniversary of the settling of Dubbo. I was very fortunate to have been born and raised and to have spent most of my time in Dubbo. In fact, I still recall as a child going to the proclamation of Dubbo becoming a city. We have a rich history in Dubbo, going back to the time that Jean Emile Serisier opened the first store. Tuesday, 23 November was an especially great day in that special week. The day was marked by the celebration of a ball in Dubbo that was attended by hundreds of people. Though I was at this place, I understand it was probably the best ball that has been held in Dubbo in its entire history. There was also a great display of fireworks.It was a week of special events, and a great deal of credit must go to the Dubbo 150 Committee, chaired by Jill McCann and hugely assisted by Richard Lawson, Wally Flynn, Pauline Griffiths, Tony McGrane, Alan Smith, Rosemary Langford, Peter Handcock, Peter Carolan and Warwick McCarthy. The celebration started on Saturday, 20 November with a street parade. Dubbo is not particularly well known for its support of street parades, but the community really got behind this one. It went for a good two hours along the street. There were floats from many service clubs, schools, businesses, charity groups and community groups—you name it, they were represented. Dubbo Christian School won the prize for the best float, even though competition was stiff from many of the other schools, including St John's and Dubbo Public School. It was a truly fantastic response for the organisers in getting this parade off the ground. Many other events were highlighted during the week, all of which were well attended and appreciated. (Time expired)1280512805Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Recently in the electorate of Griffith we were able to extend awards to a range of seniors who had made large contributions to the local community. I would like particularly to honour the contribution of Mr Jack Maume of Cannon Hill for more than 30 years service with St Vincent de Paul. Others honoured in this ceremony were Mr Bill Appleby of Camp Hill for his work with Neighbourhood Watch; Mr Neil Bain of Mansfield, also with Neighbourhood Watch; Mrs Shirley Campbell of Mount Gravatt for her longstanding work as a fundraiser for the Mater Mothers Hospital; Mr Robert Chester-Master of Camp Hill, also active in the Neighbourhood Watch movement; Mrs Vera Clarke of Cooparoo for 30 years of volunteer work with the PA hospital; Mr Ray Foster of Murarrie, also with Neighbourhood Watch; Clifford Grimley of Carindale for work with the government on the redrafting of the Retirement Villages Act; Carmel Heath of Cannon Hill for longstanding work with netball; Evelyn Kolb of Bulimba for 30 years work with Bulimba Meals on Wheels; Laurie Latham of Morningside, the administrator of the Balmoral Uniting Community Centre; Irene Murphy of Greenslopes for 12 years voluntary work to assist the frail aged; Aubrey Panton of Stones Corner for voluntary service to many community organisations; William Purcell of Camp Hill for Home Assist Program work; Betty Rees of Cooparoo for work with the Cooparoo Uniting Church; Edna Sanford of Morningside for Meals on Wheels; Babs Shield of Bulimba with the Bulimba Senior Citizens Centre; Robert Thacker of Holland Park with the Buranda Therapy Group; Joan Thompson of Camp Hill, for work with Girl Guides and Meals on Wheels; and Ken Wilson of Mansfield, for the Mount Garatt Meals on Wheels. All are deserving of this recognition. (Time expired)1280512805St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—The National Drive for Safety is one of the key annual events organised by the Australian Trucking Association and its members. The National Drive for Safety involves politicians going for a one-hour ride in a truck provided by an operator within their electorate. It is an initiative designed to promote road safety themes in the community just prior to the Christmas holiday period. Christmas traditionally is one of the peak periods for traffic accidents. Between 19 December 1997 and 2 January 1998, 81 people were killed on our roads nationally. The trucking industry in Australia has come a long way in improving its safety performance. From the horror year of 1989, fatalities involving trucks have fallen by over 50 per cent.The National Drive for Safety is also designed to promote the important role played by the Australian trucking industry all year round. Trucks carry the majority of the nation's freight, and this event is intended to remind people that the trucking industry is one of the few that does not stop over the Christmas period, ensuring our goods continue to be delivered. The 1999 National Drive for Safety will take place on Saturday, 11 December and, once again, will use the theme `Driving this Christmas? Don't be a Turkey!' By `Don't be a Turkey' we are particularly urging motorists to be patient this year—patient in getting to holiday destinations and patient in their on-road behaviour.1280512805Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Before the election, the Prime Minister told Australia that the GST would reduce the price of a new car by 8.3 per cent. The Treasurer interpreted that for one radio audience as a drop in car prices of $3,000—a gross exaggeration. On the basis of the promise that the GST would make car prices fall substantially, there is now a buyers' strike which is crippling local car makers. On Friday, the Prime Minister defended his refusal to drop the wholesale sales tax rate on cars to the GST equivalent saying, `We are not going to be pressured into a premature reduction in sales tax. There is no point in that.' He is still refusing to admit that the four Australian car makers already have a crisis on their hands, and it is a crisis entirely of the government's own making.But, in light of the Prime Minister's pre-election promises, what got the headlines was his refusal to guarantee that car prices would fall even when the GST came in. He said, `If it does not come down, it will not be the fault of the government. It will be because the market has so changed that people can demand and receive a higher price.' We have gone from promises of big price cuts enforced by the ACCC with $10 million penalties to the first admission by the Prime Minister that post-GST you will pay whatever the market will bear. The public will be so appreciative of that that it will be interesting to see whether the Prime Minister will be able to get a job in a car yard after the next election.1280612806Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—In the very short time I have available to me, I would like to congratulate the federal government on committing $100,000 towards the cost of the guide entitled Get Up and Go to encourage Australian seniors to travel. It was a very good launch on Saturday at Southbank for the Minister for Aged Care. This will encourage domestic tourism, particularly for the over-65s. The book is excellent. It provides handy travel tips on saving money, exciting destinations, transport and attractions. It is a very important segment of our domestic market. Seventy-five per cent of this age group spend almost $986 million in domestic travel annually, and 80 per cent of this group intend to travel.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Miscellaneous1280614:00:0012806Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I was wondering if I could have your indulgence—and I know that the Leader of the Opposition will want to join me—in conveying our very warm congratulations to the Australian Davis Cup team for the absolutely superb way in which they capped a fantastic sporting year for Australia. It was an absolutely fantastic performance from Lleyton Hewitt, Mark Philippoussis, John Newcombe, Todd Woodbridge and Mark Woodforde. Tennis has always been a great sporting talent of Australia and the epitome of tennis achievement is the Davis Cup. I know that all members of the House will join me in conveying our warm congratulations to the fantastic Australian tennis team.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Of course I will extend the same facility to the Leader of the Opposition.14:01:0012806Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree completely with the Prime Minister on this and with all the sentiments that he expressed. Indeed, some of the matches were inspirational, particularly the victory of the Woodies. They came from a very difficult situation to take the match—and therefore take the tie, basically—in what was an excellent performance. Although it is invidious to single out players, I do think it was a very good thing that Mark Philippoussis came through so well in the two matches that he played. He will no doubt be extremely pleased with that, as will the captain be of his charges. It has been an extraordinary year for Australia in sporting terms. I think there is scarcely an international championship that we have not taken in the course of it, even through to baseball where we would never have been fancied players anywhere in the globe, I wouldn't have thought, till this point in time. So this has truly been an absolutely magnificent year for us and it gives all Australia, let alone those of us in politics, great joy.Questions Without Notice128061280612806Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Do you recall saying on 28 October in relation to the recent cash for comment controversy:I stated a principle which remains valid today, and that is that I have always assumed that, when I hear somebody expressing a view on something, it is their own view and it is not in any way instructed by financial reward.Does this principle continue to remain valid today?12807Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I was asked, when I was in New York in the wake of the allegations that appeared on, I think, the Richard Ackland program, Mediawatch , what I thought of the allegations. I think on that occasion I said that I was not going to get into the detail of holding judgment on individuals, but I thought the most appropriate thing that I could do was to state a principle in relation to people who make comment on talkback radio or television, or in the media generally. I am happy to stand by what I said in New York. I think it is a sound principle. When I hear somebody say, `I think what the government has done is right' or `I think what the government has done is wrong' or `I think the opposition is right' or `I think the opposition is wrong,' I assume that they say that because that is the view they hold. I am prepared to state that as a principle and let its application in relation to individuals fall where it may. I have not as yet been apprised of the findings of the ABA for the very simple reason that I do not think they have made any. I have watched the inquiry with interest, as no doubt all honourable members have. The principle that I stated in New York remains my view and we will see how it applies to the findings of the inquiry.1280712807Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the results of the Australian Business and Colonial State Bank survey of manufacturing released today?12807Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. He may have seen the survey of manufacturing in New South Wales which was released by Colonial State Bank and Australian Business . It found that in the December quarter manufacturing business conditions were the strongest for five years. Of further encouragement is that production, sales, orders and profitability were all seen as improving in the March quarter of 2000. The Chief Economist of the Colonial State Bank, Craig James, said that the manufacturing sector could look forward to a new century with optimism. The Managing Director of Australian Business , Philip Holt, said that manufacturing was entering the new millennium with optimism based on strong sectoral performance in the December quarter and that the most striking feature of the survey was the comprehensiveness of the recovery across the industry sectors.I think most members of the House will welcome the fact that manufacturing conditions are in such good shape. Of course that has a lot to do with the strength of the Australian economy and the low interest rates that manufacturers are benefiting from. The external recovery will be of benefit to manufacturers. Can I also say that one of the great benefits for the manufacturing industry will be the new tax system because Labor's wholesale sales tax penalises manufacturing. Wholesale sales tax falls on the manufacturing sector hardest and makes it harder for manufacturers because it taxes them at such high rates. By modernising Australia's taxation system, we will be giving manufacturers a better go and that will lead to better conditions for manufacturers and their employees.Part of the good story for manufacturing has also been the increase in productivity which has occurred over recent years. Since the government has come to office, productivity has been growing at 2.9 per cent per annum compared to a growth of 1.5 per cent per annum under the Labor Party. That poor productivity performance under Labor meant that real wages were depressed, prices were outstripping wages and living standards were going backwards. If we can have the growth of productivity standards which you get out of a new tax system, out of low interest rates, out of new industrial relations, out of capital gains tax changes and out of good economic policy, that is good for the manufacturing industry, good for productivity and good for jobs, and that will be good for business into the next millennium.1280712807Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you confirm that charities are currently being forced to sign contracts to receive financial assistance from the GST start-up office which contain a clause requiring them to `favourably acknowledge the contribution of the Commonwealth to the organisation in any correspondence, public announcement, advertising material or other material'. How can people receiving this sort of material be assured that they are not hearing a view instructed by financial reward—your financial reward, underwritten by the taxpayer? Isn't this just your own hypocritical version of cash for comment?12808Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer is that I can neither confirm nor deny that because I am not aware of the details of any document that may or may not be asked of charities. Indeed, it would be quite unreasonable and impractical to imagine that every single piece of paper that emanates from the Commonwealth Public Service should have first been run past the Prime Minister. In the light of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked me, I will naturally take the opportunity to investigate what he has put to me. But his question allows me to make a couple of points along the way. It allows me to make the observation that there are quite a number of benefits out of the taxation reform proposals of the government for charities in Australia—in particular, the removal of many of the embedded costs which are attendant upon the operation of the wholesale sales tax system. I would also remind the House of the very considerable concessions that from the very beginning have been made in relation to the operation of charities and also further changes that have been made, such as the establishment of a very effective consultative mechanism and procedure. I believe that, when the new taxation system comes into operation, there will be enormous national economic benefits. The new arrangements will also be seen to have very greatly benefited the operation of many of the voluntary organisations in the Australian community.As the Leader of the Opposition has raised the issue of interface between the government and the voluntary sector, I take this opportunity to inform the House that I had the oppor tunity during last week to chair the first meeting of the government's Business and Community Partnership initiative. This is a group with representatives of the major charities of Australia, such as the representative of Mission Australia, the representative of the Wesley Mission in Sydney—I think one of the largest charities in Australia—and some very senior members of the Australian business community. It is an organisation that was established by the government to promote the notion of a social coalition within the Australian community. The social coalition takes the view that the government's responsibility to provide a safety net must remain absolutely unambiguously there. Any suggestion that this government is about withdrawing the social security safety net is wrong. Any suggestion that we are in the business of shifting burdens in economic responsibilities onto the charities of Australia is wrong. It is our goal to build a great social coalition in this country. It is our goal to bring together the resources of the government, the resources of the private sector, the resources of individuals and, importantly, the resources of the Australian business community.There are many business men and women in Australia who already give very generously to the less fortunate in our community. My challenge to the business community of Australia is not so much that business should give more but more businesses should give. What needs to happen in Australia is that the example of those very generous business leaders who give a lot should be followed by many others in the business community. But I want to make it absolutely clear that it is no part of the government's social coalition to reduce by one dollar the value of the social security safety net in this country.1280812808Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Will the minister advise the House what the benefits will be of the government's response to the Productivity Commission's nursing home inquiry into coalescence?12808Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for Petrie for her question. I had the pleasure this morning of announcing the government's response to the question of coalescence, and that is that we will be injecting new money, $148 million, to remedy what has been a leftover legacy from the Labor Party. If I can explain, very simply, the Labor Party put in place differential based state funding whereby different states received different amounts of funding for nursing home care. In 1997, as part of our reforms, a process of coalescence—to bring everyone to a national rate—was put in place, and that was to occur over seven years. That matter was referred to the Productivity Commission for its comment and it agreed with moving to a national rate but disagreed with the seven-year term.The question was one of equity, Queensland being the lowest funded state and Victoria being the highest. What we have done by making available new money of $148 million is to ensure that the national rate for Queensland will be achieved by the year 2002, with an increase of $83 million. South Australia will receive in excess of $14 million and, because under the old scheme there was to have been a dip in the subsidy paid to Victoria, $40 million will be pumped into Victoria to ensure that dip does not occur. Similarly for Tasmania, there will be $6.3 million to ensure that that does not occur in that state.Overall I can say that funding will continue to grow at an average rate of five per cent, which will amount across the board to something like $800 per bed. The fact of the matter is that we are putting together now an equitable package, which means that those states which were penalised under an unfair Labor system will now have equitable funding. The proposal that Victoria should have been penalised has been rectified by putting an additional $40 million into place—what I can call a thoroughly equitable outcome. Can I put on record my thanks to the industry representatives who negotiated with me for the last months, particularly to the churches who are the largest providers in this country, and indeed I would refer honourable members to the press releases put out by Catholic Health Australia and by the Uniting Church.1280912809Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it true that under this contract which we have just retrieved from the GST start-up web site, a charity would have material it has written about the GST censored by the government and funding instalments frozen if the government judges the material to be politically unacceptable? Prime Minister, why are you making desperately needed GST financial assistance to the charities conditional on them toeing the government's line on the GST? Isn't it is bad enough hitting charities with the GST without embroiling them in your own version of cash for comments? Isn't your social coalition just about social coercion?12809Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can only repeat and say to the honourable member for Lilley that I have not seen the document. I will have a look at it. Because of the searching cross-examination to which I am subjected in question time, I will not have time to read the entire document before the end of question time, but I undertake to have a very careful look at it afterwards, and if there is anything in it that is inappropriate it will not be repeated. We are not in the business of engaging in any intimidatory tactics towards charity.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—But by the same token, you over there should not be in the business of deliberately trying to scare vulnerable people. We now know the policy of the Leader of the Opposition for the next election and that is to hope and pray that something goes wrong with the GST, because he has got nothing else. He has not got a policy feather to bless himself with except the vain hope that a policy the Australian people supported at the last election is going to fall over. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is a bankrupt approach for the new millennium. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you ought to find something a little better than that. You ought to in fact summon the courage—or is it something else—necessary to present some alternative to the Australian people. I repeat what I said earlier to the honourable member for Lilley: the charity sector in this country occupies an honoured role as far as this government is concerned. We have increased provision for charities in the four years that we have been in government. We have embraced the advice of charities. We do not treat charities in this country any longer as having a role confined entirely to what they do extremely well, and that is dispensing human compassion. In the face of opposition from Labor people, we have been prepared to involve the charities in policy formulation in this country. We have been prepared to involve the Salvation Army in giving advice on drug policy. We have been prepared to involve other great charities in giving advice on youth homelessness. In other words, we treat them seriously; we do not simply rely on their generosity and human decency.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—What garbage!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition is getting very excited, because he is aware that many of his Labor colleagues around Australia have sneered at the fact that we have used senior charitable people in order to give policy advice.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. The question asked was very specifically about a document which he now says he knows nothing about and will give some detailed consideration to. He is abusing it and going into an absolute plethora of nonsense about the consultation with charities that we engaged in. The only difference now is their tax collection. That is all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point and will resume his seat. The Prime Minister's response is entirely relevant to the question. Has he concluded his answer?ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes.1281012810Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister advise the House of the outcomes of the second Job Network contract? What are the implications of Job Network mark 2 for Australian job seekers and employers, especially in regional areas of country Australia and outer Western Sydney, including my own electorate of Parramatta?12810Mr ABBOTTMr ABBOTTUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWN00—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. It is not always easy to work with the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed. I would like to thank everyone who has been involved with the Job Network thus far for giving the unemployed people of Australia a better deal than they ever had under the old system. All the participants in Job Network 1 deserve the gratitude of everyone in this House. I am confident that the Job Network will go from strength to strength as a result of the second Job Network tender round, which was announced on Friday. It was the largest ever human services contract in Australia, worth $3 billion over the next three years. It is very good news for regional Australia because the number of Job Network sites will go up from about 1,400 to over 2,100. The number of permanent sites will go up from 1,100 to over 1,700 and the number of non-metropolitan sites will go up from 600 to over 1,100. I am pleased to say that 150 locations will be getting a permanent Job Network site for the first time, and more than 80 of them are in non-metropolitan Australia. I should also mention that the region of Parramatta will have the number of its sites increased from eight to 14.It is also good news for what has rightly been dubbed the `social coalition', because community based and charitable organisations, especially small community based organisations, will see their share of the Job Network increase from 30 per cent to nearly 50 per cent. Most importantly of all, it is good news for job seekers because the intensive assistance performance of successful tenderers averages 25 per cent more than the current average intensive assistance performance. This is a good outcome for the Job Network. It was a performance based, competitive tender process, and in any competitive process it is right that good performers should give way to better performers. The job seekers of Australia deserve the best possible services, and that is precisely what they are going to get under Job Network 2.This government has not always been praised by ACOSS, but I am delighted that, in the wake of Friday's announcement, Michael Raper, the head of ACOSS, said of the Job Network providers under Job Network 2, `So having more of them, having them close, having them more local is a big help for unemployed people.' To have that kind of a pat on the back from Michael Raper shows that the government is getting something very right with Job Network 2.1281112811Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is again directed to the Prime Minister. Will he confirm that GST credits on charitable fundraising activities are available only for GST inputs and not for the GST applicable to the final sale price of the fundraising activity? For example, in the case of a lamington drive, a charity would be able to claim only the 10c GST they paid on the purchase price of $1 for each packet and not the 30c GST applied to the sale price of $3 a packet? Is it a fact that the GST amounts to a direct tax on the net profit of charitable fundraising activities—yes or no?12811Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—We already have a tax on the fundraising activities of charities. It has been made very clear by the Treasurer and by the government that, in relation to certain activities by charities, there is a turnover limit below which there is no requirement at all to register in relation to the GST. There are very generous exemptions as far as donated goods are concerned, there are very generous exemptions in relation to the sale of second-hand goods, and the whole scheme of the GST is designed to underpin and support the activities of charities within Australia. The fundamental principle is that, unless you go over $100,000 in relation to a charitable activity, there is no requirement at all to register for the GST. I have contributed to a number of lamington drives; I have been involved in organisations that have run them—and I would love to think that most of them had made $100,000 a year. The reality is that they have not. So, if you want an example, try something other than lamingtons.1281112811Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Trade. Could he advise us of the outcomes of the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle and the implications for Australian exporters, particularly farmers and exporters in the electorate of Wannon.12811Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the member for Wannon for his question. I think all honourable members are well aware that the third ministerial conference of the WTO was held in Seattle last week. It obviously got just as much media coverage here as it did across the rest of the world. Members would also be aware that, at the end of last week, the ministerial conference concluded without the completion of a declaration launching a new round of trade negotiations. Naturally, the government is very disappointed at that outcome. Our delegation went to Seattle with a clear view of supporting the launch of a new, broad-based round of negotiations focused on gaining better market access across the world and across the critical sectors of Australia's exporting industries. We maintained from the outset that the built-in agenda of agriculture and services should have been the core of the next round of negotiations, and to that end we were prepared to support industrials.Contrary to a lot of the reporting in the media that the main cause of the breakdown at the end of the week was the demonstrations and riots in Seattle, I think the reasons run a little bit deeper than that. They go to the issue of an overly ambitious agenda that some countries were running. They wanted to inject extra issues into the agenda such as investment, labour standards, the environment and government procurement competition, which overloaded the agenda. There was not the opportunity to do enough preparatory work in Geneva before they got to Seattle to cope with that.Along with that, a lot of commentators reflected on the alleged inadequate organisation by the host country, the United States. In some areas of the whole process last week that was certainly left wanting. There was also a focus on, as I say, the lack of agreement on text coming out of Geneva before it was presented to ministers. There was a concern before we got to Seattle that the stumbling block, if any, would be agriculture. I can report that that was not the case. The agriculture text, which we spent an entire night and day in the Green Room negotiating, was all but completed. The EU was going to sign off on that text subject to seeing what happened to their agenda as far as investment was concerned. So it was these other issues that distracted the attention of the meeting that caused the suspension of the conference at the end of the week without there being a ministerial declaration launching a round. The excessive emphasis by the United States on labour standards, despite determined resistance by developing economies, certainly did not assist the process as the week went on.The bottom line is that there was significant progress made last week with regard to where we are going to be next year. There is a built-in agenda for next year for negotiations on agriculture and services. The director-general said that the agenda and the progress that was made last week will be frozen, and that is the point from which the negotiations will begin, particularly on agriculture, next year. We need to ensure that that is the case when they return to Geneva and debriefings take place on the outcomes of last week. We need to recognise that this is now an organisation that has a membership of 135 countries of very diverse and different backgrounds and economies—the rich and the poor, the developed, the developing and the least developed economies of the world—all trying to come to consensus about the best path forward in terms of trade liberalisation. Our government remains committed to the policies that we espoused on trade liberalisation.We believe that the only way forward for Australian exporters is to continue to drive the argument for better market access. We intend to continue to prosecute that case as energetically as we possibly can. We will be doing that in the future both within the WT0 and the multilateral framework, given that we have a mandated agenda for agriculture and services to begin negotiations next year. We will be prosecuting that case at a regional level in forums such as APEC—we will be hosting the APEC Ministerial Council meeting next year—and also on a bilateral basis, particularly in regard to strengthening the relationship within our region. The regional economies seem to be returning to a better economic state of affairs, and so are our exports into the region, as the Prime Minister said yesterday on the Sunday program. There has been a healthy 16 per cent growth in food exports to Asia in the September quarter. Total food exports are now 12.5 per cent above what they were in the September quarter 1997, and that was at the start of the crisis. We continue to focus our energies on pushing ahead with that agenda. The downside as far as Australia's exporters are concerned is that the multilateral negotiations may not be launched for another 12 months, and so we are marking time. There is no slip backwards. There is no slippage. We are looking forward to prosecuting that market access case to get a better set of outcomes for our exporters, and we will continue to do so.I must say in conclusion that the Australian delegation and the private sector NGOs who were working with us in Geneva also did an outstanding job in working the corridors both day and night and achieving the significant progress that we did. That includes the representative of the opposition who came with us and worked very closely and in concert with the government delegation there. We look forward to taking up those mandated negotiations at the beginning of next year on agriculture and services.1281212812Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it true that the Australian Taxation Office has ruled that pie drives, book clubs, cake stalls and Lions christmas cakes and mints will be subject to the GST? Will you now admit that your claim that `genuine charitable activities will be GST free' is completely false? If P&C cake stalls and pie drives for kids with disabilities are not genuine charitable activities, what are?12813Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have not maintained that to the honourable member for Lilley, nor indeed to anybody else. It remains the case that the principles I and the government have laid out apply, including the turnover figure of $100,000 in relation to organisations. I do not know of many pie drives that raise $100,000—I would like to believe they could. I do not know of any lamington drives that raise that much. You obviously move in more exalted circles than I do. Most of the pie drives and lamington drives I have been involved in have raised a great deal less than $100,000. I think the member for Lilley is doing what he is very good at—that is, uninformed scaremongering.1281312813Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House about federal government actions to stop illegal fishing in our waters? Have there been any successful arrests of foreign fishing vessels recently?12813Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Cowper for his question and his continuing interest in the fishing industry. This government has been increasing resources available to combat illegal fishing in Australian waters, and the parliament has recently passed new legislation to give us more powers to apprehend fishing vessels operating within and outside our coastal waters attempting to obtain access to Australian fishing stocks. Last week the Australian authorities were able to apprehend a Korean vessel inside the northern Australian fishing zone. It was a major operation following the sighting by Coastwatch of the vessel. HMAS Gladstone was dispatched to the scene. The vessel refused to stop, attempting to escape into Indonesian waters.The naval vessel fired weapons of increasingly higher calibre and eventually was able to board the vessel and apprehend the crew. This was a dangerous night-time operation, and I would like to commend the naval vessel and all of those associated with the operation, including the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and Coastwatch, for the successful apprehension. The vessel is now in Darwin and the government expects that there will be a successful prosecution. The coalition is determined to send a clear message to those who would seek to take advantage of Australia's vast fishing zone that we are determined to police it and to police it effectively. We have the third largest fishing zone in the world and it is potentially—and already is—very productive.The new legislation gives us more powers to apprehend and board ships operating outside our zone. We can use reasonable force now to intervene where there are suspected illegal activities occurring. All of this is very important to help us protect our highly valuable and diverse fish resources. This incident involving a Korean vessel is further evidence that the government's policies to get tough on illegal fishing are working and that the various Australian agencies are cooperating effectively together to put the government's policies into force.1281312813Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that, because the GST will apply to donated second-hand clothing that is cut up and sold as cleaning rags, it may lead to this clothing being used for landfill rather than recycled to help fund charities? How do you think most ordinary Australians donating clothing to charity bins will feel knowing that their donation may be either taxed—the government taking a $1.65 million cut of the action—or end up as landfill? Isn't this the same as sending the Australian Taxation Office out to pick the pockets of every Australian donating to charity?12813Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—They always go a bridge too far, don't they, in the Labor Party? The rules that the government has laid down are entirely clear: charities are GST free. That means that if you are rendering charitable services not only is there no GST on it but you get back all of the embedded tax on everything you buy. Let us go to the pie drive. Under the Labor Party, of course, if a charity buys a pie warmer they will pay sales tax on the pie warmer.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—That is a lie.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You have been running this system for years. Under the Labor Party, when the charity filled its car with petrol, it paid 43c a litre in petrol tax. Was there ever any input tax credit on petrol for a charity? Under the Labor Party, when the cars went to pick up the disabled, was there any credit for the petrol that they were putting into the cars? When they were buying the paper plates and cups, were they getting credit for any of those things? No, of course they were not. The Labor Party was operating a system where embedded into everything that charities bought for charitable activities or otherwise was a full indirect tax cost. Did we hear any complaints from the Labor Party? Was there any concern from the Labor Party over all of the time since 1932? Of course there wasn't.83UCOXMr Cox—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. The question was about second-hand goods, in particular rags which had no wholesale sales tax on them before.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—What about the truck they put them on?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation, I was asked for a ruling and not you.8I4MARTINMr Martin—You would make sense, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham is a very effective and often amusing interjector but, regrettably for him, the capacity for interjections to be tolerated bears no relevance to their level of amusement. ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—More amusement for you, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I concede that, Prime Minister. The member for Kingston has raised a question of relevance and I deemed that the comments made by the Treasurer were entirely relevant to the question of charities. I made the natural presumption that he would be reaching the point at which he would refer to the question of second-hand clothing.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The first rule is that, for a charity, its charitable services are GST free and it gets what it has never got before and that is full input tax credits. It never got that before; never got any embedded costs in the things that it bought back under the wholesale sales tax system.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—They didn't pay GST.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Of course they paid GST—it was embedded in everything they bought. It was in their petrol, their transport, the manufacturing process. In relation to everything that they bought there was embedded wholesale sales tax.Ms Macklin interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—It is a good idea before you defend your own tax system to understand how it works. Wholesale sales tax embeds into every price in the community. The second thing is that, where charities are engaging in commercial activities, if they have a turnover, as the Prime Minister said, of over $100,000 they are subject to the system. That is then ameliorated by several other rules. They are not subject to it if they are selling donated second-hand goods. They are not subject to it if they are selling 50 per cent below commercial markets. They are not subject to it if they are selling 50 per cent below cost. There is no GST on the sale of donated second-hand clothing, nor indeed on any second-hand goods. The question arises: what happens if there is a transformation or a manufacturing process undertaken? If there is a transformation or a manufacturing process which is a commercial process competing with the private sector then, for reasons of competitive neutrality, the same tax system will arise. Would the Labor Party complain about that? One of the clauses that the Labor Party put in the competition policy that it signed with every state government in this country was the principle of competitive neutrality. It is a Labor Party principle. The Labor Party principle of competitive neutrality—and we support it—is simply this: where somebody is competing on a commercial basis with the private sector, they ought to be subject to the same tax arrangements. It is the same principle under which commercial operations are now starting to be charged in relation to land taxes. It is the same principle under which all of the state governments are now seeking to make them subject, on the basis of competitive neutrality, to the various state taxes.All of these institutions are paying the financial institutions duty. Would the Labor Party ever worry about that? They pay bank account debits tax. Would the Labor Party worry about that? They pay the wholesale sales tax embedded in their price. Would the Labor Party worry about that? They pay a full 43c per litre in petrol. Would the Labor Party ever worry about that? Under the competitive neutrality principle, the government, observing its agreement as signed by the Labor Party with the state governments, ensures that where there is commercial competition the same tax in relation to that commercial competition ought to apply. But, in relation to the GST and charitable activities, charities get something that they have never got before. They get back all of the taxes which are embedded in their prices—which means that the rendering of charitable services is cheaper than it has ever been before, and that is one of the great benefits of a modern taxation system for the 21st century.1281512815Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service. Would the minister inform the House of the implications of the new Public Service Act for the delivery of good government and better services for all Australians?12815Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Kooyong for his question and I acknowledge his great interest in Public Service reform and, indeed, his contribution to the development of the new legislation. Today is a historic day in the history of the Australian Public Service, because it is the first working day that the Public Service is operating under the new Public Service Act 1999. The passage and proclamation of this act, which was proclaimed yesterday, represents a fundamental overhaul of Australian public sector management and is a major step forward to providing the basis for a high performance Australian Public Service. The old act was highly pre scriptive, very long, very complex. It led to a process driven Public Service. The new act is one which is significantly shorter—some 47 pages; it is less than one-fifth the size of the old Public Service Act. It is accessible, understandable and written in plain English, and it articulates the distinctive character of the Australian Public Service and what the Australian Parliament expects of it. The detailed prescription of the 1922 act has been replaced by a clear statement of principles, values and the code of conduct.One of the major features of the new legislation is that it devolves employment responsibility to agency heads and vests in them the flexibility and authority to run their agencies in the way that best suits their clients, the Australian people, and the government of the day. Accountability for the use of those powers has been enhanced. Merit is, for the first time, defined clearly in legislation and will continue to be the cornerstone of employment decisions within the Public Service. Particularly importantly, the new act contains protections and a clearer statement of an apolitical Public Service. For the first time, there is a legislative requirement that the Public Service uphold defined values, including that it is apolitical and that it performs its functions in an impartial and professional manner.I want to thank all those associated with the development of this new legislation—particularly the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission and those members of the House who contributed to the development of this new act. I am sure that we will see the Australian Public Service develop as a creative and flexible service which is geared now to fully meet the needs of its clients in the Australian community.1281512815McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, didn't you promise during the election that new cars would be `dramatically cheaper' with the GST? If so, why did you backflip last week on 3AW, saying, `Well, I don't know that anyone can guarantee what people are going to charge. How much the price will fall will depend on the market'? Prime Minister, if now you won't guarantee a `dramatic' fall in prices, what sort of price cut will you guarantee?12816Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As usual, the opposition spokesman either misquotes or inadequately quotes what I said. Let me, for the benefit of those opposite, go back to what I did say. I predicted—and it remains my prediction—that, as a consequence of the introduction of the GST, cars in this country will be cheaper. That remains my prediction. That is what I said in the election. There has been no backflip. There has been no backsliding. If there has already been some discounting in anticipation of the change, then of course that is a consequence of the new tax system. It is not a consequence of anything else. It remains the case that the amount of tax levied under the new system is dramatically lower than the tax levied under the Labor wholesale sales tax system. You go from a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax to a 10 per cent goods and services tax. That represents a very dramatic lowering of the imposition of taxation on the sale of cars and, therefore, the prediction made by the coalition before the election was that the price of cars would be dramatically lower. Of course, that remains our prediction.I was asked on a radio program a particular question and I gave that answer. I do not deviate from the belief that, as a result of the introduction of the new taxation system, cars in this country will have a lower price. Obviously, in anticipation of the change, the market is behaving in a particular fashion. That is to be expected. The industry spokesman for the opposition knows that; anybody who understands any kind of behaviour of markets knows that.But, at the end of the day, I believe that cars in this country will be cheaper after the introduction of the new taxation system. Many of them are already cheaper. That is a direct consequence of the announcement of our new taxation policy. My take-out from all of this is that the Australian Labor Party wants to slug the car consumer with a higher rate of tax and a higher price than does the coalition. If the Australian car buyer will accept that, if the Labor Party wants to live with that, then the Labor Party is welcome to do so. I stand by what I said in the election campaign: it remains my belief, my prediction, that the price of cars in this country will be lower as a result of the introduction of our new taxation system.1281612816Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister outline how the government is supporting the Australian Year of the Outback in 2002?12816Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and I recognise that he, like some other members of this House, represents a pretty big slab of the outback. The Australian outback is to us what the Highlands are to Scotland. It is one of the last great frontiers in the world today, a huge area indeed, with a population of probably only around 180,000 people. But it does, of course, contain much of the country about which Australian legends have been made. The government supports moves to declare the year 2002 Year of the Outback in this country. Those suggestions originally came from a Queenslander, Mr Bruce Campbell. They have now received strong support from governments right around Australia, which I am delighted about. The year will see a major celebration of outback history, culture and achievements. For many people around the world today, their very imagery of Australia is formed by the outback. I think the tourism potential alone must be absolutely enormous.We are told that some 80 per cent of tourists who come to Australia do so to a greater or lesser degree because they want to see something of rural and regional Australia, and yet less than 20 per cent actually ever get there, so there is a huge untapped international market in the area of tourism. Even domestically, I am told that—and the figure amazes me—over six million Australians spent all 365 days and nights at home last year; they did not leave home. Again, we could entice some of those people to go and look at our marvellous backyard. Jackie Kelly, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, is a very keen promoter of this idea as well. There is a tremendous amount that can be achieved.The year will be promoted through events such as shows in capital cities, music festivals, art shows, special awards, perhaps a last great cattle drive of the sort that so many Australian legends were built on, and a series of other community events in regional Australia. In the first instance, we are funding a comprehensive business plan covering all facets of the year, including administration, marketing, event coordination and financing. We will be looking to see that this is a true partnership between governments, business and outback communities.1281712817McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you accept that more than 80 per cent of Australian car buyers trade in one car to buy a new car or trade up to a better car when they undertake a car transaction? Do you accept that, if new car prices fall—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has the call and is entitled to be heard.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Do you accept that, if new car prices fall, trade-in values will fall equivalently and, therefore, for that 80 per cent of car purchasers who trade up, the changeover price will not change and they will gain not one dollar?12817Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will not take advantage of the hypothesis rule, but I tell you what I do accept: I do accept that the Labor Party is against a tax policy that cuts the price of Australian cars.1281712817Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Can the minister inform the House of recent upgrades to sporting facilities in the ACT and the benefits in the long term for not only the ACT community but the whole Australian Capital Territory region as a result of these upgrades?12817Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I acknowledge the member for Eden-Monaro's interest in the upgrades to the AIS facility and I am pleased to report to the Prime Minister that our budget initiative for the resurfacing of the track at Bruce Stadium occurred on budget, on time. Despite extensive rain throughout October and November, the mondo surface was set at the AIS track, replacing the old surface which had bubbled and was causing some problems in the preparation of our elite athletes. The mondo surface is exactly the same as they have in Stadium Australia—a surface which will be torn up after the Paralympic Games. This will leave the mondo track at the institute as the premier athletics surface in Australia. That track is not just used by AIS athletes and Australian teams; it is also used by ACT Athletics and for Little Athletics carnivals. We have the state championships and the major events for Little As occurring at that venue.Mr Wilkie interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Swan.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—I know the interest that the member for Eden-Monaro has in Little As as well as in the Paralympics and our winter preparation team. It is going to be a very valuable asset as well as a further extension of the ACT's sport and tourism program in terms of attracting major events to the ACT and holding those events of all kinds at the AIS.1281712817Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN DT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to his previous answer on charities. Treasurer, isn't it the case that, under existing law, a charity buying a pie warmer today simply has to quote its sales tax exemption number to buy that pie warmer free of sales tax? Why did you just mislead this House?12817Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I would have thought that even to the Australian Labor Party, after debating this for some time—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith! The Minister for Forestry and Conservation ! The member for Prospect!Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Prospect is concerned about any action taken, she may raise it under the standing orders. She otherwise has an obligation to ensure that every other member is heard without interruption, as she well knows. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I would have thought that after all of this time the Labor Party would have become familiar with the concept of taxes embedded in prices and, just for the benefit of the Australian Labor Party, I restate the principle. A pie warmer is made by a machine on which there is wholesale sales tax. A pie warmer is transported on a truck on which there is wholesale sales tax. The truck is filled with petrol and diesel on which there is diesel excise.DT4CREANMr Crean—I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance, Mr Speaker. The Treasurer, in his answer before, said the pie warmer attracted a sales tax. The existing law says it is—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He has made his point. The answer being given by the Treasurer is entirely relevant to the question of whether or not there is a sales tax on the pie warmer or any other item, and I call him.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The manufacturer of the pie warmer, to cope with his wholesale sales tax, puts it into the price. The transporter with the truck, to cope with his wholesale sales tax, puts it into the transport. The diesel is added into the transport. The premises have taxable goods that go into them. The electricity that is used to warm the pie warmer has embedded wholesale sales tax. And under wholesale sales tax, the state-of-the-art Labor Party tax system, which is emulated in the world by only Botswana and Swaziland, no person can get back embedded taxes. I often wonder to myself how the Australian Labor Party sits there and thinks that, of all the political parties in the world, it is the only one that has seen the truth of wholesale sales tax.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. He was asked a specific question about an answer that he had given in which he said that sales tax which applies to the pie warmer is paid by the charity. We have quoted its exemption. Of course, what goes for the pie warmer goes for any item of equipment on which there is a sales tax charge—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and I will rule on relevance. As I indicated earlier, the comments made by the Treasurer in response to this question were relevant. His criticism of previously existing policies is not as relevant. As I feel the latter part of his answer is not as relevant, I invite him to come back to the former response he was giving.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I have to talk about wholesale sales tax to answer the question because the question is about wholesale sales tax and how it affects prices.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It was not the comments about the wholesale sales tax that prompted the point of relevance.CT4Mr COSTELLO—For anybody in business or in charity or in export, under the embedded wholesale sales tax system you do not have any chance to get back taxes on your inputs—none whatsoever. Every other country in the world is giving their exporters a free go because you get back all the taxes on your inputs. Every other country in the world is giving their manufacturers a fair go because they can get back all of the taxes embedded in their inputs. This would be the only country in the world that is standing back and not doing it. It is about time we gave them the opportunity to do it.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which also goes to relevance. There are large groups in the community who have sales tax exemptions. The Treasurer is failing to answer the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat. He is now advancing an argument. The Treasurer has concluded his reply.1281912819Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister give the House any assurances about the future likelihood of oil and gas being extracted from the Timor Gap, under the Timor Gap treaty?12819Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question and for his interest in this issue. As members of the House would know, the Timor Gap treaty has functioned well in creating a valid legal framework for the shared oil and gas exploitation in the area between East Timor and Australia. It is the government's strategy to encourage the smooth and continued operation of the treaty. We are looking at a two-step process which involves consultations which we are currently undertaking with all of the relevant parties. The House may be interested to know that on 17 November the Indonesian government confirmed to our ambassador in Jakarta, John McCarthy, that the treaty is no longer between Indonesia and Australia. During the course of last week, I discussed the treaty arrangements with Sergio de Mello, the special representative of the Secretary General for East Timor. The UN is willing to act for East Timor as Australia's treaty partner during the transitional phase; thereafter, the treaty will be a matter for an independent East Timor. The East Timorese have confirmed to us their acceptance of these transitional processes.I remind the House that Xanana Gusmao stated publicly on 14 October his intention—to use his words—`to respect the terms of the treaty'. On 4 December, officers from my department had discussions in Darwin with both the United Nations and the CNRT—the East Timorese officials. The East Timorese made it clear during those discussions that they still intended to respect the terms of the treaty. They may wish to revisit some aspects of the treaty later, but they do recognise the very great importance of maintaining a stable basis for investment, because clearly that is not only in Australia's interest but above all—and much more importantly—it is in East Timor's interest. None of these things are terribly simple. Nevertheless, the work that we have been doing over quite some time now—and I have spoken in the House before on this matter—is moving ahead, in our view, fairly smoothly. We look forward to being able to continue with the exploitation of oil and gas in the Timor Gap area, obviously to some extent to the benefit of Australia but very importantly to the benefit of the people of East Timor.1281912819Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, have you seen this statement by the Australian Automobile Association:To ensure pump prices do not rise in any country town, the government should reduce petrol excise by 8.9 cents a litre.Deputy Prime Minister, given that you have admitted that the 7c a litre figure in the GST package is open to change, do you agree with the Automobile Association that the only way you can keep your promise on pump prices is to cut the excise by even more?12819Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I think I made it quite plain the other day that the 7c was only ever indicative and that we would set the price at the time that we moved to the new arrangements. I think that is quite simple. So the level at which the excise will be reduced will be determined on the basis of the price of the fuel at that time. I cannot think of anything more simple.1281912819Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of any benchmarks against which the Workplace Relations Act can be measured? Would you inform the House of these benchmarks and whether or not the act has achieved them?12819Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I am aware of some benchmarks because the then shadow minister, the member for Canberra, laid down some benchmarks by which the Labor Party would assess the Workplace Relations Act, which went through in 1996. We have been going back to actually have a look at the benchmarks which they themselves established. There were five—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Only some of them.WI4Mr REITH—No, these were your five benchmarks. You were invited to put up the benchmarks. It was not six, seven, eight, nine and 10. You were asked what were the benchmarks—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would remind the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business that in fact I had nothing to do with the benchmarks and the references to `you' are entirely inappropriate. I call him to make a comment through the chair.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, in that parliament you probably supported them, very sensibly. He had five benchmarks. The first was: would industrial disputes come down under the coalition's Workplace Relations Act? As everybody knows, they have come down. The second one was: will there be more jobs created in this parliamentary term under this regime? The official figures show absolutely and without any question there are a lot more jobs under us than under Labor. The third was: will the wage outcomes be fairer? We do now know that low paid workers have in fact been dealt with much more fairly with a 7½ per cent increase in real wages in the time that we have been in office compared to a five or six per cent reduction when Labor was in office. His fourth benchmark was: will labour productivity increase faster after this act than the current trend rate of 1.75 per annum? The latest figures are 2.4, much better than the 1.2 and certainly better than the 1.75. Thank you for being so specific. His fifth question was: will the overall wage and salary outcomes be more consistent with a low inflation, low interest rate environment than the outcomes of the present system? Every home owner in the country knows that we have the lowest interest rates since the man walked on the moon, inflation is much lower and wages are tied to productivity. That is a good result for everybody.It is interesting that Labor set their own benchmarks quite specifically, put out in April 1997, and now they do not have the courage or the ticker to admit that they were wrong. They do not have the courage to stand up to the trade union movement and acknowledge that this legislation was opposed by them against the interests of the average worker. Why don't they do that? It is because, as usual, they do what they are told by the trade union movement, not just those outside this parliament but all the trade union officials sitting on the front bench, including a decade of former ACTU presidents sitting directly behind the Leader of the Opposition. It is time that the Leader of the Opposition actually developed a policy of his own, that he actually stood up against the vested interests who sit behind him and that he acknowledged the benefits for workers by sensible evolutionary reform. For this country there is no option just to say no; this country has to move forward. As we saw with the first set of reforms, we will see the beneficiaries of that approach: the average working Australian men and women.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice128201282015:13:0012820Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The week before last, the Leader of the Opposition questioned me about a phone call I had had on Perth radio from Shirley, and I said at that time that I had not heard from her. But the ever vigilant Prime Minister's office got in touch with her. We did find the lady and we had a very pleasant discussion with her. The facts are as follows—and I thought, as the Leader of the Opposition asked me the question, the House, particularly his own followers, would be interested to hear the answer.The details were provided to my office by the lady. The essence of her concern, as stated to us, is that she was quoted a GST-inclusive price of $5,500 for a basic prepaid funeral. She was concerned that this price was excessive as a relative of hers had been quoted a price elsewhere which was substantially lower. I am advised that she has since spoken to others and purchased a prepaid funeral which suits her requirements for $3,500. I would remind the House that the government has enhanced the powers of the ACCC so that businesses that engage in any price exploitation in the lead-up to the introduction of the new system will be liable to penalties of up to $10 million for corporations and $500,000 for individuals.I should also inform the House—parallel with this but not arising out of this—that there were discussions between the Australian Funeral Directors Association and the government. The government proposes to amend the legislation applying to the GST transitional rules for prepaid funerals. The effect of the amendment is to make a prepaid funeral purchased before 1 December 1999 and fully paid before the year 2005 GST free no matter when the funeral occurs. However, a GST will apply to prepaid funerals purchased after 1 December 1999, and the funeral operator will of course be required to pay a refund if the funeral takes place before 1 July 2000.I also want to add to an answer I gave to the Manager of Opposition Business. The Manager of Opposition Business asked me a question about sales tax on cars. I did state the obvious—that if you cut the tax on cars they become cheaper—although the shadow minister does not accept that. I was handed a document that contains the following statement:. . . the recession has had a severe effect on motor vehicle sales.From tomorrow the sales tax on new cars currently subject to the 20 per cent rate will be permanently lowered to 15 per cent—that did not actually turn out to be the case; it was not very permanent—a saving on a new Commodore or Falcon of around $800.With cheaper cars we will drive newer cars, which is good for the environment, good for road safety, and good for one of our most important industries.At least the author of those words thought that if you cut the tax you got a cheaper car—that is, P.J. Keating's One Nation statement of 26 February 1992. As a footnote, it was not very permanent. He took it back to 22 per cent after the 1993 election.Questions to the Speaker128211282112821Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, have you seen media reports on the weekend that have indicated that the Westpac branch at Parliament House is to close? Secondly, has the Joint House Department or the Joint House Committee looked at this issue? Is it proposed that a replacement bank be sought or what other arrangements are proposed to be put in place?12821Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am not aware of the House Committee having looked at this issue. I will take up the matters reasonably raised by the member for Cunningham and report back to him and the House.1282112821Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Speaker, I refer to standing order 150. I know the Treasurer does not want to answer the question. You have written on a number of occasions, but I would request you to write again to the Treasurer requesting an answer to question No. 465 from 8 March 1999.12821Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take up the matter on behalf of the member for Prospect with the Treasurer's office.1282112821Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Mr Speaker, I asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care question No. 404 on 10 February this year, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation question No. 782 on 29 June and the Treasurer question No. 798 on 9 August. I would ask you. pursuant to standing order 150, to write to those ministers seeking reasons for the delay in responding.12821Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Under the provisions extended to me, I will take that action on behalf of the member for Wills.Personal Explanations1282115:19:0012821Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPMr SPEAKER—Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—Thank you. An article on Saturday in the Sydney Morning Herald by journalist Marian Wilkinson entitled `Bitter pill' makes 10 separate errors of fact as it relates to me, the first in talking about legal action by the Pfizer corporation. The article states:The Pfizer call was a major signal to the Health Minister.I am doing these sequentially, not in order of seriousness. This statement is incorrect; it was no signal whatsoever. The second error is that the article refers to my `key staff pharmaceutical adviser' going to work for Pfizer. I have never had a pharmaceutical adviser. I had a medical adviser who came from medical administration in Royal Adelaide Hospital. As I have no day-to-day responsibility for pharmaceuticals, I have never needed a pharmaceutical adviser. The third and fourth errors are in the following sentence of the article:This week, Wooldridge's office finally admitted he was considering a major review of the PBS . . . There are two inaccuracies here. The first is that, when a major review of the PBS was put to me, I dismissed it out of hand, so I have not been considering it. The second is that the sentence construction `finally admitted' suggests that we have been suggesting that it is not the case, and that is untrue. The fifth error is that the article states:. . . the PBAC itself has sought over the years to make the process more transparent, only to be told by the Government that the act requires it to keep commercial material in confidence.This is misleading. My department informs me it is in fact the industry itself—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has not been personally misrepresented in that instance, but he may proceed.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—Thank you. The sixth and seventh error are that the article states:Wooldridge's more open approach to industry appears to have begun before the last election when . . . the Government established the Pharmaceutical Industry Working Group . . .The sixth error is that it was actually John Moore as industry minister who established the Pharmaceutical Industry Working Group, not me. The seventh is that my approach to industry has not changed at all in the four years I have been health minister. The eighth error is that the article states:Most of the big drug companies held joint fundraisers for . . . Wooldridge . . . I wish they had, but I am not aware of any major drug company holding a fundraiser for me. The ninth error is that the article states:The Naltrexone case opened the way for other drug company executives to put their complaints to Wooldridge's office . . .My chief of staff tells me that the Naltrexone case has made no difference whatsoever. The 10th error is that the article states:. . . health officials learnt that Wooldridge was examining, with the Minister for Industry, Nick Minchin, a major review of the scheme . . .This is not correct. As I have stated before, we are not seeking a major review of the scheme, rather a technical review of listing and pricing.Business12822Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That:1. The House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 3 p.m., and2. so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the routine of business for the sitting tomorrow being as follows, unless otherwise ordered: 1. Questions without notice. 2. Presentation of papers. 3. Ministerial statements, by leave. 4. Matter of public importance. 5. Notices and orders of the day, government business. Miscellaneous1282312823Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I wish to make a statement to the House. Following a question asked at question time today, I think I should also advise the House that not only the Public Service Act but the Parliamentary Service Act came into being as of yesterday, Sunday, 5 December, and for the first time establish the parliamentary administration as a statutorily separate service of the Commonwealth. Members will recall that the parliament recently enacted both the Public Service Act 1999 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1999.The Parliamentary Service Act establishes the Parliamentary Service and provides the legal framework for its leadership and management and the employment of its staff. The act provides for the office of Parliamentary Service Commissioner. Madam President and I have appointed the Public Service Commissioner, Ms Helen Williams, to that statutorily separate and legally independent role. We have also appointed Mr Alan Doolan, who has been appointed Public Service Merit Protection Commissioner until 31 December 1999, to act as Parliamentary Service Merit Protection Commissioner until the same date.The establishment of the Parliamentary Service is a historic development for the parliament. It emphasises the parliament's unique roles and responsibilities for legislation and accountability and also ensures the security and integrity of the employment arrangements of the staff who serve the parliament.1282310001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:128231383SBurke Anna MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of the Monash Uniting Church, Clayton North, Victoria 3168, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Ms Burke83SMs Burke(from 13 citizens)1282341YK6Wilton Greg MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of the St Aidan's Anglican Church, Parkdale, Victoria 3195, St John's Anglican Church, Frankston North, Victoria 3200 and St. Luke's Anglican Church Carrum Downs, Victoria 3201, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr WiltonYK6Mr Wilton(from 41 citizens)1282311083SBurke Anna MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Batman points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Ms Burke83SMs Burke(from 110 citizens)12824384WF6Danby Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned, draw the attention of the House to the discrimination experienced by same sex couples in the provision of superannuation benefits.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to reintroduce and pass the Private Member's Bill, entitled the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Amendment Bill, introduced into the House by the Member for Grayndler, Mr Anthony Albanese and seconded by the member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Michael Danby.Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby(from 384 citizens)1282466WF6Danby Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transmission to independence.We therefore petition the House to require the Government and all responsible Ministers to:(a) Withdraw Australia's original de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor;(b) Suspend Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia;(c) Support calls for international institutions to suspend all financial assistance to Indonesia;(d) Advise the Indonesian Government to direct forthwith the Indonesian Army to disarm the pro-Jakarta militia in East Timor; and(e) Advise the Indonesian Government to authorise forthwith the UN to dispatch a peacekeeping force to East Timor.(f) Support the UN establishing a War Crimes Tribunal to deal with those responsible for the genocide in East Timor.Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby(from 66 citizens)1282443R36 FI4Albanese Anthony MP; Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transmission to independence.We therefore petition the House to require the Government and all responsible Ministers to:(a) Withdraw Australia's de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor;(b) Sever Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia;(c) Support calls for international institutions including the IMF and the World Bank to suspend all assistance to Indonesia;(d) Call upon Australia's regional neighbours to bring all possible pressure to bear on Indonesian at a bilateral and regional level including through the APEC forum; and(e) To act urgently to establish a peacekeeping force to end the military created anarchy that exists in East Timor and to protect the security of all citizens of East Timor.Mr AlbaneseR36Mr Albanese(from 28 citizens)Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 15 citizens)1282471083REdwards Graham MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of the undersigned electors of Cowan recognising that:(a) the existing Australia Post services are not sufficient to service the growing population of the Perth Metropolitan suburb of Alexander Heights.(b) as a consequence a full Australia Post office be located in the suburb of Alexander Heights to cater for the needs of the public living in this area.Your petitioners therefore request that the House will do all it possibly can to ensure an Australia Post office be opened in Alexander Heights.Mr Edwards83RMr Edwards(from 710 citizens)12824585PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Considering that:(1) the Government has proposed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) and, relying on the outcome of the recent elections, intends to introduce legislation for such a Tax.(2) the Government's proposals, as published, discriminate between the providers of orthodox and complementary medicines and services by making the former GST-free and the latter subject to a 10 per cent GST; and(3) many Australians desire freedom of choice as to what medicines and services they use.Therefore, your Petitioners request that, in the design of a GST, the House ensures that complementary and orthodox medicines and practitioners are treated equally, so that:(1) all therapeutic goods on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and all herbal remedies prepared extemporaneously by herbalists and other natural therapists from raw materials, are GST-free; and(2) all services provided by herbalists and other natural therapists are GST-free.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 585 citizens)1282516PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Considering that:1. 30 per cent of Australians seek alternative medical treatments each year.2. the Government intends to proceed with its Goods and Service Tax (GST).3. this tax will be paid by persons seeing alternative medicine practitioners but not when seeing medical practitioners.Therefore, your Petitioners request that Australians retain a choice of medical treatment and ensure that:1. all services provided by alternative medicine practitioners, as currently recognised in Schedule 1 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations, be GST-free; and2. all medicines listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and all medicines mixed extemporaneously by practitioner, be GST-free.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 16 citizens)1282572PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concern at the implementation of the Tax Reforms effecting Defence Force personnel, specifically the new Fringe Benefits Tax reporting regime. We believe that the implementation of these reforms will severely disadvantage Defence Force members and place many in financial hardship, leading to a number seeking discharge.Your petitioners therefore request that the House takes all necessary steps to redress the crisis in Australian Defence Forces caused by these changes.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 72 citizens)128255634V5Moylan Judi MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain electors in the Division of Pearce, draws to the attention of the House, our concern at the shortage of Nursing Home beds in the Shire of Kalamunda. The Shire has an ageing population and it is becoming increasingly difficult to access nursing home accommodation within our Shire.Your petitioners therefore request the House to take note of our concerns, and ensure that sufficient Nursing Home beds are made available.Mrs Moylan4V5Mrs Moylan(from 563 citizens)128251826KV5Neville Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament.The petition of certain electors of the Division of Hinkler, draws to the attention of the House.Our concerns in Bundaberg that many General Practitioners (Gps) have closed their books to new patients, and the situation whereby bulk billing is practically impossible to access.With a high level of financial disadvantage in this district, and the closure of the public general outpatients at Bundaberg Base Hospital, it is essential that citizens have access to a GP, when required, regardless of their capacity to pay.Your petitioners therefore pray that the house investigates this matter and takes the necessary action to rectify this outrageous discriminatory situation (e.g. increase Medicare rebate to rural/regional areas or provide other incentives to encourage bulk billing etc).Mr NevilleKV5Mr Neville(from 1,826 citizens)1282536TK6Southcott Andrew MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of AssemblyThis petition of certain residents of the State of South Australia notes with serious concern the proposal to establish a radioactive waste repository in the Billa Kalina Region. We object strongly to our region being used as a dumping ground for radioactive waste, particularly that from interstate. The petitioners believe that long distance transportation of radioactive waste represents an unacceptable risk and that the establishment of a repository in the region represents a long term threat to residents, tourists, the environment and cultural and business interests.Your petitioners therefore request that your Honourable House will act to ensure that a radioactive waste repository is not built in our region and that a waste management regime not based on long distance transportation be developed.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Dr SouthcottTK6Dr Southcott(from 36 citizens)12826300YU5Tanner Lindsay MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled.The Petition of the Citizens of Australia.Bring to the attention of the House the Federal Government's plan to the peoples' access to Community Legal Centres. As well as to the structure, role and independence of Community Legal Centres.The Federal Government's proposed changes mean that many Australians will be denied access to free legal services.The undersigned petitioners therefore ask the House of Representative to call on the Federal Government to protect every Australian's right to equal access to the justice system by continuing to fund Community Legal Centres which are community controlled, owned and independent of governments and which are accessible to all people within their local community.Mr TannerYU5Mr Tanner(from 300 citizens)12826140084FWasher Mal MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House that the current two kilometre exclusion zone for pharmacies causes major inconvenience to citizens in many metropolitan regions.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House rescind this zone of exclusion in the agreement to be signed between the Government and Pharmacy Guild.Dr Washer84FDr Washer(from 1,400 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business128261282615:27:0012826Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I seek leave to amend my motion as it stands so that it reads `a seven per cent increase' instead of `a 10 per cent increase'.Leave granted.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—I move:That the House:(1) commends the Government for its efforts in promoting domestic and international tourism which has resulted in a 7% increase in international visitors during the last 12 month;(2) notes the significance to the economy of the number of jobs created by tourism; and(3) notes the foreign exchange earnings resulting from international visitor travel to Australia.There is no doubt that we are in the golden era of Australian tourism. At the beginning of the new millennium, the industry is well placed as the largest employer in the country and the second largest earner of foreign exchange earnings. Let us consider how far this industry has come. In 1975, we had half a million international visitors to this country. By 1985, the number had shifted to one million. In 1988, it was two million. By the time we finish this year, we are expecting 4.5 million international visitors to have come to Australia. There are now close to 700,000 jobs in Australia provided directly by tourism and some 300,000 provided indirectly. Foreign exchange earnings amount to some $16 billion, and domestic tourism is worth some $43 billion. There is no doubt that this is one of the most significant contributing industries to Australia's growth and development.The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that 3.6 million international visitors came to Australia during the 10 months to October 1999. If we extrapolate that number forward to the end of the year, it is 4.5 million, which will be an outstanding result and certainly the largest number of international visitors that this country has seen. If we take it that some 70 per cent of these visitors will visit Sydney, we have almost the population of Sydney dupli cated each year in terms of international visitors. This represents an increase in international visitor arrivals of seven per cent compared with the same period last year. Even more encouraging are the increases in visitor nights and visitor expenditure.The Bureau of Tourism Research's international visitors survey estimated that visitor nights totalled 104 million for the year ending June 1999—an increase of 13 per cent over the year ending June 1998. The total expenditure by visitors in Australia for the year ending June 1999 increased by almost 19 per cent over the previous 12 months. That, of course, is the most relevant measure because it is not just visitors but the yield that we get and the number of bed nights that we have with accommodation yields. Very often, we focus on numbers alone and that is insufficient. We have what are called volume based results, which is really profitless volume. So we need to avoid that, and that is why it is important that we look at the number of bed nights.Domestic tourism has seen some decline in recent years, with growth being relatively static. I am pleased to advise that the slowdown in international visitor rates has assisted the growth of Australian domestic visitor numbers. The slowdown resulted from the decrease of Australian visitors to Bali and is reflected in an increased number of Australian domestic visitor nights. The most recent statistics on domestic tourism indicate that in 1998 Australians spent 293.5 million nights away from home on domestic trips and took 153 million daytrips. Expenditure on domestic tourism was $43 billion. No comparison with 1997 is available due to a change in survey methodologies. But, undoubtedly, these statistics are a result of the government initiatives put in place by Minister Jackie Kelly and, before her, by Minister Andrew Thomson and Minister John Moore.The government has a range of programs and initiatives currently in place to assist the tourism industry. This level of assistance is at an all-time high. These initiatives include the Regional Tourism Program, the Partnerships Australia Domestic tourism initiative and the Regional Online Tourism Program. Funding under the Regional Tourism Program has actually doubled, growing from $8 million a year to $16 million to assist tourism in all of the regional areas. The members in this House from regional areas can testify to the considerable assistance this has provided in terms of real incentives and a real lift to visitor numbers to country areas. Grants of between $30,000 and $100,000 will be made for innovative and worthwhile project proposals that seek to build tourism in regional Australia.In the 1999-2000 budget the federal government pledged $8 million towards providing and stimulating domestic tourism in this country. This $8 million was matched with $4 million from the private sector and $4 million from the state governments. This has done much towards the setting up of a company, Partnership Australia Domestic—in which all of the players are involved: the various tourism authorities in each state, the private sector and the federal government—to encourage Australians to travel around their own country first to assist in the stimulation of the Australian domestic tourism market. The Regional Online Tourism Program provides $2 million over two years to help the regional tourism industry set up its own web sites to provide direct linkages for people who go to the Internet to seek more information. It is a direct initiative of Minister Jackie Kelly.The Australian Tourist Commission receives $90 million a year. In real terms, whichever way you want to cut it—even if Labor went back to their halcyon days with Paul Hogan—there was never this level of assistance, that is, $90 million. This is also the first time we have seen any assistance for domestic tourism initiatives. This is a first for any federal government: $8 million matched by the other amounts from the states and the private sector. The $90 million represents an increase of $50 million over four years. As part of that, $9 million is being devoted to maximising the opportunities from the 2000 Olympic Games. The Australian Tourist Commission has provided its marketing strength in past years in terms of the Asian market, as the focus has shifted to that, and the traditional markets of the UK and the USA. We have seen a substantial growth in both markets, with both showing increases of over 10 per cent over the past 12 months. That has been a very significant increase.It is forecast that for the Olympic Games we will see some additional 1.6 million visitors and $6.1 billion in foreign exchange earnings to Australia, and of course some $9 million of the amount allocated by the government to the Australian Tourist Commission is going to promote the benefits of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. In terms of significance to the economy of the number of jobs in tourism, as I mentioned, some 670,000 jobs—8.4 per cent of the total employment of this country—relate directly to tourism. They are directly dependent on it. Tourism is the largest employer in the country. Some 90,000 indirect jobs relate to tourism as well. Close to one million jobs in this country are tourism related. That is why it should be taken very seriously. Tourism is a major source for youth employment. There is a major opportunity for regional, rural and indigenous communities and for ethnic Australians to be involved in the tourism sector.In the last financial year, foreign exchange earnings represented 14.5 per cent of Australia's total export earnings and 61.9 per cent of services exported. Some $16.2 billion in foreign exchange earnings came directly from the tourism sector. This leads to our improvement in the balance of payments overall. Of course $2.1 billion goes to regional Australia alone—to all of those various areas, which include the Gold Coast, tropical North Queensland, the Whitsundays, the Illawarra, the Northern Territory and the areas surrounding Uluru. It is therefore significant to recognise, firstly, the importance of jobs that come from the tourism industry in this country. It is the number one job supplier and the second largest earner of foreign exchange earnings in this country. The government's level of assistance to this industry has provided significant dividends. The $90 million it provides to the Australian Tourist Commission pays off in international visitors, and the new amount of $8 million for domestic tourism has provided a real stimulus that has not been seen in this country before.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?9K6GAMBAROMs Gambaro—I have pleasure in seconding the motion and I reserve my right to speak.15:37:0012828Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—It would be negligent indeed to start a speech in this House on the question of tourism without commenting on its importance to my electorate. My electorate of Lalor covers a number of very important tourist facilities in Victoria, including the Werribee Park Mansion, the State Rose Garden, the Werribee Open Range Zoo, the Point Cook Metropolitan Park and Homestead, the National Equestrian Centre and the Point Cook RAAF Museum, about which I have spoken in this place on other occasions. Indeed, I suspect that my electorate is the only place in Australia where literally 45 minutes after leaving an international flight at Tullamarine airport you can be in an open range zoo environment eye to eye with a hippopotamus or, if that is not your style, at the Werribee Park Mansion, a very beautiful old building which is currently being developed by a former Prime Minister into a prestige hotel and conference facility. So tourism is very important in my electorate and, as the previous speaker has said, very important to this nation.Before moving on to talk about other aspects of this motion, I would note how important the tourism industry is to Australia economically. Our Australian national accounts do not measure tourism as an industry. That is understandable, given the diverse nature of the activities that would be covered under the umbrella of tourism. However, the Bureau of Tourism Research has made endeavours to measure the value of tourism to our economy. The bureau, in 1996-97, estimated that total tourism expenditure in Australia was valued at $59.4 billion, of which about three-quarters came from domestic tourism and the balance from overseas sources. The added value of the tourism industry—that is, the value of tourism output less the cost of materials used to produce that output—was $24.2 billion. Consequently we can say that 5.4 per cent of GDP is directly accounted for by the tourism industry. This makes it larger than the mining industry, significantly larger than agriculture, forestry and fishing and roughly equivalent in size to industries such as wholesale trade, transport and storage, and education.International tourism makes a significant contribution to Australia's export earnings. In 1997-98 international tourism generated $16.4 billion in export earnings; it accounted for 14.4 per cent of Australia's total export earnings and 64.1 per cent of service exports. In 1996-97 tourism expenditure in Australia was responsible for the employment of close to one million people, or 11.5 per cent of total employment. This comprised 670,800 persons employed directly in the tourism industry and a further 291,000 persons employed indirectly. Domestic tourism expenditure generated the most jobs at 510,000 compared with 171,000 created by international tourism.Against this backdrop of impressive statistics, we have to note that not all has gone well with this industry in recent years. Clearly there was a difficulty with our international tourism given the Asian economic meltdown; in fact, international tourist arrivals fell by 3.5 per cent in 1998. Fortunately, the falling visitor numbers from Asia were partly offset by increases in arrivals from North America and Europe. But we did see a fall in international tourist arrivals and, at the same time, we saw the continuance of the trend where more Australians holidayed overseas than ever before. Clearly, the figures for this year have been better. We can expect an upsurge in international tourism arrivals, given the Olympics next year and the number of people who will be attracted to that.Against that background of an industry that is vital to our economy but which has had its stresses and strains in view of the Asian economic crisis, one has to question what is the appropriate government policy and response. The government has allocated resources to an advertising and promotion campaign. But promoting and nurturing an industry is more than just promoting in the form of advertising in the various media; it is also about getting the policy settings right. In that regard I would have to say that this government's answer to nurturing our tourism industry in the form of the imposition of a GST is not an appropriate policy setting if we want to facilitate growth, jobs and export earnings through tourism.It is important to note that the GST does not cause tourism just one problem; it engages in a quadruple whammy on the tourism industry. There are four distinct blows that the GST package makes to the tourism industry. First, 75 per cent of our tourism industry is domestic. As people travel as domestic tourists, once the GST is in, basically all parts of their holiday will be GST affected, whether it be accommodation, restaurant meals, tour fees or fees for entrance to tourist attractions like the Werribee Open Range Zoo or what have you. That is blow number one to the industry.Blow number two is that, for inbound international tourists, international air and sea travel as well as domestic air travel purchased by non-residents offshore will be GST free but international tourists will face the GST on accommodation, entertainment, food and transport. It is important to note that this is a highly competitive international industry. Tourists do not have to come to Australia. When in their home countries they are considering a range of holiday options, clearly Australia is one of those options, but it is not the only option. And this is an industry which is notoriously price sensitive; it has a very high reaction to movements in price. As the industry noted in the course of the GST debate, there is no doubt that the GST will create additional costs for international tourists travelling in Australia and it will make Australia a less attractive tourist destination than it was previously.Blow number three to the tourism industry arising out of the GST package is the fact that international airfares for outbound Australian tourists will remain GST free. On the surface, that looks like a benefit in that people can go overseas without the GST applying to their travel to get there. But there are substitution issues in the tourism industry. When you are considering your holiday options, many people will look closely at the price of a domestic holiday—going to Cairns, for example—versus the price of going overseas to Bali or some such destination which also offer sea and sun and those sorts of holiday options. In considering that price effect, the fact that international travel will not attract a GST will mean that the relative costs for Australians of going overseas will be more attractive as a result of the GST being on domestic travel but not on international travel. We will see the government, through this package, sending a price signal to Australian tourists that they ought—on a price basis—to consider going overseas. That fact has been noted by expert commentators on the tourist industry.The fourth blow from the tax package overall to the Australian tourist industry is that it is noted in Treasury estimates—for whatever they are worth—that we are likely to see an appreciation of the Australian dollar of 4.6 per cent as a result of the effect of the government's tax package. The effect of the appreciation of an Australian dollar on tourism is clear: it makes inbound tourism, which is people coming to Australia from overseas, more expensive; and it makes outbound tourism—that is, Australians holidaying overseas—cheaper. Once again, another blow to our tourism industry.All of these effects were the subject of quite detailed evidence when the GST was considered by the Senate select committee and other Senate committees. Indeed, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tourism Task Force, Mr Chris Brown, ended up describing the whole package as a `$1.2 billion kick in the guts to the industry'.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—A very expensive kick in the guts.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—That is right. Through modelling that his task force has done, he anticipates that we will see a contraction of seven per cent in the tourism work force in the first year of the new package. When he gave evidence before the Senate select committee, he referred to quite detailed economic modelling undertaken by his task force which showed that 59,000 full-time and part-time jobs were in jeopardy. It indicated that the tourism industry would contract by 59,000 full-time and part-time jobs as a result of the government's tax package. Clearly, in the tourism industry, this tax package is living up to its reputation as a job destroyer. (Time expired)15:47:0012830Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I support the motion moved by the member for Cook which seeks the House's support in commending the efforts of the Howard government in ensuring that Australia has a strong tourism industry. The motion also recognises the vital role that tourism plays in generating jobs for Australians as well as much needed foreign earnings. As the motion rightly states, there has been a seven per cent increase in the number of international tourists visiting Australia over the past 12 months. This has been despite the Asian economic crisis that has dampened demand in some of Australia's markets. The previous speakers have also spoken about that.As with some other export industries, the tourism sector has been quick to respond to changes in the international economic environment. It is good to see that we have gone back to those traditional markets of the United Kingdom and the United States and that this has delivered more tourists from those markets. The industry must be applauded for its adaptability and receptiveness to changing circumstances.The government has played no small part in this. The announcement in May of a $995 million funding boost to the Australian Tourist Commission for overseas promotion will no doubt play a significant part in maintaining this momentum. The significance of tourism for Australia cannot be underestimated, particularly in my home state of Queensland. For instance, in 1999, 4.2 million international tourists came to Australia, and they spent some $7.8 billion. In terms of jobs, the sector as a whole employs 700,000 people. That is 8.4 per cent of the country's total work force. The member for Cook quoted some of those figures earlier.But it is domestic tourism that plays a crucial role in Australia's tourism industry. It accounts for three-quarters of all visitor nights and expenditure in Australia, according to the publication Tourism Industry Trends. On Saturday I was very proud to launch on behalf of the Minister for Aged Care a booklet called Get Up and Go. The federal government has spent $100,000 to encourage domestic tourism in the over-65s market. It encourages Australian seniors to travel domestically in Australia, and that market alone accounts for 2.97 million seniors. You can see the boogie board on the front of this booklet. I hope I am as active as that at the age of 65.Being a Queenslander, I recognise the importance of both foreign and domestic tourism in creating jobs and wealth for the country. I wish to congratulate Club Crocodile, which operates resorts and river cruises in Queensland, for winning a recent Jobs Pathway program. The work that they do in training students in the hospitality industry needs to be applauded. That trend seems to be continuing.There has been a huge change in the communities that rely on tourism. I have seen that happen in the city of Redcliffe that I represent. The Redcliffe Peninsula used to be the tourism mecca before the Gold Coast took off when people would travel to the peninsula and holiday there. Sutton's Beach was long favoured by Brisbane families as a place to get away and relax with a swim in Moreton Bay, but now it cannot compete with Surfer's Paradise. Tourism had all but died on the Redcliffe Peninsula—until recently.We now have a world-class jetty, and I am involved at the moment in promoting with the council daytripping to the region. I must commend the regional tourism funding that has been provided for areas such as Redcliffe. The member for Lalor did mention the effect of GST. She did not mention, however, the benefit that visitors to New South Wales and also to Cairns and the Northern Territory will have when the bed tax is removed—the very same bed tax that was introduced by the New South Wales Labor government. That was not mentioned. Clearly it is inequitable when Australians holidaying overseas have to pay for the facilities they use in visiting other countries when international tourists to Australia do not. International tourists should pay for the facilities that they use when they are travelling throughout Australia—the roads and the infrastructure have to be funded from somewhere. I would like to support the motion further by saying that the federal government's commitment to tourism and sound economic management will make sure that we put in the right conditions so that all of Australia can take advantage of tourism. More jobs and stronger growth mean that more Australians can enjoy our particularly wonderful scenic beauty, and I wish to commend the benefits that it will have for regional Australia, particularly for the electorate of Petrie. I commend this motion to the House. (Time expired)15:52:0012831Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I am astonished that the member for Cook and the member for Petrie would come into this House proposing and seconding a motion which congratulates the government on its policies in relation to tourism. It is well known that the GST will come into force on 1 July next year. My colleague the member for Lalor spoke eloquently of the impact that the GST will have on tourism. I will expand on that in a moment. I was equally astonished to hear the member for Petrie talking about the replacement of a bed tax in Cairns with the GST when, in fact, there is no bed tax in Cairns; there is no bed tax in Queensland at all. There is a small bed tax in New South Wales and the Northern Territory. Members opposite should actually have a look at their own documentation, which they released before the election.The member for Lalor also spoke eloquently about some of the great contributions that tourism makes to this country. I refer in particular to some work that has been done by the Bureau of Tourism Research, which estimates by using, coincidentally, the Monash model—about which I will speak a little bit more later—that tourism adds value: it contributes to the national income of this country to the tune of about $24 billion, which equates to about 5.4 per cent of the country's national income. That makes tourism larger than the mining industry and roughly equivalent to the size of wholesale trade, transport, storage and education.On export earnings, the tourism industry makes an extraordinarily valuable contribution to this country with earnings of about $16.4 billion, which is considerably more than the $10.8 billion earned by, for example, mineral exports. On employment, the tourism industry contributes close to a million jobs in Australia, which is a wonderful contribution by this industry and a contribution that we on this side of the parliament do not want to see jeopardised by the introduction of the GST.I have here what has really become the bible, the fount of wisdom, on the GST, and that is the main report of the Senate Select Committee on a New Tax System. In it, the tourism industry argues very strongly that at least a major component, that is, inbound tourism, should be exempted from the GST. Although organisations such as the Tourism Task Force and the Tourism Council of Australia argued for that, the government was completely unreceptive. As a result of that, the GST will apply to the entire tourism industry, including inbound tourism. As my colleague the member for Lalor has indicated, there is incredible price sensitivity on inbound tourism because people can shop around all around the world. The GST will in fact apply to that important component of the tourism industry, along with all the other components. All restaurants, meals, drinks and domestic travel will be subject to GST.The Inbound Tourism Organisation of Australia was another organisation that argued unsuccessfully for the exemption of at least part of the tourism industry—inbound tourism—from the GST. A study prepared by the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University had a look at, and tried to quantify, the impact of the GST on tourism. It came up with a figure which predicted job losses at 4.3 per cent or 19,880. We have the government coming in here and saying, `Look at all of our pro-tourism policies.' How can they be proud of presiding over a policy that will lead to the loss of around 20,000 jobs in an industry which has among the greatest growth prospects in Australia? This is absolutely perverse economic policy.We are talking about the replacement of bed taxes. A small bed tax in New South Wales and in the Northern Territory will be replaced by a bed tax on every hotel and motel in Australia—that is, the GST. What hypocrisy when people come in here and say, `We are getting rid of this bed tax.' Yes, they are, but they are replacing it with a bed tax on every hotel and motel in Australia, including in regional Australia. I thought these people were the champions of regional Australia. Where is the member for Herbert, the member for Leichhardt, the member for Hinkler and the member for Longman on this? They all voted for a bed tax on every bed in Australia. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.1283215:58:0012832Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I move:That this House notes:(1) the failure of the Howard Government to address the needs of people living in regional Australia;(2) the lack of knowledge demonstrated by the Government of issues that impact on the daily lives of regional Australians;(3) the failure of the Government to provide jobs, services and adequate health resources to regional Australia; and(4) the betrayal of regional Australia by the Government's inability to differentiate between regional and rural Australia.This government has failed to deliver policies to meet the needs of Australians living in regional Australia. This government tells us that our economy is booming, and we read reports of record company profits and great wealth within our country. We have had eight years of economic growth. This wealth and economic growth has been accompanied by great change—change that has seen industries and jobs disappear. The metropolitan centres of Sydney and Melbourne have been able to adapt to these changes and, in fact, have actually benefited from them. Unfortunately, many Australians living in regional Australia have not been able to adapt to these changes in the same way. Consequently, they are finding it hard to survive.With industries restructuring, jobs disappearing and massive changes in agriculture, Australians living in many regional centres are in many cases struggling just to put food on the table. There is a massive disparity between regional and metropolitan Australia with regional income and wealth inequity growing. This government could change this by developing policies in conjunction with regional communities, policies that give them access to the emerging industries. The government must invest in the regions. It must stop ripping services from the communities and make a commitment to the development of skilled work forces and strong labour markets. This cannot be achieved by a government that will not invest in regional universities; a government that has an agenda that would see up to eight regional universities close if its preferred plan for tertiary education were adopted. Those communities that invest in education and develop skilled work forces are the communities that will thrive. Unfortunately for regional Australia, this government is directing education dollars to wealthy private schools rather than to regional and public educational facilities.Great emphasis is being placed on Australia's economic wellbeing. When this government talks about Australia's future it talks about its economic future. It forgets that Australia's future lies in the communities where Australians live, and these communities must be strong if Australia is to thrive. Micro-economic reform has not benefited regional Australia in the same way as it has benefited the large metropolitan centres of Sydney and Melbourne. Rather it has had a negative impact in many regional areas—regions like the Hunter that I represent. The Howard government have failed these regions by failing to recognise the impact their policies are having and by failing to reduce the impact of micro-economic reform and global influences. The National Institute of Economic and Industry Research identifies 44 regions in Australia while National Economics identifies 57 regions in their report to the Australian Local Government Association, yet this government talks about regional Australia as if it means rural Australia. The regions that are identified by National Economics are broken into six types of regions: core metropolitan, dispersed metropolitan, produc tion regions, rural regions, resource regions and lifestyle regions. The core metropolitan regions are generally flourishing whilst many other regions are struggling.I know speakers for the government will talk about the initiatives that they have taken to improve life and the economy in regional Australia, but the majority of the government's initiatives have been directed towards rural Australia. This government does not understand that regional Australia exists outside rural and remote communities. This year's budget graphically demonstrates this. In health, the government's commitments are to: a Bush Crisis Line upgrade, multipurpose service programs to deliver a mix of services to rural and remote communities, the Royal Flying Doctor Service, mental health information for rural and remote communities, programs for GPs in rural and remote areas, training for remote nurses and university departments of rural health. They are all very fine programs, programs that assist those rural communities in need, but where are the health programs that are designed to address the specific needs of non-rural regions such as more public hospitals and dental health care? This government is denying these services to regional areas.A very visual demonstration of this government's selective approach to regional centres was its decision to exclude heavy vehicles travelling between Sydney and Newcastle from receiving the diesel fuel rebate. These examples demonstrate just how skewed the Howard government's regional commitments are towards rural communities and how it ignores the needs of other regional centres that are finding it difficult to adapt and are experiencing great poverty. Even the recent Regional Australia Summit, which was designed to develop strategies to revitalise the regions, was predominantly composed of representatives from rural communities, once again showing how this government pays only lip-service to regions other than rural communities.I represent two regions in this parliament—the Hunter and the Central Coast regions of New South Wales. Both are regions that have been hurt by this government's policies. The Hunter region has been affected by the closure of the BHP steelworks, by coalmine closures and by micro-economic reform. These closures have all drastically reduced the employment opportunities for people living in the region. It is a region that has an ageing population and areas of poor social infrastructure and poverty. The recent report by Tony Vincent, Unequal in Life, identifies a suburb in the Shortland electorate as being the most disadvantaged area in New South Wales and Victoria, yet what has this government done to help that area? Nothing. There are no initiatives and there is no money—nothing at all is available for this disadvantaged community. In fact, an application for the much-touted Work for the Dole program was rejected. The Central Coast region is similar: it has very little job growth and it has an ageing population—and this government continues to put no money into that area.I would argue that, rather than promoting and assisting regional Australia, this government has waged war on it. In the Hunter and Central Coast regions we are experiencing the full impact of the Howard government's attack on regional Australia. Its gift to the people of our region has been massive cuts in services, programs and jobs. First the CES office at Belmont closed, then the Medicare office at Belmont. The Centrelink visiting service to Swansea has gone. Skillshare throughout the electorate has gone. The Newcastle Immigration office closed. All CES offices closed and were replaced by much smaller Employment National offices which have now largely been defunded by this government. The Charlestown CRS Australia office closed. The Better Cities Program, stage 2, has been abolished. Funding to the Newcastle University has been slashed. Funding to Belmont and Wyong TAFE colleges has been slashed. With every service that has been closed there has been a corresponding reduction in services to people in our area. The provision of government services and investment in regions like the Hunter and the Central Coast is a core issue in regional development and stability. Every job lost in the public sector leads to job losses in the private sector, and this is something this government does not understand.The Howard government is philosophically opposed to the public sector and, by continuing to reduce it, is attacking the regions and the skill levels of those people living in the regions. In the Hunter and Central Coast regions we can see the difference between the Carr Labor government's commitment to providing jobs and infrastructure and this government's commitment. When BHP announced it was closing, Bob Carr immediately came to the Hunter and pledged $10 million to the Hunter advantage fund whilst the Prime Minister reluctantly matched his offer and was very slow to visit the area.If this government continues to fail regional Australia, unemployment in the regions will continue to increase. The skill base of the work force in the regions will be eroded and the level of poverty and dissatisfaction will increase. The Howard government must provide the support and the resources that regional Australian needs and not cut and slash services. Regional Australia wants this government to invest in its future. Regional Australia wants this government to recognise that regions exist outside of the rural area. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?84HZAHRAMr Zahra—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:08:0012834Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I asked for the opportunity to speak to this motion because the suggestion that the government has failed to address the needs of people living in regional Australia is absurd. It is also hypocritical coming from a party that has no policy platform for regional Australia and has even had to change its shadow minister in the term of this parliament. The coalition has made a multibillion dollar investment in regional Australia and has strengthened its focus on regional and rural Australia. The government's regional Australia strategy is all about helping to restore access to financial, health and welfare services, comparable with Australia's capital cities.If the member for Shortland honestly believes that the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne and the urban areas of the Hunter are regional Australia, she has confirmed in my mind why, during the 1993-1996 term of the parliament, the true regional and rural Australia was so badly treated. It was during that period that funding that was meant for regional Australia, for rural Australia and the true regions—the provincial cities of Australia—was siphoned off into the western suburbs of Sydney and the northern suburbs of Melbourne. A very good sleight of hand trick it was.The member for Shortland claims that the government has failed to provide jobs, services and adequate health resources to regional Australia. I will deal with each of those separately. The government has been committed to tackling the seminal problem of unemployment and the social difficulties that lead from it. Those of us who lived during the Keating era know only too well what an unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent, and even higher in country areas, did to the morale of regional and rural Australia. Under the coalition, the unemployment rate has fallen to 7.1 per cent with predictions it will drop to 6.5 per cent in the near future.We now have an economic climate of low inflation, low interest rates and a budget surplus. Does the member for Shortland have any idea what Labor's high interest rates did to the social and commercial fabric of farming and small business communities in regional Australia? It is a heck of a lot better going to a bank to get a home loan at six or seven per cent or a business loan at eight or 8½ per cent than it is to have to pay twice that figure, as we did under Labor.The government has developed employment initiatives such as Work for the Dole and Green Corps that are specifically relevant to regional Australia. The highly successful Work for the Dole Program has given people a chance to shift back into the work force and to train and to gain experience while making a significant contribution to the community and similarly with Green Corps. That is without even mentioning the $1½ billion which has been expended on the Natural Heritage Fund—the biggest environmental restoration program in Australian history, and most of it in regional and rural Australia.The government has also created five times as many sites for the delivery of employment services through Job Network. If the member for Shortland had a look at her area, she would find there are more providers there than there were under the old CES. Performance data has also shown that the Job Network is outperforming the old CES and has been of particular benefit for regional employers and job seekers. About $40 million has been provided for Area Consultative Committee operations and Regional Assistance Program projects in 1999-2000. Funding is being directed to RAP projects that are likely to create new jobs, assist small business and improve the regional skills base.The ACCs have a far more visionary role than the old ACCs and the regional economic development organisations, which Labor could not get into full stride during its term of office. Having worked for 20 years in regional development, let me say that Labor made one fundamental error with the ACCs and REDOs. It denied the importance of local ownership and stifled initiative through a heavy top-down approach. I would like to see this initiative widen further with greater emphasis on the RDOs as distinct from the REDOs.The RDOs are the state based regional development boards that provide regional coverage for tourism and industry development on a region by region basis. These organisations reflect the wider community interest and do not cover the bureaucratic and irrelevant expenses that were imposed on regional Australia by the Keating government. The old REDOs were doomed to fail before they started. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that, as soon as the drip feed was turned off, most of them went to the wall. They had no basis of local ownership and no commitment from local business or local government.In contrast, the RDOs contain elements of private subscription, local government support and, in many instances, even state government support. I can only speak with authority on the Queensland system but it has proven, especially in tourism, to be a very effective weapon for coalescing the initiatives and marketing strengths of individual regions. A federal government contribution for industry and general regional development could turn these organisations into veritable powerhouses.I have two such organisations in my electorate: the Bundaberg District Tourism Development Board, and Gladstone Area Promotion and Development Ltd. They have carefully blended elements of tourism and industry development within the framework of local awareness and ownership. The organisations have 400 and 350 members respectively, and it means that businesses and professional people can share the responsibility with government for delivering industrial job creation outcomes in their own regions.The member for Shortland also claims the government has failed to address the need for services in regional and rural Australia. However, since the last election, the government has strengthened its focus on regional Australia by establishing a regional services portfolio. The opposition could not even match it with a continuous shadow ministry. We have been facilitating the return of services to regional communities, services that were lost during the 1980s and 1990s. Perhaps one of the most obvious examples of this is the rural transaction centres, where the government has committed to spend $70 million over five years to help rural communities with populations of up to 3,000 establish their own rural transaction centres.These centres aim to provide improved basic services and government services, blended together to cover such matters as personal banking, some business banking, postal services, Medicare Easyclaim, phone and fax. The first RTC was opened by the Prime Minister on 29 October, and it is expected that seven more will be opened before Christmas. Further, the government recently allocated funding for three RTCs to go ahead in the new year and another 24 in rural communities, including Agnes Water and Miriam Vale in my electorate, where feasibility studies concerning an RTC are under way.The government has reintroduced the Black Spot program, which Labor abandoned. This program is improving road safety, particularly in regional areas where the majority of allocated funding has been spent. It is working because it is minutely defined, the target is detailed and the funding is closely focused.Yet another black spot program—not to be confused with the roads one—is in the area of communications, where $160 million will be allocated to bring SBS and other television to areas neglected for the full 13 years of Labor government. This program will help regional and rural Australia enjoy better television access—as will improvements to Internet access being made available by this government through its Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. The previous Labor government, on the other hand, decided to shut down the analog phone network in favour of GSM digital technology. Everybody in regional and rural Australia is aware of this fatal error. Everyone knows that GSM has nothing like the coverage of the old analog and, were it not for the fact that the government in agreement with Telstra was able to introduce CDMA, they would have left regional and rural Australia in a parlous condition.This shows on a whole area of fronts that the previous government had an appalling record of lack of concern. Those of us who lived through the Goss state Labor government in Queensland—with the closure of train lines, DPI offices and courthouses—would know that there is no commitment in the opposition, at either the state or the federal level, to reinvigorate, reinforce and reintroduce facilities and services to regional and rural Australia.16:18:0012836Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate my colleague the member for Shortland on initiating the private member's motion. We are talking about a very serious issue, the divide between rural Australia and people living in capital cities—in particular, those living in Sydney and Melbourne. This divide is very significant and mirrors the divide which exists in Australia between the very rich and the very poor.The attitude of this government was best summed up by the previous so-called minister for regional development, John Sharp, who said that there was `no clear constitutional role' for Commonwealth involvement in regional development. That is what he said, that is what the government believed then and that is what the government believes now. Obviously the government believes that still, because it has abolished the so-called regional development portfolio, which used to exist at the Commonwealth level, and has replaced it with Regional Services appended to the transport portfolio—which demonstrates just how seriously the government takes regional development in this nation.The government does not realise the enormous potential of rural Australia. It honestly has no understanding of the enormous opportunities which we, as rural Australians, can offer the nation. That really is a clear difference between Labor and the conservative parties. Their approach is the old-fashioned, Country Party, pork-barrel approach. We on this side of the House have always been interested in rural empowerment. That has been the most significant difference in terms of policy between the government and us. What it has always been about is the old Country Party way: cutting off a slab of sick, maggot-infested pork, throwing it to rural communities and letting people make themselves sick while they feed on it for a while; while we have always been about going into those rural communities, working with them, empowering them and helping them choose their own future.We have seen from this government cuts to services time and time again. Have a look at what the government has in store for rural Australia. We have got serious threats to our post offices. I heard before a coalition member talking about the great advantages of rural transaction centres. What a con! What a farce! Everyone knows that the only way that that program has been able to be funded has been through massive cuts to Telstra and, in particular, through massive cuts to the jobs of Telstra employees in rural Australia.Anyone who reads the fine print should be aware that the rural transaction centres must become self-funding within five years, after which the funding is taken away. While some rural communities might say now, `This is great for us,' and give up their post office, unfortunately, in five years time, if the RTC is not self-funding, they will not have a post office to fall back on, and so they will have absolutely nothing.We have seen child-care centre closures in rural Australia. We have seen high unemployment rates, and none more so that in my own constituency, which continues to have the second highest unemployment rate in Australia. We have seen threats to regional universities and regional TAFE colleges. Recently in Victoria, Mr Deputy Speaker—as you would be aware, as a Victorian—the new state Labor government has revealed the parlous financial state of the Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE, an incredibly important provider of higher education in the region of Gippsland. It had been allowed to run down to a ridiculous state by the state and federal governments.More recently, we have seen the folly of coalescence in the aged care sector which will lead to the closure of such facilities as the Neerim District Soldiers Memorial Hospital, which provides an important nursing home function. We have heard a lot of talk from the government about their commitment to rural Australia, but in my part of the world there has not even been an invitation to participate in the Rural Australia Summit.The attitude of this government can be best seen in the attitude of the Prime Minister towards the region of Gippsland. Despite my giving an invitation to the Prime Minister to visit Gippsland so that he could see first hand the desperate economic circumstances we find ourselves in, some 10 months after I extended that invitation I have not heard even a word back as to when he plans to come and there has been no visit whatsoever. This Prime Minister hates the people of Gippsland. He is not serious about doing anything for them. The only time he comes to Gippsland is when he has a flak jacket on. He obviously thinks we are a bunch of thugs and he is not interested in engaging seriously with us. I congratulate the honourable member for introducing the motion. (Time expired)16:23:0012838Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise to speak against the motion on regional Australia of the member for Shortland and against what was said by the member for McMillan. What absolute nonsense, rubbish and hypocrisy they are talking! This federal government has done much to bring services to both rural and regional Australia without making people pay for a massive public service infrastructure. There is still a lot more to be done. Much of the social benefit from the partial sale of Telstra, for example, has gone directly to regional Australia and to the bush areas. In my electorate we now have cheaper calls and, although service is not really good as yet, it is getting better.The Networking the Nation program is making sure that rural and regional communities are able to communicate with the rest of the world, not just the next town or the rest of Australia. This allows access to the latest national and global information by farmers, small businesses, exporters, students, mums and dads. To encourage a clever country, first we have to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to access information.As you have heard, another basic communication model is the rural transaction centres. These are being set up in small communities all over Australia to ensure that everyone has access to banking, fax, phone and Medicare Easyclaim services. Control of these services has been given back to the people through community based management. Rural transaction centres are designed to complement not compete with services currently available and may be co-located in one commercial site such as the local general store. There are 67 towns and villages in my electorate, most of which have under 2,000 residents. Almost all of them would qualify for a rural transaction centre.Education facilities are being encouraged to make use of the latest technologies, such as phone hook-ups and videoconferencing, to bring classes to the bush. This is especially helpful for keeping young people in rural and regional areas. Previously, the young people of my electorate of Gilmore had to leave the region to access any university and most other tertiary level courses. Now the University of Wollongong and the Australian National University are setting up campuses in Gilmore, while the University of New England, Charles Sturt University and the University of New South Wales are also beaming in classes from their headquarters.Just a couple of weeks ago I began talks with representatives of the University of Sydney to establish a presence on the South Coast of New South Wales as well. Our kids no longer have to leave if they do not want to. They can at least begin their studies while remaining at home with the support of their families and friends. Similarly, our parents do not have to send their children away to ensure a high-quality education. Many farm and other small business owners can now continue to rely on their children for assistance without holding back their career prospects.In my electorate of Gilmore, these programs are already encouraging new business and we are about to unveil a leading-edge regional telecommunications infrastructure to rival any in Australia. Just last week I opened a regional community legal centre in the Shoalhaven. Australia is well known for its ingenuity and this government is helping to encourage it further. In terms of our natural heritage in the rural area, this government is again encouraging the community to identify its treasures and to protect, maintain and, in some cases, even rebuild them. Coastcare, Bushcare and Landcare—all programs to rejuvenate and protect—are initiatives of this government. In the medium to long term, these programs also bring back wealth and employment to rural and regional Australia.With responsible economic management, this government is providing the right climate for especially small and medium sized businesses and for trade. Most of the businesses in rural and regional Australia are in this category. As they grow or are established, they employ more people per capita than large businesses, and that is helping to reduce unemployment. In every way, the coalition government is providing effective long-term positive growth to rural and regional Australia through excellent management of resources in a difficult global context and with well-timed infrastructure assistance.We purposely do not specialise in bandaids; we specialise in proactive long-term structured assistance to completely remove the need for bandaids. As for this motion, I ask the member for Shortland: instead of harping and carping, tell us just what the Labor Party policy is. Where is it for all to see? What is the opposition offering beyond negativity? All I have heard you offer as yet is harping and carping and continual slamming, but nothing proactive, nothing substantial and nothing has been put before us for us to look at.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate12839Question proposed:That grievances be noted.1283916:28:0012839Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—The number of illegal immigrants entering Australia has been unprecedented. Almost daily, we see images on our television screens and in our newspapers of overcrowded boats filled to capacity with people intending to claim permanent refugee status in Australia. It seems that not only is the frequency of these arrivals increasing but so too is the number of people aboard each vessel. There are also many hundreds of illegal arrivals that enter this country by air.To many of us, these images are reminders of the thriving trade in people-smuggling, a trade which feeds on human suffering and the misfortune of fellow human beings. The first priority of the operators of people-smuggling rackets is not to provide a safe haven for refugees but to profit from human misery. Australia is a friendly and welcoming nation for migrants from all races. This year the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs set aside 12,000 places in the humanitarian program for entry into this country and thousands of people around the world are waiting for one of those places—and many of those people have close family ties with Australia. Their wait has now been made much longer due to the priorities of people smugglers, who continue to move people by the boatload into Australia promising a new life and, to refugees, safe haven for a significantly large fee. I call this queue-jumping. I would like to express that I grieve for the migrants of this country who are now enduring long periods of separation from their families because they took law-abiding steps to migrate to Australia. These people are the ones who are most affected by the dumping of illegal immigrants into this country by the people-smuggling rackets.In my electorate of Prospect, 52 per cent of the population were born overseas. Many of these people came to Australia under the government's humanitarian program to start a new and successful life. These migrants endured years of waiting to start their new life here in Australia. They abided by the immigration laws of this country, and their wonderful contribution to society has been essential to the cultural make-up of our nation. Many of those people have had to separate from their families. Many family members are still waiting overseas for one of the places that Australia sets aside each year under the migrant and refugee intake. In the meantime, their wait is being extended due to the influx of illegal immigrants who arrive via people-smuggling rackets and who expect to jump the queue to receive permanent residence in Australia.The government received bipartisan support for its legislation to crack down on illegal arrivals by ceasing to grant illegal immigrants permanent resident status, instead granting them a three-year temporary visa. While this is an effort—I must admit, a very belated one—to curb the influx of illegal immigrants into this country, the government still has a long way to go before it has fully addressed the problem. Refugees will continue to arrive in Australia via people-smuggling rackets for as long as those involved in these areas believe that the penalties, if they are caught by the authorities, are negligible and for as long as the potential illegal immigrants believe their chances of success are high.People-smuggling is a lucrative trade which thrives in areas where the risk of being caught is low. Rackets are often the work of highly skilled criminal organisations that make a very large profit out of human misery. The International Organisation for Migration estimated the proceeds worldwide for people-trafficking to be in excess of $10 billion a year. They also estimate that there are about four million people becoming illegal immigrants in the world at any one time.The government has clearly failed in its efforts to enforce protection of Australia's coastline. As a result, Australia is being seen as an easy target by these people smugglers. Australia's immigration laws are being blatantly disregarded by criminal syndicates. These rackets are not only allowing people to jump immigration queues; the cost of detaining and removing illegal arrivals has also certainly increased—taxpayers' dollars which could be redirected to other areas.A Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs fact sheet on people-smuggling states:. . . it costs the government on average $50,000 for every unauthorised arrival from the time of arrival to the time of departure.If we are to believe the figures, the boat people who have arrived in this calendar year alone are estimated to be close on 3,000. One only has to multiply to realise what that is costing the Australian taxpayer.In June this year, the government announced a further $124 million to increase surveillance for coastal protection. It remains to be seen whether this money will be well spent. Currently, the responsibility for protecting our 37,000-kilometre coastline is shared among a mix of defence and government organisations. This money does little to deter the large number of illegal immigrants also entering our country through our airports. The opposition has been calling for a dedicated coastguard service to patrol Australia's coastline. The message needs to be loud and clear, that is, that we have to tell those smugglers that Australia's coastline is being effectively monitored and that they will be caught. Australia must not be seen as an easy target for illegal immigration and people-smuggling rackets.Reaction from some members of the public and the media to our support of the changes in legislation was to claim that the new measures were too harsh on illegal immigrants. Some people even accused the legislation of being racially biased. I will give those people some background to those involved in the people-smuggling rackets. The Age reported on 18 November this year that one particular syndicate was offering, for the rate of $12,500, hotel accommodation in Indonesia, transfer to a fishing or cargo vessel and a drop-off point along the Australian northern coast. At $12,500 per person to jump the queue, and boats arriving with more than 300 people on board, there is evidence of a roaring trade in people-smuggling.There are also departmental reports of illegal immigrants entering the country who have already received refugee status in other countries. The Herald Sun reported on 13 October 1999 that the immigration department had confirmed the case of a woman who had gained refugee status in the United States and then attempted to enter Australia illegally with the aid of the people-smuggling racketeers. I have to say in this House that for once I agree with the minister for immigration. He said in his media release:. . . for the Government to remind people of the tough new penalties for people smugglers, such as the recent introduction of 20-year jail terms for traffickers and fines of up to $220,000 . . . In addition, unauthorised arrivals who are found to be refugees will now be granted a three-year temporary protection visa. People who are not refugees will be sent home as soon as possible.Other recent measures include legislation introducing tests such as fingerprinting and palm recognition, to ascertain the true identity of asylum seekers and to ensure that they do not already have protection elsewhere . . . We will need to implement those words and turn them into very forceful action. I believe that people-smuggling is a most deceitful and unscrupulous trade. The racketeers are feeding off the misery and desperation of people. While people-smuggling rackets continue to thrive, potential migrants and refugees are being pushed further down the government's waiting list. Their wait to be reunited with family members or to start a new life in Australia is being prolonged by others queue- jumping. The rackets are operated by people who generally have little or no respect for Australia's laws or for human dignity, and they are to be condemned. No-one should be sympathising with people smugglers.Critics of Australia's approach to the issue must realise that Australia does have laws—laws which regulate the flow of migrants into this country. These laws must be upheld and they must not be compromised by the dollar driven profiteers of people-smuggling rackets. Time and time again, I have had meetings with constituents in my electorate who have come to me in tears when their family has been refused entry to Australia or they realise they will have to wait another two or three years for consideration of their particular application.As you realise, it is very difficult under the points system to have family members reunited in this country, and a lot of them try to see if they qualify for humanitarian and refugee status. In doing so they obey the laws of this country. They are the ones who are being affected the most when these smugglers bring these people to these shores and then we, for one reason or another, grant residence to those people who come to our shores illegally.It is very difficult to explain it to constituents who abide by the law and virtually feel that they are now being criticised or, more importantly, have not been justified in what they are trying to do correctly. I say to them, and I say to all the other people around this country who have family members overseas with whom they are trying to be reunited, that we—both the government and the opposition—must crack down on these illegal people-smuggling rackets.I believe also that the message must get across loud and clear to other nations that we in this country will have people come to our country but under our laws and under our invitation, not because someone feels they can make a quick buck and can profiteer from misery and despair. I condemn them for their actions and say to the government that they must keep up the work to make sure that the message is getting around to the other countries very loudly and clearly that we will not tolerate this action any further. (Time expired)1284116:38:0012841Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I concur with those concluding remarks of the member for Prospect—that we have to get out as much as possible right around the world the message that we will not accept illegal immigration.I would like to talk today about a matter that has some relation to that which the member for Prospect raised, but I would also like to talk more about what has been happening in East Timor, in particular the role Australians have played in East Timor and the outstanding work that has been done by the Australian members who are serving as part of the INTERFET peacekeeping forces.I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity last Thursday, along with other members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—members from both sides of the parliament—to visit East Timor and see first hand what has occurred there. I must admit it was with stunned amazement that we flew in and saw the level of destruction. I thought this was very much reinforced by an article in today's Financial Review by Geoffrey Barker which talked a little bit about this but also went on to talk about some of the other aspects of our relationship with Indonesia.Let us come back to the Timor question first of all. Something that all Australians should feel very proud of is the contribution that our troops have made as part of the INTERFET forces—there are now over 20 nations supporting the peacekeeping efforts there—and also the outstanding leadership of Major General Peter Cosgrove. He will deserve all the commendations he gets for the work that he has done in leading that INTERFET force in the way that has shown very real compassion towards the people of East Timor who have suffered dreadfully and, at the same time, for bringing peace and ensuring that those elements that have caused so much destruction cannot exercise their influence any further.One of the things that really strikes you when you go to East Timor is the level of destruction. It is estimated that over 70 per cent of buildings have been burnt, and the frightening thing is the systematic way in which this has been done, with such military precision. It was well planned. It was not some random act, and that destruction obviously went further than just the houses. As we know, there was looting prior to the destruction and women were raped.As was pointed out in the article today in the Financial Review, we saw the results of not only the murdering, raping, abducting, looting, wrecking and burning that went on but also the slaughtering of every water buffalo and every chicken that those people could find. Apparently, the water buffalo were shot because they were used to plough the rice paddies that provide East Timor's staple cereal. Chickens were targeted because they provide East Timor's meat and eggs. The TNI leaders, according to the article, apparently decided that the East Timorese who could not be killed quickly would be starved slowly. That is a pretty stark statement and is rather horrifying.I bring this matter up in relation to what has happened since in our relations with Indonesia; the difficulties we have had with the people-smuggling into Australia that has been going on and the fact that many of these people are coming through Indonesia. Of great concern amongst Australians are the difficulties we have and some of the criticism our leaders are receiving from the new President of Indonesia, President Wahid. When the Prime Minister, quite reasonably, I believe, asked for some assistance from the Indonesian government to try to stop this people-smuggling, it was rather disappointing and difficult to take when the President described the Prime Minister's remarks as childish and used other less than complimentary words. It is quite reasonable for the Prime Minister to express some public disappointment at the response to what is a very difficult situation facing Australia—the smuggling of illegal migrants or refugees—and it is not unreason able to think that we might get some cooperation.However, I think it should also be pointed out that Australia's behaviour over the whole East Timorese question has been proper. At all times we have respected Indonesian sovereignty and, despite any strains in the relations with Indonesia, we have attempted to behave in the right and proper way. The President's response is very disappointing but, when it comes to East Timor, we can say that Australia approached this issue in a proper manner. We studiously respected Indonesia's sovereignty over East Timor, and we at all times worked through the United Nations, with the support of many other countries, to attempt to bring peace to a country which had demonstrated in a free and independent vote that nearly 80 per cent of East Timorese no longer wanted to be under the rule of Indonesia.That free vote was exercised by the Timorese not without some harassment but, nonetheless, their having so voted, the response was quite savage. As I said, the so-called militia went through there in such a systematic way, causing such destruction. And it was clear, as the Secretary-General of the United Nations pointed out, that at times there was direct Indonesian involvement in a lot of that destruction. Notwithstanding that, Australia has attempted to continue to maintain good relations.Coming back to what is happening in East Timor now: it is clear that Australian troops have done a great job as part of the INTERFET forces, and it has not always been that easy. For example, we visited Suai in the south. There are members of the 3rd Brigade who have been there for some time—some 10 weeks—and still do not have running water, and they have been operating solidly over that time. Nonetheless, the morale is still good and they are still continuing to do their job. Most importantly, as Major General Cosgrove pointed out to us, peace has been established for at least 95 per cent of the population.It is also very heartening to see the level of support that our troops over there are receiving from Australia. I think the visit of the Prime Minister and the visit of the Leader of the Opposition have certainly helped to reinforce the morale, as indeed I believe did the visit of the delegation on Thursday, in showing that the Australian parliament and therefore the nation's leaders are very keen to ensure that we show proper support for the excellent work that has been done there.It is obviously clear now that there is going to be considerable work required, first of all, to maintain that peace but, more importantly, to rebuild East Timor. We are aware that the United Nations are likely to take over the peacekeeping role at the end of February. While Australia's direct involvement may be scaled down, I know there are many Australians who are very willing to help in all sorts of ways to assist the East Timorese to rebuild their nation. I think it is important that that work is properly directed. There are some 56 non-government organisations already in East Timor with of course the United Nations leading the way. Also the Catholic Church, which has been dominant in East Timor, will play an important role in that rebuilding.I would like to conclude by again saying that I think Australia's behaviour towards Indonesia has been proper. We have studiously respected their sovereignty and we continue to provide aid to Indonesia, and they are still our second largest recipient of overseas aid. I think Australia's contributions through the UN to East Timor are a credit to all Australians, and I have no doubt that that commitment will continue. I again make the point that, while we do have some considerable difficulties with people-smuggling, it is deeply disappointing to see the attitude of the newly elected President of Indonesia towards our quite reasonable requests for some cooperation in trying to stamp out this trade. (Time expired)1284316:48:0012843Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—In my first grievance debate in this House six months ago I raised the issue of the privatisation of Telstra and the need for improving telecommunications services in my electorate of Braddon, which takes in the north-west coast of Tasmania—of which you, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, are well aware and which you have visited—parts of the west coast and King Island. I remember pointing out that the social bonus rhetoric that government members boasted about did not disguise the fact that in my electorate a sizeable number of communities, households and businesses could not access basic television, radio and mobile phone services. The government went on a roadshow announcing social bonus projects and, I must say, many of these projects would appear to benefit my state. I am not complaining necessarily about these and I concede that with the sale of the second tranche of Telstra we must now set out to ensure that the so-called social benefits that fall to communities do indeed benefit those communities.Being a member of this House's Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has allowed me to travel around regional Australia. Time and time again—and I do not mind harping about this because I have done so many times before and I hear other members in this House from both sides doing the same—communities complain about poor to non-existent telecommunications services and products ranging from installation and servicing problems in telephony, poor TV reception, no SBS and no mobile phone coverage to the high cost of ISDN connection and so forth.It is somewhat ironic that we have a major debate going on about high definition TV when large numbers of our citizens cannot even access basic television services let alone other telecommunications. I would have thought our first priority—that is, our first social benefit—would be to rectify this situation so that there is some equity amongst rural, remote, regional and metropolitan Australians. No wonder regional Australia is screaming out for some notice, some recognition, that people actually do live, work, recreate and learn in these regions and would like to continue to do so.In a more concerted attempt to highlight the inequity that exists concerning basic telecommunications infrastructure and services in my own electorate, I set out to conduct a telecommunications black spot audit. The black spot audit questionnaire was distributed electorate wide and included the now redistributed part of Lyons—that is, the Latrobe municipality— in order to get a representative sample. It sought to identify and quantify major telecommunications problem areas in terms of location, the telecommunications product itself and the extent of the problem.Until now, evidence of telecommunications problems across the north-west coast has been largely anecdotal. The audit deliberately focused on obtaining information and comment from people living, working and recreating in major black spot areas as distinct from those experiencing minor difficulties with telecommunications. It sought simple, non-emotive and factual information and targeted areas where coverage is either non-existent or very poor. This criterion was stressed several times to isolate genuine black spots. The questionnaire specifically sought information related to TV reception where people actually live, mobile phone coverage where people live, work and recreate—all of these individually—and radio reception related to Triple J and ABC Radio National where people live. There was also a chance for people to comment on each of the TV, mobile phone and radio categories.The audit took 2½ months to complete and has been quantified in a 50-page report to be distributed to all levels of government, to industry and to interested parties. Six hundred responses were received from across the north-west coast, including the Latrobe municipality and parts of the west coast. This is considered a good electorate-wide sample, particularly as the survey focused only on major black spot areas where, as I mentioned, coverage is either non-existent or very poor. Responses were received from 75 separate locations from the Port Sorell, Shearwater and Hawley areas in the east to Three Hummock Island in the west. The response from hinterland areas was no surprise, given the well-known anecdotal evidence and the topography of the region. The worst affected areas include Gunns Plains, Turners Beach, my own village of Forth, Penguin, Heybridge, Sisters Beach, beautiful Boat Harbour and widespread locations in the Circular Head municipality and King Island. Residents in these areas reported problems across the spectrum of questions on the survey form.What was surprising was the response from the major population centres of Devonport, Ulverstone, Burnie and Wynyard. The audit revealed significant problem areas in Devonport and Burnie, with a 10 per cent response to the survey from both cities. The central coast municipality, including Ulverstone, Forth, Turners Beach, Gunns Plains and Penguin, registered 18 per cent of responses. There was a similar response from areas within the Wynyard-Waratah region, particularly with regard to television reception and mobile phone coverage in Sisters Beach and Boat Harbour. Areas within the Latrobe municipality, primarily Port Sorell, Shearwater and Hawley, are also experiencing problems, mainly with television reception.Over 20 per cent of respondents were from the Circular Head region, which again highlighted problems ranging from unwatchable television, both commercial and ABC stations—and I point out that SBS is not yet available in the Circular Head region—to mobile phone coverage and poor radio reception. As expected, there was a high response rate from King Island, which still has no mobile phone or SBS coverage and is fearful of losing its emergency paging system by June.Twenty-six mobile telephone black spots were listed in the region, while 100 respondents reported problems with coverage at work, and 70 separate locations were identified as problem areas in leisure and recreational activities. Remember, we are talking about non-existent to very poor reception. A further 192 people reported no mobile phone coverage where they live, and another 108 said that the signal drops in and out. Respondents from more than 80 locations said that radio reception was poor, while there were another 53 locations that did not receive ABC Radio National and Triple J.I know that few people know where Braddon is and few people seem to worry about a few hundred people, but 600 people in my electorate is a lot of people because we are talking about 70 to 80 locations being affected as black spots. In proportion to my electorate, that is large. We have a problem, and we have to seek ways of fixing the problem.As I mentioned earlier, it has been said that money from the sale of the further 16 per cent of Telstra will give Tasmanians access to advanced telecommunications systems, and that is to be commended. At Burnie on Sunday the Portside project was opened as a business incubator by Senator Watson, Premier Bacon representing the Tasmanian government, and the Burnie municipal council. It is a great initiative, and I commend the government for its support of that. These are great things. But we are talking about basic reception of television, radio and mobile phone, not the more sophisticated telecommunications systems. In many forms in this region or in my region people cannot get something as basic as proper TV reception.It is imperative that concerns over television reception across the north-west and the west coast of Tasmania are taken into account when policy guidelines are developed by the government for the black spot component of the federal government's $120 million television fund. When these guidelines have been finalised, applications will be invited from people and organisations that are eligible for assistance under the fund. A detailed schedule of plans to upgrade mobile telephone coverage under the expanded mobile phone coverage program in Tasmania is also yet to be finalised. Tasmania has also been promised $10 million from the Building Additional Rural Networks program, BARN, to improve telecommunications services. I hope that the information collected and the comments in my black spot audit will assist in helping a share of this funding materialise in the north-west region.I would like to finish with some of the comments from survey participants. I am sure these will be replicated in other regional areas of Australia. `Some evenings it is pointless turning on the TV,' said X of Penguin. Another respondent said, `We can get signals from outer space, why not at Sisters Beach?' `It seems once you leave major centres the government couldn't care less,' said a respondent from Spreyton. `I pay my taxes like everyone else so I expect the same services as everyone else,' said a respondent from Stanley. `All up and down the west coast is one big black spot,' said a respondent from Moorleah. Another respondent said, `TV is quite boring with only one station to watch.' A respondent from Gunns Plains said, `No reception whatsoever. Simply does not exist.' `We need a mobile phone service to keep up with other businesses that take it for granted,' said a respondent from Marrawah.1284516:58:0012845McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—This morning we learned that the World Trade Organisation talks in Seattle had failed. One of the factors would have been the US President's advocacy of punitive trade treatment of countries that did not meet labour market standards—whatever his interpretation of that might have been. Appeasing domestic labour union interests to boost Vice President Gore's presidential chances is a possible motivation for the President's view. Today's editorial in the Australian Financial Review had this to say:The United States . . . destroyed the event by acting like a self interested superpower with its unilateral presidential intervention.Political expediency has ruled the day in these WTO talks. The fight for freer, more open and more efficient use of the world's resources is not over. Ironically, poorer nations would lose the most if the views of the protectionist protesters were to prevail.Freer world trade would raise living standards in those Third World countries. To quote MIT economist Paul Krugman in the Australian on 2 December 1999:Every successful example of economic development this past century has taken place via globalisation.The failure to develop and lead a plan to eliminate export subsidies was a huge shortcoming of the Seattle WTO conference. Australia will be profoundly affected by decisions to pursue, or not to pursue, free trade, particularly in agriculture. In the meantime, we hear talk of a third way which purports to somehow reject both the free economy and socialism in the one breath. But underlying the third way is the familiar and flawed belief that state intervention in the economy is desirable in most cases.The fundamental argument is about whether there should be a command economy, like that of the former Soviet Union, or a market driven economy. Command economies have an appalling track record of telling people where they should work and live and in deciding what should be produced and in what numbers. If you look at the five-year plans of the Soviet Union, they never met budget and, generally, they were total failures. Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries were command economies. They underperformed economically, destroyed their natural environment and were unsustainable and morally bankrupt.In the early 1970s it was said that we were all Keynesians but, within months, high inflation and unemployment in the Western economies destroyed such a notion. One of the first to challenge the flawed Keynesian orthodoxy was Friedrich Hayek, who predicted the stagnation and undermining of individual responsibility that state intervention would, and inevitably did, bring. He foretold how the interventionist state would stifle creativity and wealth creation and lead to a new poverty of the masses. He cogently expressed this in his classic work, The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944. The Victorian government tried a command type economy in the 1980s. Wild spending programs and other state interventionist policies, like WorkCover, were a major cause of Victoria's economic basket case status.The Kennett government, on the other hand, privatised the power and gas industries and dumped the grand spending programs. Under the Kennett government, state debt went from $32 billion to $6 billion, unemployment was almost halved and a $2 billion budget deficit—a cash deficit because they did not have the money to pay the accounts, as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker—was converted to a surplus of $1.7 billion in 1999. Meanwhile, the Howard government has scaled back the Keating administration's $96 billion government debt and eliminated the federal budget deficit of $10 billion. Another unwelcome hangover of the flawed faith in interventionist economic policies comes from some practitioners of faith itself. Sadly, we see certain Australian church leaders still advocating failed state interventionist policies. Their failure to grasp that wealth has to be created to pay for welfare is glaringly obvious.However, we have one advocate on the other side of the argument: the eminent American theologian Michael Novak. In a collection of essays entitled In Praise of the Free Economy, he writes that the welfare state:Has over-promised and underachieved. . . . . . . . .The problem with the welfare state is that it has been so designed that it has become a substitute for responsibility, freedom, self-control and the law.Governments everywhere are realising that positive social and economic change must be market driven. The free economy puts economic decision making back into the hands of people themselves. The sale of Telstra shares to the Australian public—which the member for Braddon referred to—is a sign of the further development of democratic capitalism in this country, with many more people than ever before owning shares.The world has increasingly embraced open economies. It would be rash to claim, as American thinker Francis Fukyama did in the late 1980s, that ideology is dead and that capitalism has triumphed around the globe, but the trend has been for greater economic freedom. The regimes in North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Cuba pose the greatest concern. These countries' combined gross domestic product is a mere $174 billion compared to the amazing $7.6 trillion American economy. Although the nations that today threaten free economies are no longer the size and strength of the former Soviet Union, we should be on our guard. The spread of nuclear capacity to smaller nations and the rise of religious fundamentalism is a dangerous cocktail that one day may pose as serious a threat as the Cold War once did.The challenge for Australia, as the world's l4th largest economy, is to be an advocate for free markets and free trade. The temptations of shaky quick fixes, such as withdrawing from world trade obligations, must be resisted. Professor Geoff Blainey, writing in the Age on 15 July 1999, noted that a century ago free trade and internationalism were destroyed by protectionist ideas. He stated that an:. . . extraordinary era of globalisation—though not as profound as we now experience—came to a halt in 1914. The building of great protective walls then became the goal of most nations.Without deregulation and openness, Australia could not have come out of the Asian crisis as strongly as it did. Labour market and financial deregulation, along with strong prudential financial requirements, are the best protection against financial crisis.We must protect openness, freedom and choice for they are not necessarily inevitable and irresistible forces. We must also reject the belief that the Asian meltdown was caused by a lack of intervention, and capitalism run wild. Instead, corruption, influence peddling, monopolies, state sponsored cronyism and other behaviour diametrically opposed to free, open, competitive and contestable markets were the fundamental cause of the Asian crisis. Transparency, freedom, openness and competition were the antidotes to the meltdown and not the causes. Hong Kong and Singapore did not suffer as much devastation as was wrought upon their near neighbours. High levels of economic freedom helped them.Singapore is second only to Switzerland as the world's freest and most competitive economy. It has low income tax, no exchange controls, no controls on profits going overseas and no foreign ownership restrictions. It also has very high standards of living, with a GNP per capita of $US26,450. Singapore has performed relatively well, without retreating into protectionist and inward looking trade and financial policies. It is an experience that provides a lesson for us here in Australia. A retreat from the market would be a retreat from a better way of life for all Australians and for people around the world. The breakdown of the WTO talks is regrettable because it threatens these rewards of higher productivity and more wealth for people across the globe. Rather than pander to interest groups for expedient political reasons, the United States and the European Community should lead in the removal of barriers to trade so that people the world over can benefit from a more open and international economy.1284717:08:0012847Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—We are reaching the end of this millennium and the end of this century. The United States government determined some time ago its attitude as to when the end of this millennium and the beginning of the next should be, the end of this century and the beginning of the next. The position of this government—its full governmental position—has been in accord with that of the United States that, in fact, the next century will start from 1 January 2001, as indeed will the next millennium. But if you look at popular literature, if you look at the media in Australia, if you look at the drive and impulse of the market, that has been completely overridden. Both in the United States and here, the government stance that there is a particular time at which the next century and millennium will start has been overridden by commercial pressures.Yesterday on the Sunday program, there was a question to the Prime Minister relating to this. Mr Laurie Oakes asked him whether this would be his last interview of the millennium, and the Prime Minister readily agreed. Mr Oakes then asked a follow-up question. He said, `But you don't actually believe that the millennium is finishing this year; you think it's next year.' The Prime Minister's answer was that technically that might be the case, but essentially he did not want to stop the party for the people who would be celebrating at the end of 1999.There is a great deal of confusion about this topic. There are differences of opinion, there are differences of attitude, but the weight has certainly come down on the side of the free market, the side of the commercial interests that are interested in pushing this as the millennium party at the end of this year. Getting into that has done a great deal of damage, particularly in our school systems. It has done a lot of damage to the significant position and the importance that we should place on simply what being correct about these matters means and should mean for us.The reason we have a problem—and, as a history teacher, I have had experience with this in trying to explain to school children what time lines are about, how you calculate what a decade is, what a century is and what a millennium is—is that, for a lot of people, it seems to be counter-intuitive that you could run a decade for 10 years and it would not run from 1950 up to 1959 but would start in 1951 and end in 1960. That seems to be counter-intuitive, and that is the base argument out in the market. That is, with a 10-year period, the first year has to be year zero. When a child is born, they are not one at the moment of birth. It may be their first year, but they are zero for the first period of time.In our civilisation we have a strong Judaeo-Christian ethic and we also have a strong Greco-Roman heritage, and our calendrical systems are part of the heritage of both of those. The Romans had no idea of what a zero was. We are lucky, we can have a decimal or a metric system here because in about the seventh century the Arabs invented the notion of zero. From that time on, people's computational abilities were vastly different to and much more flexible than those of the Roman people. Their calendars and counting systems effectively were duodecimal; they were tied to 12 or 13 months of the year, depending upon how that was calculated, and they were tied to a system that had very little flexibility.But our system of counting the years and, I think, sticking to it is important, especially when looking at how we should try to help people structure their notion of time and to keep the traditions on which our system is based, both our Judaeo-Christian tradition and our Greco-Roman tradition, in terms of working out just what a decade and a century are. I will just give a couple of examples of that. I have said plenty of decades of the rosary and when I said those I was pretty sure that the first hail Mary and the 10th hail Mary were of equal value but also that you needed 10 of them to make up that decade of the rosary. Likewise, there are 10 years of time in a decade, and nine does not make 10; zero does not count because you start with a full one to begin with.If we were going to just rely upon the technical in regard to this, we could actually rewrite a bit of Australian history. Taking Don Bradman's test average, because he got out for a duck in his last game—he did not score the four runs he needed—his test average was 99.9. If we were to give in to market forces and let them reign and let consumerism reign, we could say, even though technically a century in cricket is 100, 99.9 would do and we should give that century to anyone. Equally, we should say 999 should equal 1,000.I think it is important that we do not give in to market forces on this. Whatever parties people have and the rest of it, it is important that we are able to establish that the reality, as perceived by this government and the United States government, is that the first hundred years of this federal parliament will occur on 1 January 2001; that is our centenary. It is a full hundred years; it is not 99. It will not occur on 1 January 2000. That is significant for this nation, and it should not be bowdlerised just because commercial interests and market forces say it should be otherwise.It is equally important that in our schooling systems, particularly in civics and history studies, the whole notion of attempting to teach people a clear vision of what time is and how it is constructed in our societies is not advanced by giving in to pure free market forces. There is a place for government intervention; there is a place for governments stipulating what the accepted traditions are in relation to counting things and establishing timelines. Contrary to the member for Macarthur who was speaking in another context, there still is a role for this federal parliament; there still is a role for this and other governments to give people a more concrete and certain sense of what century we are living in.For a program of the significance and the weight of the Sunday program to take up the popular, consumerist, market driven notion that this is the end of the millennium, this is the end of the century and that whatever was there traditionally and had a good, sound, logical basis—because the Romans did not have the zero—for how to calculate all of those things, that should not be simply overridden. I think society would be poorer for that lack of certainty, for that lack of discrimination and for the lack of a clear approach to where we have been and where we are going.We will enter the 21st century on 1 January, 2001; we will enter the real millennium at that point in time. The impact of a correct dating on people's lives is not great, because people will continue to live and go about their daily work and affairs. But this is a particularly important matter in terms of the education system in this country. It is a particularly interesting artefact that, approaching the end of the millennium, generally the market forces just do not have this right.If there is a truism about the next century and the next millennium of human history, it is that we are entering an information and knowledge economy. If we cannot get this right, if we cannot use past information, past knowledge, to put the correct parameters on where we are in time, that does not bode very well for where we are going to go in the future. I would suggest that we need a reaffirmation of this situation from a government point of view and the parliament's point of view, for all of those children now in school attempting to grapple with timelines and attempting to grapple with our past history. Otherwise when those children look at the weight of argument, the weight of debate and the weight of presentation in this year of 1999, they could say to any teacher, any peer or any adult, `But this is the end of the millennium. It is end of the century because most people have said so.' This is not a case where market forces, consumer driven interests and commercial interests should dominate and where the popular interests should override a correct addressing of where we are. (Time expired)1284917:18:0012849Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, as you will know probably better than many, foreign affairs in this country has been brought home as an issue to Australians recently in a way that we probably have not seen for some time. Recent events, particularly in East Timor and Indonesia, are forcing us to re-evaluate some of our thinking not only in our foreign affairs strategy but also in some of our defence planning and execution. Therefore, I thought it might be worth while addressing some of those issues today. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am conscious that, in your capacity as the member for Wannon earlier in this debate, you may have touched on some of this area as well.I want to say a few things about East Timor because 10 members of this parliament had the opportunity to visit that country last week and to see for ourselves what was happening in a defensive sense, in terms of the refugees, in terms of the United Nations action and so on. From my observations, it seemed to me that our military had acquitted themselves outstandingly well. Although they had acquitted themselves outstandingly well and we are all suitably proud of them and support them—there is no question about that—in some senses it would have been a fairly close-run thing if they had had to face an enemy of real substance. I say that because, in terms of equipment availability, quantity and readiness, that was sometimes a bit tight and, in terms of the hours and efforts those troops are having to put in on an ongoing basis, clearly that is not sustainable for too much longer into the future. So, whilst it has gone very well, I think we have learnt some very valuable military lessons.I can inform the House quite categorically that Australia is pretty popular with the local population in East Timor. As you drive around East Timor in an Australian vehicle, you have not only all the little kids but also many of the adults waving their hands and giving you the thumbs up or the victory signs. They are very supportive and appreciative of what we have done as a country to help them—not only Australians as such but also Australia's efforts in marshalling the United Nations and that international force.The refugees are certainly being fed, but clearly there is a long-term accommodation problem because the destruction really is quite stunning. You would think that there had been a major war in that country between two sides, with bombing and shelling and all the rest of it, when that is not what happened at all. There is the destruction of large parts of Dili. We also went via helicopter down to Suai in the south-east, and it is impossible to see a building with its roof on in Suai. In fact, if they are brick buildings, they have usually been burnt out; if they are wooden buildings, there is a black scorch mark on the ground. The destruction is on such a scale—so widespread and so complete—that it clearly had to have been organised by the TNI rather than being a gang of hooligans running riot. We also had the opportunity to meet the United Nations human rights investigating team. From talking to them, there is no question that a report will go to the UN calling for further action in terms of human rights abuses and the behaviour of the TNI in East Timor.It is also important for all the reasons I have just mentioned that the United Nations peacekeeping force takes over fairly quickly so that Australia, having done the right thing, is perhaps no longer the prime mover, although I think we will be a major contributor to any peacekeeping and aid activity in that country for a long time. I believe that what Australia did was correct, but it did illustrate some problems. Firstly, on our military preparedness, we have always taken the view that we would have some notice of an event coming up and that we would have time to get the troops in place, to get the equipment and so on. What East Timor showed us quite clearly is that there is no notice given these days, particularly if you are going in under such an emergency situation. So we need to develop our defence strategy on that basis.One of the other issues that came out of this was the assumed support that we thought we would always get from the United States. Clearly, that was not there. I think the United States were, frankly, somewhat recalcitrant. They demonstrated tardiness in supporting the operation in East Timor and in applying some pressure to Indonesia to allow the United Nations force in there. The United States' participation or non-participation in East Timor, although they finally came to the party in a limited way, shows that there are some other concerns for this country in terms of that relationship. For example, we are well aware that the United States' relationship with China—which is also important to us—has been heavily influenced in recent months by domestic politics. We know that the States have a lame duck President who, although he knows what is the right thing to do in a number of areas, manifestly either cannot or will not deliver. The latest example of that is probably the World Trade Organisation meeting last week.It seems to me that United States' interests are not always Australia's interests. One of those situations might be in terms of Taiwan. Taiwan is an important country to us. It is an important trading country. It is a democratic country these days, and that is important. But do we want to automatically be dragged into a war if the United States decides to come in on the Taiwanese side in any future conflict with mainland China? It seems to me that, if the Taiwanese were to provoke such a situation, we would not necessarily want to automatically become involved.I refer the House to an article by Professor Stuart Harris in the Financial Review on 5 November. There is not time to go into all of that here, but he makes the point very strongly—and I would agree with the point that he makes—that it is not necessarily appropriate for us to always automatically be locked in to whatever the States want to do. As a footnote to our relationship with the United States, I must say that I know many members of this House are frustrated by the fact that we have the Pine Gap facility which United States congressmen can go and view but members of this House are not allowed to go and view.Another issue in our foreign affairs policy is the big exposure we have had this year to China. We have seen significant changes in our relationship with China which the Australian people probably would not have thought possible a few years ago. Of course, trade is an important part of our relationship with China, but we also have a significant dialogue on human rights. That dialogue has come under some criticism from a number of quarters. I think we need to understand that, whilst that dialogue is important and hopefully we are seeing some small signs of improvement, there is a long way to go before China's approach to human rights will be totally compatible with this country's. There fore, we need some pragmatism in the relationship. There has been a lot of talk about special relationships and so on, but it seems to me that you have got to develop relationships with different countries in different ways, depending on the circumstances.With respect to Indonesia—our nearest and largest neighbour—I think that we are going to have a particularly rocky and difficult future in the next few years. It is a touchy subject for the Indonesians themselves. We need to give them credit for the democratic elections. Perhaps there is an element of when you are in trouble at home you blame somebody overseas. They have got all sorts of problems at home with the economy, Aceh, Ambon and so on, so perhaps it is useful to take a few pot shots at Australia. The army is still perhaps a slightly unknown but an important force politically and militarily within the country. That is going to be difficult. The reaction from Indonesia over things like the illegal immigrants has been a major disappointment. And it has been particularly disappointing that President Wahid has been getting a bit personal, and I do not think that is a good sign.Of course we have good relationships with a number of other countries in the region. All of these things mean that the rules in our region and for our foreign policy have changed. We need to re-evaluate our defence and foreign affairs policy. We need to stand up for our own standards but not necessarily try to impose those on other people. We need to change other people's views on some issues of cooperation through talk. We need to find peaceful solutions—not military solutions—if it is at all possible. We are not necessarily slaves to the Americans. We need to develop a new strategy and, if appropriate, restructure to support our new foreign affairs strategy, our defence force posture. Above all, remember that we have to live in the region and that life is not always going to be easy. (Time expired)1285117:28:0012851Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in the debate in order to speak on my recent visit to refugee camps in West Timor, to table my report on that visit and to comment on what has transpired in the four weeks since then and what must now be done in order to prevent a large-scale humanitarian disaster. Between Saturday, 30 October and Wednesday, 3 November, I visited West Timor, including the provincial capital, Kupang, the regional centre of Atambua, as well as the northern port of Attapupu. During this visit, I had extensive discussions with the provincial government officials in Kupang, representatives of the Indonesian military and police, as well as representatives of a large number of UN agencies and NGOs currently in the field in West Timor.I was accompanied during this visit by three officers of the Australian embassy in Jakarta: Mr Les Rowe, the DCM; Mr Jo Leong, the Third Secretary; and Mr Titon Mitra of AusAID. I would like to thank the minister for making these officers available for the purposes of my visit. I would also like to pay tribute to the professionalism of these officers in the way in which they discharged their responsibilities while accompanying me in West Timor.The purpose of my visit was to investigate first-hand the conditions in the refugee camps in West Timor, currently accommodating—or at least at that stage accommodating—a quarter of a million East Timor refugees. My other objective was to examine the current operation of the repatriation agreement between the Indonesian government and the UNHCR for the return of refugees to East Timor. I would like to thank the Indonesian embassy and the government of Indonesia for providing me with the necessary approvals to travel to West Timor and the necessary levels of physical security for the duration of my visit.Upon my return to Australia I completed a report, a copy of which was provided to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 12 November. Broadly, its findings were as follows. First, while UN agencies are generally satisfied that there is no immediate food crisis in the 135 or more camps across West Timor, there is a grave and mounting concern about general health conditions in those camps. There is a scarcity of clean water, sanitation is negligible, immunisation levels against diseases such as measles are exceptionally low and, with the onset of the wet season, there is a grave concern about the further deterioration in these conditions, particularly when added to the normal resurgence of malaria and dengue fever at this time of the year.Second, on the question of the repatriation of refugees three major problems emerged. First, the continuing problem of military harassment and intimidation of those refugees seeking to return to East Timor; second, at that stage the absence of an effective cross-border agreement between INTERFET and the Indonesian military to allow large-scale road convoys to return refugees in large numbers; and, third, misinformation and disinformation within refugee communities about conditions back in East Timor, particularly in relation to the level of security and the availability of food and shelter upon return. The immediate dilemma is this: if the UNHCR fails to repatriate those 150,000 or so refugees currently in West Timor who wish to return to East Timor before the substantial onset of the wet season, there is a grave risk of a significant outbreak of disease in the refugee camps. World Health Organisation officials are particularly concerned about the impact of these diseases on the 50,000 children among the overall refugee population. Children, in particular those under five, are of course the most vulnerable.My report makes a number of recommendations about what needs to be done on each of these issues, and I have just received a reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, on each of these recommendations. I doubt that embassy officials who accompanied me on my visit would have drawn different conclusions from those which I drew myself. For part of my visit I was also accompanied by the British and American ambassadors, who it is likely drew similar conclusions to my own. Mr Deputy Speaker, I now seek leave to table my report.Leave granted.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—It is now four weeks since I returned from West Timor and, based on press reports, there does not appear to have been any radical improvement in the conditions which I described in my report. As far as humanitarian needs are concerned, an Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs appeal was launched globally for the requirements of the continued humanitarian effort in West Timor and East Timor. I note this government's recent announcement of its response to that appeal.On the critical question of militia violence, there have been a number of detailed press reports since my visit of semiautomatic weapons being used against refugee convoys on the road between Atambua and the port at Attapupu which I visited several weeks ago. These attacks have reportedly resulted in a number of casualties. It is also important at this time to reflect on the courage necessary for UNHCR officials to do their job properly under these trying circumstances.One positive development in the last fortnight has been the visit to Jakarta, West Timor and East Timor by the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke. Mr Holbrooke's conclusions, having visited West Timor the weekend before last, seem remarkably similar to my own conclusions of several weeks ago. Mr Holbrooke appears to have succeeded in concluding a new cross-border agreement between the Indonesian military and INTERFET, and this is to be welcomed. The bottom line is that, if large numbers of refugees are to be returned to East Timor successfully and safely, ferries and aircraft will simply take too long and disease will spread through the camps. However, opening the border does not of itself solve the problem of the militia physically preventing refugees from leaving the camps. Ambassador Holbrooke raised this issue with the Indonesian government in Jakarta the weekend before last. According to press reports, he received a positive reaction, although we still do not see concrete evidence of a change in policy on the ground.Where the rubber hits the road on this issue is as follows. The Indonesian military on the ground in West Timor must act against the militia now if the UNHCR is to have any chance of doing its job. As Ambassador Holbrooke also noted, the international standing of the new government in Jakarta is increasingly at stake on this issue. I arrived in Jakarta on the very day that President Wahid's new cabinet was being sworn in. His government is now barely three weeks old. The government has made a number of positive policy statements on the issue of the repatriation of refugees to East Timor, and these are to be welcomed. However, both the United States and the rest of the international community recognise that we are at a critical juncture at this very moment in managing the return of 150,000 human beings safely to their homes in East Timor.Plainly there was a problem under the Habibie administration when the Indonesian government would announce a policy in one direction only to find elements of the Indonesian military effectively undermining that policy in another direction. It is critical that we do not see a continuation of this dualism in the future. President Wahid leads a reformist government and his policy pronouncements have been enormously encouraging in relation to the normalisation of public administration in Indonesia. That process must include an appropriate response by the Indonesian military to the government's stated policy of rapidly facilitating the return of refugees to East Timor.I note from the Prime Minister's statement on this matter during the last sitting week that `the government will pursue this issue vigorously with the Indonesian government, the UN Secretary-General, other governments and appropriate relief agencies'. My question to the Prime Minister and to his minister is, however: what specific actions have now been taken by the government in these various capitals to ensure that the UNHCR can properly discharge its mandate. The UNHCR has a responsibility in this respect as well. Because the rains have already started, if the UNHCR cannot now give proper effect to its international mandate to return refugees safely across the border, it must bring this matter to a head in the relevant international fora.We cannot simply allow diplomatic niceties to get in the road of saving people's lives, particularly as this country, Australia, has played such a significant role in the events of East Timor in the period since the independence ballot of 30 August. In this context, I note with interest Ambassador Holbrooke's reported statement of 23 November that the civilian leadership of Indonesia:. . . all wanted us—that is, the United States—to put public pressure on the Indonesian military to solve this problem . . . They do not regard this as outside interference. They encouraged it. They welcomed it. They asked us to do it.There is a grave danger that in this country and elsewhere in the world international focus on the problems of Timor, both East and West, will simply fade away now that the novelty of it all has passed. Sound foreign policy, however, not to mention the requirement of international law, requires that we in this country do not simply fade away on this issue.We have a responsibility in Australia in relation to events in East Timor. We have been instrumental in a range of developments leading up to the emerging independence of that state. We therefore have a consequential public obligation, an obligation of public morality, to ensure that we do not walk away from the consequences which flow from that—and that includes the people in refugee camps in West Timor as well. (Time expired)1285317:38:0012853Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I rise today to speak about a few issues—some of them unrelated—and I certainly do not pretend that the gravity of some of them should be offset by some of the issues that I will talk about. Firstly, I want to remind the House that we are approaching the Sydney-Hobart Yacht Race, which will start in Sydney on Boxing Day 1999. This will be the last opportunity before the running of this race to speak a little about the disastrous race that started on Boxing Day 1998.At 1 p.m. on December 26, 115 yachts set sail and only 44 reached their intended destination a few days later. What started as a great day that I spent with my family on Sydney Harbour to see the beginning of the race turned into an absolute disaster for the yachtsmen Glyn Charles, Bruce Guy, Phil Skeggs, John Dean, Mike Bannister and my uncle, Jim Lawler, and for their families and their friends. The lessons from this race should not and have not been swept under the carpet. The resilience of the sailing fraternity is shown as they prepare themselves for another Sydney to Hobart. By and large, most of the sailors involved in the Sydney to Hobart have accepted the dangers that they face. They have accepted that the situation unravelled last year and are applying themselves to thinking forward rather than dwelling on the past.I would like to remind my colleagues and fellow Australians of the courageous efforts above and beyond the call of duty by men and women from the various rescue agencies that were involved in the search and rescue attempts for the six yachtsmen who died, and to express gratitude to them for the rescue of some 55 sailors. These people were touted as heroes in the few days following their rescue efforts but they have been largely forgotten since, and I do not believe they deserve that. They include the Victorian Polair helicopter aircrews, the Westpac Lifesaver rescue helicopter aircrews, NRMA Careflight, Gary Ticehurst Helicopters, the crew of the Moira Elizabeth and the crew of the Josephine Jean, the ACT & South-East New South Wales Aero-medical Helicopter Service, Telstra control radio, especially Lew Carter aboard the Young Endeavour, Lieutenant Commander Neil Galletly and the crew of STS Young Endeavour, the Victorian and New South Wales police, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol based in Eden, the Royal Australian Navy, especially the HMAS Wollongong, and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. The bravery and selflessness of these people and the people aboard these vessels is so very much appreciated by the families of those involved in the disaster.I would like also at this point to make a comment on the media coverage of this event and the rescue effort. In this day and age there is the demand of the public for in your lounge room, minute by minute television. Television and radio stations attempt to deliver what they perceive to be a public demand, but I believe this must be attempted with some accuracy and reporting with a thought to the emotional roller-coaster that is being experienced by the families of those missing.The pressure on reporters to bring this news as it happened into our lounge rooms resulted, in this case, in a huge amount of inaccurate and dangerous reporting. The people who reported often showed no regard for the feelings of the families who were involved, making sure that their No. 1 priority was not accuracy or public service but ratings and drama. The news variously reported that the men aboard the Winston Churchill, for example, were still afloat but had lost radio contact when in fact they were in the water. It said that they were about to be rescued by the Young Endeavour when in fact the Young Endeavour was nowhere near the site. They also reported that all were safely aboard life rafts when they had no way of checking the accuracy of this information. They further reported that the two life rafts had been spotted and those aboard were about to be rescued when in fact there was only one spotted and those aboard the second life raft had already lost their lives.I know the investigations continue into the race and I understand there are more to come next year, but I trust the findings will result in safer standards for the yachts and equipment and a better system to keep the families accurately informed on the lives of their loved ones. It should not be up to the rescue services themselves to provide this link to the families. There should be a system in place which can provide the link, with a dispassionate motive, and which should be freely available for the families of the people in situations like this—be it sailors in the Sydney to Hobart or some other disaster—so that they can have accurate, up-to-the-minute information and do not have to rely on the reporting on television, the purpose of which is not necessarily to deliver reliable and accurate information.I have spoken about the true heroes of the rescue effort in the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race. There are many other heroes that I would like to talk about. Recently I, as did everybody who is in this place, had the opportunity to present some Senior Citizens Recognition Awards. These people, too, are heroes in their own communities, albeit in a less public manner. The winner in my electorate of Parkes was a gentleman by the name of Bob Parker, who was selected from amongst 20 as the outstanding contributor amongst all the senior people who were nominated. Bob Parker has worked tirelessly on many committees, including Dubbo City Council Access, Dubbo City Council Community Services, the Dubbo Drug and Alcohol Committee, the Dubbo branch of the Red Cross and several others.As a result of his contact with a high number of disadvantaged people, Bob began collecting bread from a local baker and personally delivering it to needy families. A number of local businesses now donate goods, and Bob has now built up a run where he distributes food every day, with approximately $60,000 to $70,000 worth of goods per annum delivered to those in need. Bob has supplied donated Easter eggs and chocolate on Easter Sunday to about 360 people in undercare homes for the past 10 years. Food Bank in Sydney sends a pallet of food every few weeks at a small cost of 70c per kilo, but Bob pays for this out of his own pension. He is truly an outstanding Australian.The other people who were mentioned in the Senior Citizens Recognition of Awards in my electorate were, from Parkes, Jack Scoble, Betty Muzyczuk, Con Diamond, Nena Williams, Joyce Roeder and Phyllis Edwards; from Forbes, Robert Lytton; from Condobolin, Joan Reardon; from Terra Bella in Geurie, Trevor Stephenson; from Dubbo, Kevin Hopkins and Lona Edwards; from Tomingley, Lionel (Bill) Millgate; from Narromine, Jean McKillop, Ted Jackson, Joyce McCaffrey and Gwenda Mary Bourchier; from Trangie, Olive Fitzgerald and Lynell Chambers; and, from Menindee, William Moroney. These were the 20, from whom it was very difficult to choose.There were many others who did not make it on to the top 20 list but, because of the outstanding contribution that they had made, we also decided to present our own certificates to several others. Not the least of them was—and I will mention her by name—Emily Tonna from Broken Hill, who is 93 years old and still delivers Meals on Wheels to `the old people' and still serves in the St Vincent de Paul meal kitchen—again, for `the old people'. And this lady is herself 93 years old!0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—An amazing lady.834Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER—An amazing lady. The purpose of the Senior Citizens Recognition Awards was not to identify one outstanding person and say that their achievements were any better than those of another. They were really a symbolic gesture for the community to recognise that, just because we have a compulsory retirement age and certain ages set down for age pensions, that does not automatically mean that once people reach a certain age they are no longer active contributors to our society. In fact, many people go on contributing in an enormously beneficial way to the society in which they live, and these people were just a few of those. At one of the presentations we had—and, incidentally, we had presentations in Broken Hill, Narromine, Dubbo and Parkes, because that was where the bulk of the recipients were from—a comment was made by Jack Scoble that perhaps they did not need to be called `senior citizens awards' and that a more appropriate name would be the `Nearly Worn Out Australian' awards. The people who attended those celebrations were most appreciative of the fact that they were offered the opportunity and they all enjoyed themselves extremely well. It provided a great forum for people to mix and congratulate each other on their contributions.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Order! As the time for the grievance debate has expired, the debate is interrupted and I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees12855128551285517:48:0012855Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—by leave—On 23 November 1999, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources received a letter from Coudert Brothers, solicitors acting on behalf of the ANZ Banking Group and Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd. The letter contained a list of 12 documents that related to an inquiry into business conduct issues carried out by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in the 38th Parliament. The solicitors wished to know whether the documents were confidential and, if so, whether it was possible to obtain the authorisation of the House for their use in court proceedings due to commence in the New South Wales Supreme Court at the end of January 2000. A search of the files relating to the inquiry indicates that five of the documents were received on a confidential basis—items 2 and 3 in the list as confidential correspondence, and items 4,5 and 6 as confidential submissions. Items 1 and 7 to 12 inclusive consist of correspondence between parties other than the committee. Indeed, it would appear that the committee did not receive those items at all, and it certainly did not give them any confidential status.The industry, science and resources committee has considered this matter and does not favour changing the status of the documents, which the predecessor committee in the last Parliament received on a confidential basis. The committee therefore would not recommend that the House authorise the presentation of the confidential documents in any court proceedings.Bills12856Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill: Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 Bills12856The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 New Business Tax System (Income Tax Rates) Bill (No. 1) 1999 New Business Tax System (Former Subsidiary Tax Imposition) Bill 1999 New Business Tax System (Capital Allowances) Bill 1999 New Business Tax System (Capital Gains Tax) Bill 1999 New Business Tax System (Income Tax Rates) Bill (No. 2) 1999 Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Bills12856r94612856Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 9, page 105 (after line 3), after item 20, insert:20A At the end of section 177CAdd:(4) To avoid doubt, paragraph (1)(a) applies to a scheme if: (a) an amount of income is not included in the assessable income of the taxpayer of a year of income; and (b) an amount would have been included, or might reasonably be expected to have been included, in the assessable income if the scheme had not been entered into or carried out; and (c) instead, the taxpayer or any other taxpayer makes a discount capital gain (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ) for that or any other year of income.(5) Subsection (4) does not limit the generality of any other provision of this Part. 17:51:0012857Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.The objective of the amendment is to ensure that part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 applies to any scheme which would allow a taxpayer to convert an amount of income into a discount capital gain. While the government believes that part IVA would already cover these types of schemes, the amendment will avoid any doubt. The amendment will apply to assessments for the year of income, including 21 September 1999 and later years of income. Following the passage of this amendment and royal assent, the first group of bills implementing the government's landmark business tax reforms will have been passed. The government's business tax reforms have benefited from the input of the Australian business community through the consultations which were part of the Ralph review of business taxation. This has contributed to the new business tax system receiving widespread support within the community.Following the implementation of the government's reforms, Australia's business tax system will be internationally competitive. It will stimulate investment, economic growth and job creation. Company tax and capital gains tax rates will be lower. Small business and farmers will particularly benefit from the expanded and simplified capital gains tax rollover and retirement exemptions, and the investment in venture capital will also be boosted by the government's capital gains tax reforms. Other reforms announced by the government will be legislated progressively. I am pleased to commend the amendment to the chamber.17:53:0012857McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak on this message from the Senate in lieu of my colleague the member for Hotham, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow treasurer, who is unfortunately unavoidably detained. He asked me to say a few words about this amendment, which the opposition welcomes because the amendment to the New Business Tax System (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 1999 reflects the consideration in detail debate held in this House on this bill on 24 November, conducted by the Treasurer and shadow treasurer. It was one of those more unorthodox circumstances in this House in which some of the debate that took place in this parliament actually affected the outcome of the laws of the land. This is not a precedent that executive government necessarily welcomes, but in this instance I think Australian business certainly welcomed the outcome. I congratulate my colleague the shadow treasurer for the negotiation which he undertook overall and, in particular, as it relates to the amendment that is before us today.As part of the agreement between the government and the opposition on the passage of this bill, the government agreed to amend the general anti-avoidance provisions of the income tax legislation, generally known as part IVA, in order to deal with a potential problem that arises from the government's capital gains tax provisions. The underlying policy objective is to strengthen the current part IVA provisions of the income tax legislation to ensure that schemes entered into which have as their purpose a tax benefit by conversion of income to capital gains should be caught. This measure is necessary because of the potential in some circumstances for a widening of the gap between the effective capital gains tax rate and ordinary marginal tax rates. Of course, there will also be circumstances where the effective capital gains tax rate on investments will rise because of the government's changes, but that is not the situation that this amendment is aimed at.When there is a widening of the gap there is added incentive to enter into schemes to avoid tax. Accordingly, there needs to be a stronger anti-avoidance measure to deal with such an incentive. The need for this measure has been demonstrated in the evidence before the Senate inquiry into the government's tax package. The government, in our view—and it was the finding of the Senate inquiry—has seriously underestimated what is referred to as the `conversion effect' from introducing the CGT changes without this anti-avoidance measure. They say that it will cost only $20 million in year 1, rising to $180 million in year 5. We cannot know what the actual amount of the leakage will be, but even the government admits there will be some.Tax experts who came before the inquiry—for example, Professor Rick Krever, who worked on the Ralph review as an expert consultant, Professor Evans and Dr John Edwards—consider these estimates by the government to be ludicrously low. The tax practitioners themselves were very critical of the potential for avoidance that comes from such a measure when the anti-avoidance provisions were not being strengthened. Peter Poulos from KPMG said:. . . if you are going to have a lower rate of capital gains tax as distinct from ordinary income then you are inviting people to look at trying to structure their affairs so that they can take their profit in a capital form rather than an income form.Paul McNab from PriceWaterhouse said:So the government's faced with the possibility that reducing the rate on capital gains might lead to what could be described as domestic avoidance behaviour.Professor Robert Deutsch from the University of New South Wales said:It will push the taxpaying community back to trying to turn income into capital where possible.The Treasurer has accepted the proposal to strengthen part IVA—to plug this hole—resulting in this amendment, which is merely a redraft of the one moved earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting to note that in his letter to the shadow Treasurer on 24 November, the Treasurer said:I have received advice from the Australian Taxation Office that your proposed integrity measure would not add to the government's proposed strengthening of part 4A.Consequently, as that `proposed strengthening' is not yet before the House, it is especially appropriate that the House agree to this important measure today. We need to remember that, when addressing the Senate inquiry looking at these issues, senior tax officials stated that it was unclear whether the new part IVA would apply to these conversion schemes. If it does not add to what the government is proposing to do by way of strengthening part IVA, then the opposition is heartened that the government is genuine in its efforts to strengthen part IVA.Labor welcomes the fact that the government has conceded the need for an effective measure to stop the contrived schemes whereby people would convert their income into capital gains thus, for the purpose of the exercise, attracting a lower rate. (Extension of time granted) We should remember that this amendment on its own will not plug all the business tax revenue holes identified by Labor in this package. Those revenue holes can only be filled by the government doing what it has committed itself to doing—implementing all the measures in full that are not yet before the parliament and doing so in a way that can be demonstrated to reap the revenue which has been estimated in the costings.The Treasurer has now pledged in writing that the government will introduce all the business tax changes announced in full. We will hold him to that. He cannot afford to be tagged as being any softer on tax avoiders or any softer on the revenue base, particular after his GST deal with the Democrats has shaved the cash surplus to a wafer-thin $500 million. The Treasurer's written guarantee to deliver these measures in full is therefore a crucial concession. It is in that context, and on the basis that the amendment that we are accepting is merely a technical redrafting of the amendment which was initiated and introduced by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we support these amendments.18:00:0012858Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Labor fully supports this amendment because it, in fact, reflects accurately one of the three requirements that the opposition applied in relation to its support for the passage of the government's business tax legislation. This particular requirement is one that the government must accept. It is an anti-avoidance amendment specifically directed at the possibility of contrived schemes being entered into to falsely convert income into capital gains and, thereby, for those entering those schemes, to avail themselves of the discount capital gains tax rate, which is a halving of the ordinary personal income tax rate.Labor is very concerned about any prospect of tax avoidance. It is for that reason that we insisted on this particular amendment because, when that gap between the income tax rate and capital gains tax is opened up, as it is under the business tax legislation, then there must be some potential for avoidance. The issue of the potential for avoidance was the subject of a lot of debate at the Senate inquiry, and no consensus was reached. We were concerned that the projected leakage from what is called either `conversion' or, to use Treasury terminology, `arbitrage', was really dramatically increasing over time to the point where it reached $180 million after the fifth year.As the member for Fraser has pointed out, there was a range of experts who regarded that estimate of leakage as very low. So it was critically important that Labor initiate an action which resulted in an anti-avoidance provision relating specifically to the capital gains tax. That provision was drafted by former Taxation Commissioner Trevor Boucher working with me and the deputy opposition leader. The Treasurer pointed out that he believed there were some minor amendments to that which would make it operative and more effective. We accepted those minor amendments, and they are now reflected in the amendments that have come from the Senate.It is interesting that, when we asked the tax office officials in this inquiry whether in fact the general anti-avoidance rules that were in place and, more specifically, the ones that were proposed and contained in a one-page statement, related to the capital gains tax, they replied that it was unclear. That was really quite a worry for us because it is not clear what the government's new general anti-avoidance rules will contain. Basically, there is a precis in a one-page document, but it is absolutely unclear to us as to what it will actually do. We do, however, accept in good faith the government's word that it will be bringing forward tougher anti-avoidance rules in legislation next year.After all, that is absolutely critical because the criterion that we applied in relation to our acceptance of the passage of this legislation is that the whole package be revenue neutral. The government said it would, in fact, bring forward the stage 2 measures and implement those. Again, we have accepted the government's word on that. If this tax package is not revenue neutral, then the heat will come on to education and health in subsequent budgets. We do not want to see that happen, and that is why we are insisting on this amendment and fully support it.18:04:0012859Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—This is an important Labor amendment to the government's business tax reform package. It is important because one of Labor's stated and fundamental preconditions for the passage of the Ralph legislation is that the anti-avoidance measures contained within the legislation be as robust as possible. Anti-avoidance is important not just because it is a question of fundamental taxation justice but in addition because of our overall concern about the overall revenue neutrality of the package as a whole.This Boucher amendment is designed specifically to strengthen the provisions of part IVA of the act. Mr Boucher, the former Tax Commissioner, is no slouch on questions of anti-avoidance. He is a gentleman who takes this matter seriously.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—Boucher's no sloucher!83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—Boucher, as my colleague the member for Rankin notes from these benches, is no sloucher. His language was put forward to the Treasurer and, subject to some deliberation on the part of the Senate, it has come back to us in the form of the language contained in the current amendment, which is acceptable to the opposition. This exercise demonstrates what constructive opposition can be all about, and we have taken that responsibility most seriously.The Senate inquiry, recently concluded, into certain aspects of the business taxation package has also dealt with the specific issue of anti-avoidance and arbitrage in some detail. There is a specific recognition of this problem in the Ralph report itself. In the printed text of the Ralph report, there is a recognition that losses to revenue of $20 million, occurring as a consequence of arbitrage between income and capital gains, would occur in the first year, but rising most seriously—at their admission, in their numbers—to $180 million in year 5. That is a total of some $500 million in revenue lost to the Commonwealth as a consequence of arbitrage activities over five years. Again, I emphasise these are the government's own figures. We are talking about those which the Treasury prefers as opposed to the commentary which has come from beyond the Treasury which has been highly critical of these assumptions.In looking briefly at some of the commentary on this question which has been referred to in the Senate committee report, we look at the observations of Professor Chris Evans. I will quote from page 32 of the Senate report because I think it is instructive to the debate. The report says:Professor Chris Evans addressed the issue of conversion of income to capital in his submission to the committee and noted that it seemed `highly contentious' that the arbitrage effect related to the conversion of income to capital would be as low as $500 million over five years. He pointed out that there was very little detail in the Ralph Report to show how the figures were arrived at. He assumed that the figure was based entirely on the increased incentive for shareholders to realise capital gains on shares rather than to receive the income as dividends. He therefore concluded that the Ralph Report figures did not include the impact upon PAYE receipts.That is a most significant observation from Professor Chris Evans and creates some of the basis on which we as a constructive opposition acted in proposing the amendment which we have put forward. Professor Krever also in the Senate committee report has noted in his evidence the additional potential impact of Australia's negative gearing regime, noting that the majority of overseas countries with which this package has been compared do not allow for such a negative gearing regime.In fact, when you look at the overall implications for revenue and you take both these sets of measures together—that is, the questionable level of realisations from the changes in the capital gains tax regime, which has been the subject of considerable debate in this chamber, as well as doubts over the leakage arising from the conversion of income to capital—there is in fact the beginnings of the emergence of a significant problem in terms of the overall revenue neutrality of the package. Again, it is worth reflecting on some of Professor Evans's observations on page 30 of the report where he submitted that:. . . by varying the assumptions about responsiveness of CGT realisations to changes in the CGT rate (and by adopting different assumptions about the propensity of taxpayers to convert highly taxed income to preferentially taxed capital gains) very different revenue outcomes are achieved.A sensitivity analysis has been conducted which shows that over the five year period covered by the Review, the estimates of the small (positive) revenue impact of $350 million could be transformed (in a worst case scenario) to a very significant revenue leakage of up to $5.5 billion.These observations and conclusions of the Senate report demonstrate the wisdom of this amendment moved by the Labor Party and why we support it. (Time expired)18:09:0012860Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I have listened with interest to the contributions made by honourable members opposite. I do, however, want to point out that this is not an important amendment as the government believes that the existing part IVA already covers the types of schemes about which concern has been expressed. However, having said that, the amendment does indeed remove any possible doubt and it does strengthen to that extent the proceedings, but the government is of the view that those schemes are already covered by the existing part IVA. The realities of politics are that, to get the business tax reform through the Senate, it was necessary to have discussions with the opposition. As a result, we are supporting this amendment in this chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills12860r68912860Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills12861r61112861Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills12861r91212861Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills12861r85412861Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate, having considered message No. 358 of the House of Representatives, does not insist on its amendments Nos 3 to 11 disagreed to by the House and insists on its amendments Nos 12 and 15 disagreed to by the House.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills12861r85312861Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate, having considered message No. 359 of the House of Representatives, does not insist on its amendments Nos 8 to 15 disagreed to by the House and has agreed to the amendments made by the House in place of amendment No. 15 and insists on its amendments Nos 19, 20 and 23 disagreed to by the House.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bills12861r92912861Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Dr Stone:That the bill be now read a second time.18:15:0012861Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Two weeks ago when I was speaking on the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 I highlighted the treatment of many foreign crews and their pay and working conditions as an international scandal and made the point that this could be solved only by a concerted international response. Australia can begin by immediately ratifying ILO 147. ILO 147 is a broad convention covering wages, working conditions, certification, training and health, which are vital to the welfare and rights of international seafarers. We could do that without this particular legislation we are talking about—it would only add to this. It is a scandal that Australia, having taken the lead in exposing substandard shipping, has not ratified this international convention on a mere technicality.Although supporting the legislation in the main—and I am not sure whether or not we will proceed with our amendment because while we were speaking on the legislation a government amendment was circulated, picking up the points that were concerning the Labor Party—the legislation will have little impact on international seafarers, and to prove this I started to highlight the example of the Glory Cape. The Glory Cape is a vessel that loaded iron ore and departed Port Hedland on 31 October 1995. On the night of the departure, five of the crew members who were Indonesian were attacked by officers and other crew of that vessel. There had been a dispute over non-payment of wages, which often happens on these vessels. The five Indonesians had sought the assistance of the International Transport Federation and the Australian Maritime Union in Port Hedland in obtaining their underpayment and unpaid wages.At about 2.30 in the morning of 31 October 1995 the radio operator, Budi Santose, was held by Chinese cooks while he was beaten with iron bars by the Korean officers. Ulti mately, he managed to escape. According to the depositions from the crew that I have read and an affidavit sworn at Dampier on 3 November 1999, there were a number of altercations and brutal beatings. The five crew members went over the side with lifebelts, spent the night at sea and were rescued the following morning at daybreak by local authorities. The radio operator, Santose, died in the water. What really happened was that he was murdered by the Korean officers of the Glory Cape—a crime in anyone's language. This is only one example of what is happening in international shipping in Australian waters.For too long, because of the mishmash of laws—for example, it was claimed in the Glory Cape incident that it was a matter for the Western Australian police and, incidentally, there has still been no coroner's report—criminal activities are still going unpunished. Although this bill seeks to extend the criminal jurisdiction of the Australian states beyond Australian coastal waters to the limit of the continental shelf and beyond so as to provide a legal basis for more effective control over crimes at sea, it seems it will have little impact on crimes such as those committed on the Glory Cape. Incidentally, the Glory Cape avoided Australia for some time after the Port Hedland incident but, having changed its name to CD Glory, has in recent months been back in Australian waters once more.Although supportive of this crimes at sea legislation, I must in all honesty say that it does not help the seafarers. Access of foreign seafarers to Australian civil law is always difficult. Take, for example, the Glory Cape. No-one has been charged. The seafarer who has been aggrieved has great difficulty in getting access to the domestic legal situation. This is even more difficult if he is a seafarer from a Third World country. The legislation will clarify some issues and it will make it easier to sort out problems. But, as I say, it will do nothing for the seafarers from the Third World.No longer should foreign shipping corporations be permitted to evade their international moral obligations for safety at sea and treatment of crew. This is a bill to give Australia a `modern crimes at sea' scheme. The increasing incidence of people smuggling in the last year has highlighted the importance of having an effective legal regime to govern the seas around Australia's coastline. It is interesting that for many years there have been horrendous crimes committed against foreign nationals mainly from Third World countries on ships within Australian waters, and nothing has been done. It was not until people smuggling started to concern middle Australia that anything was done.This bill complements the important measures that the government has announced in the coastal surveillance context, but we as a parliament must make it easier for seafarers to gain access to Australian domestic law. Only then can we start to address the real meaning of crimes at sea. In this regard, it was very disappointing that the government response did not agree with recommendation 14 of the Ship Safe report presented to the Australian parliament in August 1998, with the unanimous support of all sides of parliament that served on the transport committee. Had that recommendation been picked up, it would have given seafarers from the Third World in many cases through organisations such as Stella Maris, a mission to the seamen, better access to Australian domestic law. That is really what is happening: seafarers from the Third World are not getting access to Australian domestic law for crimes committed against them within Australian domestic law jurisdiction. Until we start dealing with this problem, there will be no justice for so many people who have been aggrieved in Australian domestic waters.18:21:0012862Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Australia has one of the longest and most isolated coastlines in the world. With 37,000 kilometres of coastline and nine million square kilometres of ocean within our jurisdiction, there is a myriad issues to be considered and covered by legislation—matters of border protection, coastal surveillance, fisheries, illegal immigration, customs, quarantine, defence and the like. These issues are of particular concern to Western Australia with our vast coastline, a sparsely populated coastline, and where the majority of unauthor ised sea landings occur, where the majority of unauthorised arrivals occur and where the incidence of both has increased dramatically over the past decade.Given the recent initiatives of this government in relation to illegal immigration, one could assume that the impetus for the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 is the current incidence of people smuggling and illegal entry, as well as the difficulties we face in enforcing laws over foreign ships outside our coastal waters. In fact, it is part of an overall approach to ensure that our maritime enforcement legislation implements fully the powers available under international law, including the maritime investigatory powers and enforcement powers against both Australian ships and vessels registered under the law of a foreign country. This bill will replace the Crimes at Sea Act 1979. Under that act, we already have legislative provisions that deal with crimes at sea, together with complementary state legislation in most states which apply state criminal law to Australian ships, Australian citizens and foreign ships in connection with crimes committed at sea.This bill seeks to enact the Commonwealth elements of a new cooperative scheme agreed to by the Commonwealth, the states and the Northern Territory to provide a regime of criminal law applicable in Australia's coastal seas and, in certain circumstances, beyond the coastal seas. While it is true that the increasing incidence of people smuggling in recent times has highlighted the importance of a requirement for efficient and effective legal regimes to govern the seas around Australia's coastline, this bill is necessary to fix the defects in the existing regime governing crimes at sea. It is timely that it comes as part of a number of important measures that the government has introduced in relation to coastal surveillance, illegal immigration and illegal entry vessels.To digress for a moment, on the last occasion that this bill was before the House the previous speakers from the opposition benches ignored the fact that the government had foreshadowed an amendment to the bill prior to the commencement of the debate. That amendment was to omit part 4 of the bill and the reference to the Australian-Indonesian zone of cooperation. If one had listened to the remarks of the member for Denison in particular, one could have been forgiven for assuming that he had not been made aware of the foreshadowed amendments. Given the sensitivities of the Timor Gap Treaty and the issue under international law of the successor party to the rights of Indonesia under the treaty pending the emergence of East Timor as an independent nation, it was a particularly disappointing piece of political posturing by the opposition. It was fortuitous that the timing of the debate was such that the member for Hughes was able to indicate to the House before the debate was adjourned that the government had responsibly, sensibly and appropriately foreshadowed an amendment to omit part 4 of the bill.The existing legal regime in relation to Australia's jurisdiction over its seas is complex. Ambiguities and anomalies abound, and currently there are inconsistencies between various state laws and Commonwealth laws as they might apply to customs and migration issues and crimes at sea. Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of my research into this bill concerns the various sources of power for Australia's maritime jurisdiction—somewhat complex but interesting. The original source of power in Australia to cover crimes at sea was derived from the British Admiralty jurisdiction, the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878, which gave jurisdiction over persons on British ships anywhere, including jurisdiction over foreign subjects on board British ships. This jurisdiction was incorporated into the Australian colonies, but its limitations were—self-evidently perhaps—that the jurisdiction was attached to the concept of a British ship, which all Australian ships were considered to be for the purposes of the act.This anomaly gave rise to numerous judicial statements. Perhaps the most notable is that of Chief Justice Barwick in the case Reg. v. Bull in 1974, reported in the Commonwealth Law Reports 131 at 203, where he said:It is anomalous that the distinction between the jurisdiction of the Admiral in respect of the high seas, and that of the courts of law, should be maintained as it is at present. It is highly incon venient that in a matter of criminal jurisdiction complexities disclosed in this case should remain. It is also inappropriate at this time that, on the one hand, the power of a court of Australia to try extra territorial offences should be derived by imperial legislation, and on the other hand that such a court should have jurisdiction to try persons for imperial offences committed anywhere on high seas, or where the Admiral has jurisdiction.Chief Justice Barwick acknowledged that there was room for a more specific investiture of state courts with a jurisdiction to try federal offences committed on the high seas. Such judicial comments, together with other issues arising at the time, led to new Commonwealth legislation. A separate Australian nationality and registration scheme was implemented under the Shipping Registration Act 1981 which overcame the concept of the British ship, but the anomaly still remained. The substantive criminal law, applicable under the Admiralty jurisdiction, was English law, with the curious result that offences committed off the shores of the Australian states had to be laid under British legislation, not the criminal laws of the relevant states.There were also diverging views about the common law and its application to the territorial or extraterritorial seas. Over time, the issues of jurisdiction over crimes at sea increased amid the growing interest in the exploitation of offshore natural resources and the exercise of exploration and mining rights offshore under international law. International law recognised sovereignty, sovereign rights and certain powers over offshore waters, but there was uncertainty as to how the powers could be exercised in Australia as the issue of sovereignty had not been resolved as between the Commonwealth and the states. So we had international law recognising Australian sovereignty over internal waters and territorial seas and sovereign rights over the continental shelf.Commonwealth legislation emerged in the 1970s to address the complexities and conflicts in the state and Commonwealth laws. The Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 asserted `for the Commonwealth, territorial sovereignty over the territorial sea and sovereign rights over the continental shelf'. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act extended Commonwealth control over offshore petroleum exploration and extraction by extending the limits over the adjacent areas. So, while the states arguably retained their extraterritorial jurisdiction under common law, negotiations commenced between the Commonwealth and the states as to their powers and responsibilities, and these negotiations resulted in the Crimes at Sea Act 1979. This attempted to overcome the defects in the Admiralty jurisdiction and the ambiguity surrounding the common law. No doubt the Commonwealth was prompted by the various judicial comments regarding the source of power, which Barwick had described as `inappropriate' and the Privy Council later described as `surprising'.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—Before the dinner break I was reminding the House of the forerunner to the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 : the Crimes at Sea Act 1979. With complementary state legislation, that act formally applied state criminal law to the limit of the territorial sea and, beyond that limit, to the limit of the adjacent area for foreign ships en route to Australia. The act also extended the jurisdiction to crimes of piracy and crimes pertaining to exploration of the continental shelf.The Crimes at Sea Act 1979 focused on acts by Australian citizens, acts aboard Australian ships and acts aboard foreign ships outside the territorial sea where the offender entered Australia. However, the Crimes at Sea Act has proven to be somewhat complicated and confusing. First, the identification of jurisdiction has been difficult. The law to be applied to foreign ships depended on the ship's first port of call in Australia. The law to be applied to Australian ships depended on their registration, regardless of where the offences occurred. This led to potentially anomalous results. For example, an offence committed on an Australian ship registered in Victoria would have to be tried under the law in that state, regardless of whether the offence occurred elsewhere—such as off the coast of Western Australia.Secondly, the complementary state legislation introduced at the same time as the Crimes at Sea Act 1979 was considered to be invalid because it was inconsistent with the imperial legislation that I referred to earlier—the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878. We of course remember that the states did not acquire a power to enact laws overriding imperial legislation until the passage of the Australia Act 1986. So the overall existing scheme under the Crimes at Sea Act 1979 was, and is, inconvenient for law enforcement. This is essentially because the law that applies to a crime at sea depends upon the state with which the vessel is connected and that is usually the state in which the vessel is registered. This body of law is `carried', if you like, by the vessel. So, even if a state has no relationship with the place at which an offence occurs, that law must be applied.The existing scheme has also proven increasingly inconvenient for law enforcement with the increasing traffic on the seas and around our coast because the unfamiliar law of one state must be applied by the law enforcement agency of another state that is investigating the matter. It is also increasingly ineffective due to an absence of intergovernmental arrangements settling the responsibility for enforcement action. Under the proposed new scheme, the applicable law would therefore be determined on the basis of geography. A single body of law will apply in each sea area of the states and the Northern Territory out to 200 miles or the continental shelf—whichever is greater. This body of law will apply as state law to 12 nautical miles and be applied as Commonwealth law beyond that point.The underlying simplicity of the new choice of law rule based upon geography ensures that much of the ambiguity and complexity of the existing scheme is removed. In my example, where a crime—or alleged crime—is committed off the coast of Western Australia, the police investigating it will do so according to Western Australian laws and procedures and not those of the state under which the ship was registered, as is currently the case. If the offences are both a state offence and a Commonwealth offence, the investigating authority will follow the more stringent regime or procedures.The key issue for this legislation is the power to enforce criminal laws. The source of Australia's enforcement jurisdiction can be found in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This convention came into force in November 1994 and follows the principle of customary international law that each country has jurisdiction over ships that sail by its flag. So every country may exercise powers over its own ships anywhere in the world, except in the territorial sea of another country.The convention does provide exceptions, depending on the maritime zone a ship is in. I think it is useful in the context of considering the enforcement aspects of this bill to take into account those exceptions to the basic principle of international law, particularly as the member for Throsby is so concerned about the extent of our enforcement powers and how this fits with the regime to be introduced. Under this convention, Australia has full territorial sovereignty to the limits of the `internal waters'—meaning the enforcement jurisdiction is absolute. So Australia can enforce laws on any issue within its internal waters, including criminal law. For example, it can arrest any person or investigate any recognised crimes committed within the internal waters, that being the waters on the landward side of the territorial baseline—that is, the low-water line along the coast.Under the convention, Australia has a more restricted sovereignty to the limits of the territorial sea—that is, the waters extending for 12 nautical miles from the territorial baseline. Within the territorial sea, enforcement is subject to the right of innocent passage. Australia can make laws relating to the innocent passage of foreign ships in terms of conservation, fisheries, customs and drug trafficking, but it can only arrest persons or investigate crimes on board these ships passing through the territorial sea where the consequence of the crime extends to Australia or where the crime is of a kind such as to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea or it is directed to the drug trade. Australia can exercise a complete criminal jurisdiction over foreign ships passing through the territorial seas after leaving the internal waters. It can also exercise a complete jurisdiction over foreign ships for crimes committed beyond the territorial sea—but only after the vessel has entered the internal waters.Beyond the territorial sea, a state has certain sovereign rights which it may exercise to the contiguous zone. Within this zone, which extends from the 12-nautical-mile mark to 24 nautical miles from the territorial baseline, Australia can exercise the control necessary to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within Australia or our territorial seas or to punish infringement of these laws and regulations committed within Australia or our territorial sea. A smaller set of rights applies to the edge of the exclusive economic zone. That is 200 nautical miles from the territorial baseline where Australia can exercise a limited criminal jurisdiction while exercising sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone. We can exercise powers of arrest and detention of foreign vessels for violations of fisheries laws and regulations, but we cannot imprison persons without specific agreement with the flag state—that is, the ship's country of registration.Altogether, with the new regime envisaged by this bill, our enforcement powers will be extensive. In summary, the centrepiece of the bill is a cooperative scheme which extends the criminal jurisdiction of the Australian states beyond the Australian coastal waters to the limits of the continental shelf and beyond so as to provide the legal basis for more effective control over crimes at sea. I commend this bill to the House.20:07:0012866Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I speak tonight on the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 . We know that this bill seeks to replace the existing Crimes at Sea Act 1979, which at present makes enforcing crimes committed at sea complicated and confusing. To some extent, the Crimes at Sea Bill will simplify the application of law enforcement in our seas. It is specifically designed to implement a national uniform scheme which ensures that the criminal laws of states, the Commonwealth and territories are applied in a cooperative manner.Under this bill, state criminal laws are to apply where a crime is committed at sea within a distance of up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline of that state. In fact, the state has jurisdiction over any issue, not just criminal law, within its internal waters. For crimes committed beyond 12 nautical miles up to a distance of 200 nautical miles or the outer limit of the continental shelf, whichever is the greater distance, Commonwealth criminal law is to apply.In addition, where certain criminal acts are committed outside the new scheme's coverage—that is, outside the continental shelf—the bill will apply the Jervis Bay territory criminal law to those acts. Jervis Bay territory criminal law will be able to be applied in three situations: (1) if a crime is committed on any Australian ship up to the point of the high seas or the territorial waters of any foreign country; (2) if a crime is committed by an Australian on a foreign ship who is not a member of the crew up to the point of high seas or the territorial waters of that country; and (3) if a crime has been committed on a foreign ship which first lands at an Australian port. It must be noted that Jervis Bay territory criminal law will not apply to an offence which occurs in the territorial waters of Norfolk Island covered by the Territorial Waters Act 1926 of Norfolk Island, or coastal seas in the territories of Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the Australian Antarctic Territory, Heard Island and the McDonald Islands, Ashmore and Cartier islands and the Coral Sea Islands territory, covered by the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901.It is also important to note that a charge for an offence that arises under Jervis Bay territory criminal law is not able to proceed unless the Attorney-General consents in writing to the hearing and determination of the charge. Before granting consent, the Attorney-General must take into account any views expressed by the government of a country other than Australia whose jurisdiction over the alleged offence is recognised under the principles of international law. Further, if the Attorney- General declines to grant consent, the court in which the suspect, the defender, has been charged must permanently stay proceedings on the charge. In these cases, the procedural rules for investigating and prosecuting offences will be the same as those applying to any other offence under Commonwealth law.This arrangement and intergovernmental agreement will simplify the process of determining investigative procedures and jurisdictions to deal with offences effectively. It is important to have recorded in this House that crimes of a serious nature committed at sea such as theft, assault and murder are adequately covered by the bill.I turn for a moment to the member for Hughes's comments in relation to part 4 of the bill when she spoke in this House on 25 November last. Part 4, as we know, deals with cooperation between Australia and Indonesia in the enforcement of criminal laws on any oil rig, or any criminal act committed which is associated with petroleum exploration and extraction within area A. The reason for my opposition to part 4 of the bill is that those sections pertaining to area A were formerly based on Australia's obligations under the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation Treaty. Area A was determined in an agreement with Indonesia and Australia in 1989.The government was prepared to shamelessly ask the Australian parliament to acknowledge and reaffirm Indonesia's sovereignty in the Timor Gap, until my colleague the member for Denison pointed out to the government the inappropriate nature of supporting this section of the legislation. I further note that it was only today that the foreign affairs minister told this House that Indonesia has confirmed that it is no longer a party to the Timor Gap treaty, meaning that part 4 must be amended if the legislation is to work at all. That is a good thing.I wish to state that I categorically oppose part 4 and sections 7, 8 and 9 of the bill as they now are, in the light of recent international events between Indonesia and East Timor. The government's lack of sensitivity in tabling this bill for debate at a time of crisis in the newly independent East Timor and displayed throughout this bill is appalling. I find it extraordinary that, when the bill was originally introduced on 30 September 1999, a month after the ballot for independence in East Timor occurred, the member for Hughes would say in her speech:The government decided to remove part 4 well before the unhelpful intervention of the member for Denison.The member for Hughes has been ill advised. I do not blame the member for Hughes because she is quite a lovely lady; she also has a lovely husband, Bob. But I am not here to speak about that. Rather, I think she has been badly advised in this particular case. I will just go through, for the benefit of the House, a chronology of events I have been able to obtain from the shadow minister for justice and customs, the member for Denison, the Hon. Duncan Kerr.On 30 September 1999, the Attorney-General introduced the bill into this House; that was one month after the East Timor ballot. On 15 October, the opposition drafted its amendments to oppose part 4 of the bill. About 18 October, Senator Vanstone's office advised the opposition of the government's proposed amendments and provided a confidential copy which described the amendments as having arisen `because OPC have identified a number of minor language differences between the Commonwealth bill and corresponding legislation in the model state legislation'. Those amendments did not touch the Timor Gap issue.Then, on 21 October, the bill was scheduled for debate. However, the House adjourned until 22 November without debate on the bill having resumed. On 11 November, we received a draft weekly program for this House which listed the bill for debate on Wednesday, 24 November. On the morning of 23 November, Senator Vanstone's office contacted the office of the member for Denison to see if the opposition had any problem with the bill. In the afternoon, the opposition indicated to Senator Vanstone's office that, yes, we had problems with part 4 and that we would be moving amendments to oppose same.Later on the evening of the 23rd, Senator Vanstone's office delivered an advance copy of unrelated bills to be introduced into the House the next morning. Duncan Kerr's office asked what was the minister's view regarding part 4. I want to make this quite clear: the government indicated that there may be a government amendment to omit provisions in part 4 and that drafting was in progress. The opposition insisted that it was still opposing part 4 and that it would be pressing on with the amendment to that effect.Duncan Kerr's office had a clear understanding that it would hear from Senator Vanstone's office the next morning to put their heads together and discuss this. The opposition also asked further whether the bill would remain listed for debate and suggested it may be sensible to delay its consideration until the new year. The government replied that it remained listed for debate and that there was a slim chance it would come back on Wednesday but more likely Thursday of that week.On Wednesday, 24 November at about 1.30 p.m., having not heard from Senator Vanstone's office, the shadow minister was quite entitled to hold a doorstop interview and then put out a press release about this matter. For the benefit of the House, I will read that press release:"The Howard Government has again displayed an astounding level of bad timing and political and diplomatic insensitivity in respect of East Timor," Duncan Kerr, [Shadow] Minister for Justice and Customs, said today.It continues:The Crimes at Sea Bill, which the Government introduced in the Parliament on 30 September—a month after East Timor's ballot, was listed for debate this week.The timing of the introduction of this legislation has meant that the Shadow Ministry has had no choice but to oppose a significant part of the Bill which, based on Australia's obligations under the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation Treaty, provides for cooperation between Australia and Indonesia in the enforcement of criminal law in the Timor Gap.By introducing this legislation when it did, and then listing it for debate, the Government is asking the Australian Parliament to acknowledge and re-affirm Indonesia's sovereignty in the Timor Gap.This is extraordinary given that Indonesia has formally renounced control of East Timor. That the Government introduced this Bill during East Timor's struggle for independence is hard enough to fathom. It almost defies belief that now, when Minister Vanstone has had almost two months to realise the possible ramifications of the Bill, is listed for debate today without amendment.My office asked the Minister to reconsider the timing of debate on this Bill. In good faith and in Australia's best interest, we pointed out to the Minister that it is not appropriate to be passing legislation which could be cited as an Australian acknowledgment of a continuing Indonesian claim to parts of the Timor Gap.Minister Vanstone neither accepted this advice in the spirit it was given, nor was able to understand the political and diplomatic sensitivities involved.The Government has demonstrated that it is sloppy, politically insensitive and just plain dopey if it really expects the Australian Parliament, at this point in time, to pass legislation which would reaffirm Australian recognition of Indonesian sovereignty in the Timor Gap.This can only be described as a first-rate stuff-up. It is bound to embarrass Prime Minister Howard when he visits East Timor this weekend."Mr Slipper interjecting—83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—The member for Fisher, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, who is at the table, is obviously not listening to what I am saying. I am just setting the record straight for this House. The member for Hughes—it was no fault of hers—had the foreshadowed amendments stuck under her nose when she was speaking on Thursday, 25 November. I was in the chamber and I think it was by the Chief Government Whip. That was only after the member for Denison had made it quite plain that we on this side of the House were not going to cooperate unless something was done in relation to part 4 of the bill.I have carefully gone through that chronology for the benefit of the member for Fisher. If he wants to have a discussion about it, I will be more than happy to go along with him to Duncan Kerr's office and take him through it, because Senator Vanstone badly let down the government and badly let down the member for Hughes who innocently misrepresented the situation to the House. Duncan Kerr was quite within his rights to give a doorstop at 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, the 24th when he had not heard anything more from Senator Vanstone's office about the foreshadowed amendment from this side of the House.I am pleased to learn now that the government is moving that way and will be doing something about it, after the member for Denison brought it to the attention of the House. It will have the support of all of us on this side of the House. Enough said about that; I support the foreshadowed amendment to be moved by the member for Denison in terms of part 4.I would now like to digress in the remaining minutes to discuss the current public scrutiny over the issue of people-smuggling and illegal arrivals in Australian territorial waters. I note that, in her speech on 30 September, the member for Murray talked about the increasing incidence of `people-smuggling' highlighting the importance of having an `effective legal regime to govern the seas around Australia's coastline'.It is my opinion that the resolution of current issues faced by Australia, such as protecting and reducing illegal activities in our territorial waters, should include: firstly and most importantly, establishing an Australian coastguard; secondly, increasing funding for the Australian Customs Service; and, thirdly, creating one overarching piece of legislation written specifically to deal with the protection of our borders, our waters and our activities within this area.The member for Murray should not be marketing this bill as a measure against people-smuggling. This is yet another case of the government using rank political opportunism to gather support for a bill that is fundamentally flawed in this respect. The difficulty with the argument of this bill as a measure against people-smuggling is that of transnational organised crime. While the bill encourages states to fully exercise their jurisdiction, the bill does not enable states to exceed their jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Under this bill, states will be encouraged to exercise personal jurisdiction rather than the prescribed physical jurisdiction—which, I might add, is how the bill is supposed to operate—over any of their vessels engaged in people-smuggling.The member for Murray might also wish to note that the application of this legislation to the case of people-smuggling will create only confusion because there are already measures in place in the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , which was passed by this House on 22 November and was a debate that I participated in. Adequate amendments were made to the Customs Act and the Migration Act to deal with some of the problems faced in policing 11 million square kilometres of water.I believe this bill displays a great deal of merit in that it simplifies the procedures and jurisdictions of courts over prescribed areas. The bill also clearly amends some defects in existing crimes at sea legislation. I believe that the bill represents a genuine attempt to meet the new challenges faced by state and federal authorities in fighting criminal activity on our territorial seas. As the member for Denison said in his speech in this House on 25 November, this is a complex issue, for which finding a solution has been problematic. Apart from part 4 as it now stands, I have no hesitation in supporting the bill. It seems obvious now that the government are going to make the appropriate amendments, and I will acknowledge that in the House—even for the benefit of the member for Fisher—because it is a good thing, and I am sure he agrees with it.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—But we told Duncan Kerr earlier.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—You did not, actually.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Order!83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Fisher is quite wrong and he persists in interjecting. We can demonstrate quite clearly from the communication between Senator Vanstone's office and Duncan Kerr's office that, on this occasion, we are being misrepresented. I stand by Duncan Kerr's press release of 24 November because he was entitled to put that out when Senator Vanstone's office had failed to come back to him and to let us know that they shared our concerns about part 4 of the bill.In conclusion, I want to congratulate the member for Denison. He has obviously done a terrific job in relation to that part of the bill that we had some concerns about, and the government, to its credit, has come to the party and will now, through the committee process, deal with this so that, when it comes back to the House, the appropriate amendments will be made and we will be able to get the outcome we on both sides of the House want. I salute the member for Denison for doing a good job on this one.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And the government!83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I will reluctantly congratulate the government on getting it right. It is a good thing that we can sometimes work together and get a good outcome for the benefit of all who are affected by this legislation. It has been very complex and difficult to deal with. As the member for Denison mentioned some time ago, its genesis goes way back, well before the government came in. (Time expired)20:27:0012870Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would also like to mention the bipartisan support that has been shown. The previous speaker, the member for Lowe, was quite correct to acknowledge that support. It is a rare thing, but it has been happening in the last few days. Tonight, though, I speak on the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 , which was introduced on 30 September. The bill seeks to extend the criminal jurisdiction of the Australian states beyond Australian coastal waters to the limits of the continental shelf and beyond so as to provide a legal basis for more effective control over crimes at sea. It will give effect to a cooperative scheme developed by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments over crimes at sea within the adjacent area and to a complementary regime developed by the Commonwealth government over crimes at sea beyond the adjacent area. A regime agreed to by the Commonwealth and Indonesian governments for dealing with crimes at sea within area A of the Timor Gap—as the previous speaker alluded to—has also been considered.There is some background to this crimes at sea legislation, and it is important to highlight some of that background. The Commonwealth already had some legislation in place with crimes at sea in the Crimes at Sea Act 1979. It also had complementary legislation in most states, which applies state criminal law to Australian ships, Australian citizens and foreign ships in respect of crimes committed at sea. However, the legislative regime does have defects and was the target of a report by the Australian Law Reform Commission nearly a decade ago. The defects were examined in the context of a discussion of Australia's jurisdiction over crimes at sea.People-smuggling has increased in recent times, which probably has been the catalyst for this bill being brought to the attention of the House. It is an insidious thing. One has to look at people-smuggling in its contextual scenery. We may think we have a difficult problem. Recently I spoke to some members and officials of the Italian government who complained to me that they had 1,000 people smuggling from Albania to Italy. So, in the scheme of things, they thought that we had a relatively small problem. I guess we should be happy that our problem is not as extensive. Nevertheless, it is not something that should be ignored, and there has been an increase in people-smuggling.Sea landings and unauthorised arrivals in Australia have been particularly noticeable since those first landings on 12 April 1999 when an undetected landing went as far as the east coast of Australia. This has led to a number of positive things emerging, including a coastal surveillance task force. It reported in June 1999. It noted that current maritime enforcement legislation does not fully implement the powers available under international law. On 27 June 1999 the Prime Minister indicated that the government would implement all the recommendations in the report and announced a commitment of $124 million over four years to strengthen Australia's capacity to detect and detain these illegal arrivals.International people-smuggling has become a hot topic, not just for Australia but for many countries. It has received the attention of various international bodies and people, including the General Assembly, the Secretary-General, the Economic and Social Council and the International Maritime Organisation. It is the subject of a proposed protocol to a draft international convention on the control of transnational organised crime. The common theme here is that nation states are being urged to look at their own domestic legislative powers to establish jurisdiction over people-smuggling offences and to focus that more carefully.In relation to jurisdiction over crimes at sea, it is very important to note that a distinction should be drawn between Australia's prescriptive jurisdiction and its enforcement jurisdiction. This prescriptive jurisdiction is where common law gives the Commonwealth and the states power to enact laws having an extraterritorial effect. The Constitution also gives the Commonwealth a power to enact laws with respect to matters that are external to Australia. Whether or not these laws are enforced, though, is yet another issue. Enforcement jurisdiction looks at international law which gives Australia a physical jurisdiction to enforce its laws within a prescribed distance of its coast arising out of its territorial sovereignty and sovereign rights. This has been recognised in international law. It also recognises a personal jurisdiction to enforce laws upon its own citizens or ships arising out of the nexus between a sovereign nation and its citizens.A distinction needs to be made among the various jurisdictional zones recognised under domestic and international law. This guide is given by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. A number of speakers have spoken about that here today. Internal waters are waters on the landward side of the territorial baseline. There are also territorial seas, which are waters within 12-nauticalmiles of the territorial baseline. The contiguous zone is waters from 12 to 24 nautical miles. There are a number of exclusive economic zones, which are waters behind 12 nautical miles and within 200 nautical miles of the territorial baseline. The continental shelf is the seabed and subsoil up to 350 nautical miles or as agreed between two state parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.These particular regions did not always exist in international law and they were not always reflected in domestic law. At common law it was widely thought that the territorial sea was limited to three nautical miles, and it was not until 1990 that Australia formally incorporated the 12-nautical-mile limit into domestic law. Much of our law is very historical and deals with things such as Admiralty jurisdiction which goes as far back as 1878 and deals with British ships and their jurisdiction over foreign subjects on board British ships. Common law also has a large part to play in the development of this legislation. The first view was that Australian states have power to enact laws having an extraterritorial effect.I have to say that it is a good thing that we are looking at this legislation, particularly Australia's enforcement jurisdiction with full sovereignty to the limit of internal waters and a much more restrictive sovereignty to the limits of territorial water. It is very important that we look at sovereign rights, which may be exercised to the edge of the contiguous zone, and the smaller set of rights applying to the edge of the exclusive economic zone which is reduced further within the continental shelf and the non-existent high seas. Within the territorial sea, enforcement is subject to the right of innocent passage and foreign ships often have the right to passage through territorial water that is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. The state may exercise its criminal jurisdiction to arrest people or investigate crimes on board these ships passing through territorial seas where the consequences of the crime extend to the state, where the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea or if such measures are necessary for the suppression of illicit trade in narcotic drugs or substances. It may also exercise complete criminal jurisdiction over foreign ships passing through territorial seas after leaving internal waters. It also can exercise a complete jurisdiction over foreign ships in respect of crimes committed beyond the territorial sea but only after the vessel has entered internal waters.It is important also to note that the government has signalled a desire to achieve bipartisan support. A number of speakers from the other side have also spoken about the bipartisan support for the whole of this package and the legislation for coastal surveillance. It is a problem that we, as a total government, have to deal with, and it is a problem that will not ease. In fact, its severity over a number of months and years has been increasing.The opposition has shown that it supports the package. It has been critical of some of the previous aspects of the package, but I understand now that it is happy with some of the amendments it has made. I am pleased that this legislation will give effect to a cooperative scheme developed by federal, state and territory governments over crimes at sea. I am happy that it also has a complementary regime developed by the Commonwealth government over crimes at sea beyond the adjacent area. It is also a regime that has been agreed by the Commonwealth and Indonesian governments for dealing with crimes at sea within area A or the Timor Gap.The perceived need for this bill originates with the recent spate of people-smuggling, as I have said, and we need to keep focused on that. On top of this, it is good to see that the recommendations of the coastal surveillance task force, which was established by the Prime Minister in April, will continue to be followed through. The task force has also noted that current maritime enforcement legislation does not fully implement the powers available under international law. It is therefore recommended that comprehensive amendments be introduced to the legislation to further strengthen the maritime, investigatory and enforcement powers against both Australian and foreign flag vessels. This is essentially what this bill seeks to do and it well enable us to better intercept and police people-smuggling. I commend the bill to the House.20:38:0012872Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight in support of the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 . It is important that we recognise the work of the minister in bringing forward this legislation. It is obviously a reflection of events of recent weeks and of the whole illegal immigrant trade, which has been going on for many years. This bill is a way of overhauling the way the government polices its coastlines and surrounding territorial waters. Further to the border protection legislation, which was introduced on 21 October, this bill will increase the effectiveness of law enforcement around our coastline. The bill has the full support of the Attorney-General's committee, of which I am the secretary, so I am pleased to support it.There is undoubtedly current uncertainty as to which legislation applies and which jurisdiction applies to illegal activity on our waterways adjacent to the coast. The question goes to which justice system has jurisdiction over investigating and trialling offences. Such technicalities can mean that justice may not be served on an offender. Of course, this is the very opposite of what we would want to achieve in terms of the law enforcement agencies in this country.Under current laws relating to criminal offences at sea, the law must consider the registration of the vessel involved—whether it is an Australian or an overseas registered vessel, from what Australian state it originates and is registered in, and whether the offence occurred during a trip between states or between areas of the same state. Of course, that is clearly a nonsense. One might raise the question of why it has taken until 1999 to remove some of the absurdities that relate to this legislation and this bill.Different law enforcement laws and procedures apply to different state police agencies and, while officers would be well versed on the requirements of their own state, they may not be so well versed in the complexities that relate to other states and other jurisdictions. The states and territories have agreed to introduce uniform crimes at sea acts which will govern activities within an offshore area up to 12 nautical miles. Beyond 12 nautical miles and up to the 200-mile limit would be the responsibility of Commonwealth law.The investigating authority will need only to have regard to the state in which they are operating and the laws of the state in which the vessel is apprehended. In fact, it does not need to consider the state in which the vessel was registered, and that will certainly make it much simpler. Where an investigation of a state and a Commonwealth crime is being conducted, the investigation will follow whichever system has the more stringent procedures. This legislation will require that, under the new system, the Commonwealth, state and Northern Territory bills all provide that the Commonwealth Attorney-General's written consent be obtained before a prosecution can proceed in cases in which the alleged offence also falls within a foreign country's jurisdiction. This requirement is necessary to promote compliance with Australia's international obligations. Before the Commonwealth Attorney-General takes any action, he must seek the views of the foreign state or country concerned. The absence of consent, however, will not prevent preliminary steps such as an arrest, charges being laid or extradition proceedings from beginning.Of course, that is an important aspect because some offences have been committed which have been prevented from further follow-up because of the failure of the jurisdiction concerned or the foreign country concerned to give consent for the action to be taken or for some other reason, such as that in the Balkan peninsular conflict where states no longer existed. This would certainly clarify the situation and provide clear jurisdiction for the Attorney-General, having got the agreement of the state concerned or a request having been made that he can sign, having made an attempt to get the agreement of the state involved.I would like to give two factual scenarios illustrating how the proposed uniform crimes at sea law improves the existing crimes at sea legislation. Imagine that a cruise ship is off the coast of Queensland and is travelling from Cairns to Sydney and a rape occurs on board that ship. Queensland police are alerted to the rape and make arrangements to come on board and investigate the offence. Naturally, these police will want to question the suspected offender as soon as possible and may want to search for incriminating evidence.The Queensland officers, wanting to move quickly, turn to the Commonwealth Crimes at Sea Act 1979 to decide what powers they can exercise. They discover that the answer to this question depends upon the state to which the ship is connected. Even though the ship is travelling from Cairns to Sydney, its home base may be Melbourne. Queensland police operating off the Queensland coast would then have to exercise Victorian powers, and that clearly is a nonsense.This is not the only problem that may be faced. If the ship is a foreign vessel which has travelled from a foreign country, the applicable investigatory laws may be those of the ship's next port of call. So the police, who are trying to get on with their investigation, would have to ascertain the ship's next port of call. If the captain is continuing direct to Sydney, the Queensland police will then have to exercise New South Wales powers. If the captain decides to berth in Brisbane, then of course the Queensland powers will be invoked. Obviously, the Queensland police will not really know where they stand on this issue.Yet this is not the end of the potential problem. If the Queensland police turn to the Queensland crimes at sea legislation, they will discover that it is not uniform with the Commonwealth act. The Queensland law lays down some rules that do not align with the Commonwealth provisions, leaving the officers to resolve a complex constitutional question about conflict of laws. Furthermore, for reasons that have been outlined, the police may not know whether the relevant charges will arise under Queensland, New South Wales, Victorian or some other law. This complex set of preliminary questions creates the real prospect of delay and doubt. It also sets up plenty of grounds for the offender to challenge the lawfulness of any efforts at evidence gathering. This is not fair to enforcement officers, victims or the community.Under the new scheme, the situation would be much clearer. Queensland police would investigate Queensland offences under Queensland investigatory powers, because the ship is in the Queensland `adjacent area', out to 200 nautical miles. Neither the ship's home port nor its destination would be relevant. There would also be a rebuttable presumption that the offence occurred in the adjacent area of the state in which it is believed to have occurred. State law enforcement officers will be able to investigate suspected offences in the adjacent area for their state, under their own state laws and without worrying about any conflict between Commonwealth and state legislation. This is a commonsense outcome. Scenario 2 is where we require the Attorney-General's consent. Under the current Crimes at Sea Act, the Attorney-General can only consent to a prosecution relating to an alleged offence by a foreign national on a foreign ship once the prosecution consent of the country of the foreign national has been obtained.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—Absurd!MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—That is absolutely right. The new scheme streamlines the requirement, requiring the Attorney-General to take into account any views of a foreign country in respect of the prosecution but without requiring the explicit consent of the foreign country. The existing foreign consent requirement has caused considerable difficulties and has the potential to prevent the prosecution of a person who commits a serious offence.One example of the problems that prompted the removal of the foreign consent requirement occurred in the early 1990s. A serious offence was believed to have been committed by a national of Yugoslavia while he was travelling on a ship in Australian waters. The investigation of this person revealed sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution for a serious criminal offence. However, consent was required from Yugoslavia before the prosecution could proceed. During the early 1990s, Yugoslavia was experiencing a bloody civil war, with such regions as Croatia and Bosnia attempting to break away from the Yugoslav state. At the time of the Yugoslav national's arrest, Yugoslavia did not exist in the sense that it had previously and it certainly lacked any executive government which could give high priority to considering the prosecution of one of its citizens in Australia.There is also potential under the existing law for a rogue terrorist state to deliberately fail to respond to a request from Australia for consent. If a crime remains unpunished because of Australia's failure to gain the consent of a country facing internal turmoil or ostracised from the international community, there may be little chance that punishment will follow as a result of the laws of that other country. The new crimes at sea scheme will allow the Attorney-General to grant his or her consent to a prosecution where Australia has jurisdiction, after taking into account the views of another country which also has jurisdiction over an accused foreign national. If the foreign country is willing and able to express a view, this will be considered. If the foreign country fails to express a view, the alleged offender will not gain effective immunity from prosecution.The final aspect relates to the Timor Gap. The bill contains measures relating to Australia's obligations under the Timor Gap Treaty, to which the Indonesian government has just indicated it is no longer a party. When this bill was drafted, the Timor Gap Treaty between Australia and Indonesia had not suffered the strain that currently exists as a result of events in East Timor.The bill contains special provisions which apply to the Northern Territory's criminal laws governing criminal acts associated with oil exploration and exploitation of oil in the zone of cooperation. On the other hand, the investigation and prosecution rules for offences applied by this bill in area A of the zone of cooperation will be the same as the rules applying in the cooperative scheme area. Put simply, this means that if Northern Territory authorities are investigating or prosecuting an offence, Northern Territory procedural laws will apply. If Commonwealth authorities are investigating or prosecuting, then Commonwealth procedural laws will apply.So the new scheme is easier to understand and easier to apply, making the work of law enforcement officers that much more efficient. This scheme will give Australian authorities the legislative basis they will need to enforce the criminal law off Australia's coastline. In terms of this piece of legislation, we are removing the anomalies that exist because of the requirement that you need to look at the state in which the vessel is registered or at its next port of call; and we are removing the complexities in terms of getting approval from a foreign national government where that government may no longer exist or may be a rogue government which may not wish to comply.This is a sensible piece of legislation which should undoubtedly have been enacted some time ago, but I am very glad to see that, given the events that have occurred in recent weeks and also over some period of time in relation to illegal immigrants, this will simplify the action being taken by our law officers around the coast of Australia and will do much to assist in the prosecution of those individuals who are simply flouting Australian requirements and breaching Australian laws. It is my pleasure to commend the bill to the House.20:51:0012875Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—In recent weeks, the issue of illegal immigration into Australia has become a media favourite, but the problem of illegal immigration, including the so-called boat people, has been on the coalition government's agenda for a considerable period of time. In April, the coalition government established a coastal surveillance task force to consider the principal issues involved with illegal immigration and people-smuggling. The report was completed in June and it noted that current maritime enforcement legislation does not implement fully the powers available under international law. The report recommended that comprehensive legislative arrangements be introduced to further strengthen maritime investigatory and enforcement powers against both Australia and the foreign flag vessels.Some other findings contained in this report were the impetus for a number of the provisions in the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 presently before the House. These measures will address some of the problems in enforcing laws over foreign ships outside Australia's coastal waters, including ships involved in the practice of people-smuggling. People-smuggling is a scourge of the most tragic kind on the international community. People in countries with fewer opportunities than Australia, who understandably want to make a better life for themselves and their families, are courted by professional organised people smugglers. People smugglers do not apply their craft out of any altruistic motive. They are preying on the vulnerable with the sole intention of maximising their own personal gain.Those behind the people-smuggling rackets are using sinister means to induce people into illegally migrating to Australia. They play on the hopes and aspirations of their victims with false promises. The promise that they will find instant employment upon arrival is common fare. Some organised people smugglers go so far as to tell their prey that they can immediately earn between $20 and $30 an hour working in Australia. They allay their victims' fears of being caught by falsely assuring them that Australian authorities are powerless to extradite them and that it is easy to qualify for permanent residency. In some circumstances, they are told that they will be welcomed into Australia.With limited options and no other information readily available, those desperate for a better life submit to the terms and conditions imposed on them by organised people smugglers. In effect, they are unwittingly committing themselves to a life of slavery. For the organised people smugglers it is all about debt bondage: the practice of smuggling people into a country such as Australia and making them pay off the debt when they arrive in the country. Realistically, this is not a debt that can ever be settled. In real terms, the debt can be equivalent to $A50,000.In practice, repayments can only be made by working off the debt through illegal activities such as prostitution and drug smuggling on behalf of the organised people smugglers. But their rate of pay is negligible and their payments to their employer for living costs are so exorbitant that it is virtually impossible for them ever to pay off their bondage debt. They face a life of servitude at the hands of organised crime gangs. Their servitude can also take such forms as loan sharking, protection rackets, money laundering operations, importation and distribution of narcotics, kidnapping, fraud, vice, extortion, contract killing, slave trading and the tragic practice of child prostitution.As the world's largest island nation, it is imperative that Australia has the capacity to adequately protect its borders from people-smuggling. The bill presently before the House is just one plank in the government's strategy to minimise the penetration of people-smuggling into Australia. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has worked assiduously with international authorities to fight this problem at its source.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And he has done a great job.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—And he has done a most commendable job. The minister recently informed the House that he visited the People's Republic of China, meeting with senior representatives of their government. The product of this meeting was a strengthening of the commitment to cooperate in the detection and prosecution of people smugglers. The outcome of the minister's visit to Bangkok was similarly positive. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also pursued these matters with the Thai government when he was there.An important facet of this international campaign has been the dissemination of information to increase overseas awareness that illegal immigration will not be tolerated by the Australian government. Cooperative efforts have also been established with authorities from other countries to control the problem at its source. Jakarta police recently broke a passport forgery ring and seized 180 passports, 55 visa stamps and other material used in the people-smuggling process. Thai authorities also recently seized over 1,000 counterfeit passports as well as document producing equipment.The border protection legislation, which we recently debated in this House and upon which I spoke, will give customs officials extra power in policing our coastal border, but this legislation also complements new antismuggling vessels that have the latest technology to protect our borders. These vessels can sail in extreme conditions and can be at sea for up to 23 days. The new vessels will also make our border protection efforts more cost effective and allow officials to redirect resources to other areas in the fight against people smuggling.The Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 is another measure introduced by the government which fights one of the symptoms of people-smuggling—debt bondage. The bill prescribes penalties of up to 25 years imprisonment for those convicted of intentionally owning a slave or exercising power over somebody that is equivalent to slavery. That includes debt bondage and associated practices. Other legislative measures now impose penalties involving 20 years jail and fines up to a maximum of $220,000 for those convicted of smuggling five or more people into Australia. At present, approximately 60 crew from people-smuggling boats are awaiting trial under these tough new provisions. It is the professional people smugglers and the organ ised crime gangs behind them that our strategy is attacking.Organised crime has an incredible ability not only to adapt to change but also to then expand. We are all aware that globalisation has rationalised, centralised and modernised national economies, but it is also true that globalisation has rationalised, centralised and modernised organised crime groups. Organised criminal activity has become a growth industry and is manifested in myriad ways. That is why illegal immigration and the debt bondage it brings is so important to organised crime gangs. They are able to use the people they smuggle into a country as dispensable foot soldiers. It is an effective way of putting an extra barrier or firewall between the organised crime bosses and the law enforcement agencies.It also reinforces the fact that organised transnational crime can only be effectively tackled through a coordinated international approach. To that end, Australia joined more than 140 countries at the World Ministerial Conference on Organised Transnational Crime which was held in Naples almost five years ago.8I4MARTINMr Martin—An appropriate location.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Yes, Naples would have been an attractive location but, of course, we are talking about the serious matter of organised crime. Nevertheless, now that I have got your attention perhaps you would like to listen to the rest of my address on the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 .Opposition members interjecting—9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—I will have to ignore the honourable members. The outcome of the conference was an action plan to develop a holistic approach to combat transnational organised crime by the harmonisation of national legislation. Central to the action plan is the tenet that all countries must work together in responding to this threat. Further conferences will deal with illegal immigration and associated issues. Two more convention conferences planned for October and December this year will canvass additional instruments to deal with trafficking in women and children, the illegal transportation of migrants, and the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their components and ammunition. The combination of these measures will not only assist in controlling the illegal immigration problem at its source but will also have the supplementary effect of suffocating the labour source of the organised crime gangs that are currently operating in Australia. This would be a small but significant step in the fight against organised crime at a domestic level, particularly organised crime with overseas links.There are also concerns that any further increases in illegal immigration may threaten the integrity and sustainability of Australia's refugee program of which both sides of the House can be proud. As the number of illegal immigrants being caught and detained increases, a strain is being placed on our financial and logistical capacity to service our refugee program. This great humanitarian program assists about 12,000 genuine cases every year. At present it costs Australian taxpayers about $20,500 for each illegal immigrant to be located and removed from Australia.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—How much?9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—$20,500 was certainly a figure that leapt out at me. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs estimates that by next year it will cost about $20 million a year for the government to fight refugee claims from illegal immigrants.Illegal immigration also presents other problems for Australia. Unlike legal immigrants who undergo extensive medical tests, illegal immigrants do not necessarily come into Australia with a clean bill of health. Some illegal immigrants have arrived with life threatening diseases like cancer and motor neurone disease. This situation has enormous potential to create a serious challenge to our health system. This is not to say that illegal immigrants who enter the country legally and overstay their visa are more welcome than boat people. Both classes of illegal immigrants are exactly that—illegal.Credible estimates indicate that in Australia there are just over 50,000 people who have overstayed their visas after arriving legally. A considerable proportion of these illegal immigrants are people from Britain, the United States, and New Zealand. This is an enormous figure compared to the relatively smaller number of boat people who have been detected entering Australia. In 1997-98, 157 boat people arrivals were detected. In 1998-99, this figure jumped to 921. In only five months of this financial year, the statistic has dramatically increased to 1,789 detected boat people. Whilst we would rather not see any illegal immigration occurring in this country, we have to be pragmatic without being defeatist. The reality is that there will always be illegal immigration in countries as lucky as Australia and the United States—or Japan, which is also experiencing similar problems.A paper produced by the Institute for the Study of International Migration, which is based in Georgetown University in Washington, noted that `stabilising economic growth and democracy may be the most effective long-term means of reducing migration pressures'. This confirms the sensible approach of the Australian government's commitment to assisting our neighbours in various capacities. As the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have often indicated, a stable Asian region is in the national interests of Australia.It is also worth considering the illegal immigration problems experienced in the United States, specifically those related to patrolling the United States-Mexico border. Despite the enormous financial and technological resources at the disposal of the United States government and the comparatively small border with Mexico, the number of illegal immigrants who penetrate this border is an issue that has been a running sore in American politics for decades. About 60 per cent of all illegal immigrants in the United States are from Mexico. Cuba is another border management problem for the United States. The United States grants asylum to 20,000 Cubans every year, and yet the number of illegal immigrants from Cuba is presently on the rise. In the nine months from January to October 1998, just 615 Cubans reached Florida to seek asylum. In the nine months following, this figure more than tripled to 1,690.The US Immigration and Naturalisation Service estimated that there were approximately five million undocumented immigrants living in the United States in October 1996. This figure of five million would be closer to eight million if it were not for the 1986 legislation that legalised two classes of undocumented migrants in the United States. The immigration service estimates that approximately 275,000 illegal immigrants enter the United States every year. One of several reasons why the United States is struggling to stem the tide of illegal immigration is the lack of integration and consistency between state and federal policies and strategies to combat the problem. For instance, in the early 1980s the state of California introduced proposition 187 which provided for the barring of illegal alien children from public schools. In 1982, the United States Supreme Court examined the provision and held it to be unconstitutional. Another inconsistency with the United States management of illegal immigration is work site enforcement. Various United States governments have failed to adequately police this area, partly because many industries rely on this form of cheap labour.There are other lessons for Australia from the United States experience. As border management improves through better technology, people smugglers are employing even more recent and superior technology. Professional people smugglers based in Florida are now using powerful speedboats which are capable of reaching high speeds to either reach American shores without detection or, if detected during their journey, outrun coastguard boats.The provisions of this bill, in conjunction with other initiatives that I have mentioned that the government has introduced already, will help in the fight against illegal immigration and all the problems that it brings to Australia. But we also need to consider longer-term strategies to keep future influxes of boat people at manageable levels. Since entering the South Australian parliament, Liberal parliamentarian Martin Hamilton-Smith has spoken at length about the escalating problem of boat people. As a former member of the armed services, Mr Hamilton-Smith is familiar with the logistics of protecting Australia's vast northern coastline.He has called for a proactive approach to protecting our border. Specifically, he advocates a firm policy against illegal immigrants in conjunction with a population policy to help populate northern Australia with legal migrants. Mr Hamilton-Smith argues that a more densely populated northern Australia would lend itself to improved border security, in addition to being a boost to regional development. He also identifies it as a measure that would relieve some of the urban planning problems that are currently being experienced in some capital cities.Innovative ideas similar to the one put forward by Mr Hamilton-Smith need to be developed and considered in further detail. This must include a consultative process that includes rural and regional Australia. It is important that we give the broader community ownership of the outcomes of a population policy debate. I would hope that, in the future, the opposition might be able to accept the need for a bipartisan approach to population policy. Clearly the question of Australia's population levels is one about nation building. Surely the Labor Party can see the need to work with the government to create a sensible and measured approach to achieve an optimum population level in Australia achieved by way of both fertility and immigration. I commend the bill to the House.21:08:0012878Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I would at this time like to thank honourable members for their careful consideration of the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 and their valuable contribution to this very important debate, and I include the honourable members for Denison, Throsby, Lowe, Hughes, Curtin, Petrie, Cook and Sturt within that particular description. This is a particularly important measure designed to enhance the certainty and effectiveness of Australia's criminal laws in the seas surrounding Australia.Since the bill was introduced into the House, there have been two developments which have required amendments to the bill. Firstly, a government amendment was made to reflect an agreement reached between the Commonwealth and the state parliamentary counsel to overcome minor discrepancies that had emerged in the wording of the bills in each jurisdiction. Slight changes of wording—for example, `territory' to `area'—have been made so that the wording of the Commonwealth bill will accord precisely, as indeed it should, with the agreed form of wording for the uniform scheme.The honourable member for Denison has put forward an amendment concerning part 4 of the bill, which was to regulate the enforcement of criminal laws in area A of what was known as the Australia-Indonesia zone of cooperation in the Timor Gap. The government agrees with the honourable member for Denison that part 4 should be removed but for reasons that are completely unrelated to the mischief making that lies behind the opposition amendment.The government had discussions with the honourable member for Denison and part 4 was premised on Australia's treaty relationship with Indonesia governing cooperation in the Timor Gap. It is pretty clear that, in view of recent developments in relation to East Timor, part 4 no longer reflects the current position in relation to the Timor Gap. While amendments are being developed to deal with criminal law enforcement in the Timor Gap to take into account changed circumstances, it is proposed that part 4 be omitted as an interim measure.This was the first opportunity since the introduction of the bill for the amendments to be introduced. I would emphasise that the government had decided to remove part 4 well before the unhelpful intervention by the honourable member for Denison. In fact, the honourable member for Denison has missed additional amendments consequential to the omission of part 4, and the government will supplement the omission of part 4 with these additional amendments. Provisions to replace part 4 will be formulated as soon as possible.I would now like to turn to a number of the points made by the people who contributed to the debate. The honourable member for Denison, who is now present in the chamber, was kind enough to praise the government's bill as an instrument promoting uniformity and certainty in determining the applicable criminal law and law enforcement in this country. The government emphatically agrees with him and with other honourable members who made similar comments.In fact, the criticism of the bill by the honourable member for Denison was restricted to the inclusion of part 4 of the bill, which was based on the presumption of Australian-Indonesian cooperation in the Timor Gap. I have already outlined the response of the government to the amendment by the honourable member for Denison to omit part 4 and his related amendment items 2 and 3. However, I just want to stress—and I want to put the record straight for anyone who happens to be listening—that the government had indeed intended to omit part 4 at the earliest opportunity following recent developments in relation to East Timor.The honourable member for Lowe tried to suggest that the government had not appropriately informed the honourable member for Denison of the intentions of the government with respect to the removal of part 4. The simple fact of the matter is that the office of the Minister for Justice and Customs had informed the honourable member for Denison of the intention of the government well before his contribution to this debate on 25 November. The honourable member for Denison chose to go ahead and criticise the government for being insensitive to East Timor, knowing full well that the government intended to omit part 4 at the earliest opportunity. It is almost as though his office had done all the hard work preparing the media release and he felt that that hard work was not to be lost. It had to be issued because his staff had worked so hard.The honourable member for Throsby questioned why the government had chosen to proceed with the bill at this point in time. He suggested that to do so was insensitive to the people of East Timor. The Prime Minister and this entire government has a very proud record in relation to East Timor. We reversed the actions and inaction of governments over many years, and we have taken a world leadership position in recognising and respecting the rights of the people of East Timor. In fact, our nation has grown in stature around the world because of the very strong stand that we have taken.The honourable member for Throsby suggested that the government should have sat on its hands. I think he said, `Why does the government not wait until the situation in East Timor has stabilised?' The simple answer to this is that the bill should proceed because it is important to put in place a uniform national scheme which will simplify the rules for determining criminal law that applies to crimes at sea and ensure more effective law enforcement.The honourable member for Sturt, in a very competent contribution, noted that this bill finally updated Australia's legislation with respect to international law. He pointed out that for too long we have had a law which was not entirely appropriate. This bill will improve Australia's ability to prosecute crimes committed at sea which previously has been hampered by less than comprehensive and adequate legislation.The honourable member for Cook highlighted some ludicrous examples which exist under the 1979 act and which will be redressed by this legislation. The member for Cook pointed out that it has taken some time to take steps to update and improve the inadequacies of the 1979 act, but it is a time consuming process, as most honourable members would appreciate, to achieve a uniform, complementary, Commonwealth, state and territory scheme. The parliament and this government have achieved this. The member for Cook noted the importance of this particular bill, as did other members on this side of the House, in improving the crimes at sea legislation.The honourable member for Petrie highlighted how important this legislation is, and I want to thank her publicly for drawing attention to the merit of this bill in clarifying the often confusing applications of the law pursuant to the 1979 legislation. The honourable member for Curtin—and she herself is an erudite lawyer—recognised and identified the myriad issues relating to the law of the sea and in fact referred to its impact on the state of Western Australia, which she competently represents in this place, and its vast coastline.The honourable member for Lowe—as I said, maybe unwittingly, maybe otherwise—misrepresented the position of the government and suggested that we had not in fact informed the honourable member for Denison. Yet, as I have made absolutely and completely clear, the government was up front, the government was honest and the government approached the opposition and pointed out to the member for Denison our intention, which was to remove part 4 from this bill at the earliest possible opportunity. The member for Lowe also wrongly suggested that the government has in some way created confusion between this bill and people-smuggling issues.I just want to point out that the coastal surveillance reforms and the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 complement each other by removing gaps in the existing criminal law and law enforcement regime. However, the Crimes at Sea Bill does something very important and quite distinct. The Crimes at Sea Bill applies the general criminal laws of the states to their adjacent areas to cover ordinary offences including murder, theft and sexual assault. The coastal surveillance reforms supplement this general state legal regime with special Commonwealth powers and offences to combat matters such as people-smuggling and illegal immigration. Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you would be aware, although some of your colleagues are not, that these aspects are quite distinct and there is no problem or overlap or confusion.We all know that we live in a world where people and goods are extremely mobile. Gaps in our system of criminal law and in our law enforcement mechanisms can be exploited wherever they may be found. That is why the Commonwealth, the states and the Northern Territory of Australia have worked together to come up with a uniform and unified crimes at sea scheme. This is why each jurisdiction, regardless of its political complexion, has been able to sit down and agree to enter into an arrangement for the effective enforcement of the scheme. The agreement by the Commonwealth, the states and the Northern Territory to enact the uniform crimes at sea scheme shows what can be achieved when governments work together to achieve practical solutions to practical problems on behalf of the people of this great nation.It is with a great deal of pleasure that I commend this bill to the chamber. I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.12880Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.21:19:0012880Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I move amendment No. 1:(1) Part 4, clauses 7 to 9, page 9 (line 2) to page 12 (line 29), omit the Part.This amendment is designed to remove from the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 the provisions which relate to the Timor Gap. I think it is important to place firmly on record that this House has been grievously misled—and I assume by inadvertence—on instructions by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration.The bill was introduced on 30 September by the Attorney-General—one month after the East Timor ballot. In that circumstance it was surprising that the provisions that related to the then agreement between Australia and the Indonesian authorities with respect to the Timor Sea were included within the bill. On or around 18 October Senator Vanstone's office advised the opposition of the government's proposed amendments. They provided a confidential copy which described the amendments as having arisen because the `Office of Parliamentary Counsel have identified a number of minor language differences between the Commonwealth bill and corresponding legislation in the model state legislation'. None of the matters that were advised to my office on or around 18 October concerned part 4—those matters which we are proposing to remove.On 21 October, the bill was scheduled for debate. Again, my office had received no notice of any intention of the government to remove the offending provisions. On 11 November, the opposition received the draft weekly program for the House, which listed the bill for debate on Wednesday, 24 November. On the morning of 23 November, Senator Vanstone's office called my office to see what the opposition's approach would be to the bill. In the afternoon, my office responded to that call by communicating to Senator Vanstone's office that we had problems with part 4 and would be moving to oppose the same. I make the point that at this stage neither formally nor informally had the minister's office ever raised what is now asserted to be a longstanding intention to remove those provisions. We had communication directly in written form from the minister's office relating to a series of other amendments that the minister was proposing to incorporate in this bill. There was no mention whatsoever of the provisions in part 4.On the evening of 23 November, Senator Vanstone's office delivered advanced copies of unrelated bills to be introduced into the House the next day. We asked what the minister's view was regarding part 4. We were told that there might be a government amendment to omit the provisions in part 4 and that drafting was in progress. So much for this longstanding intention! We insisted that we were opposing part 4 and would press on with an amendment. We sought from the minister a clear statement as to whether the government would be abandoning part 4. We were left with advice from the minister's office that we would hear from her the next morning in relation to this matter and we would put our heads together if the government were going to omit part 4. We suggested that it might be wise to delay the bill, and we left it at that. We were told that there was a slim chance that the bill would come in on Wednesday but it was more likely to be Thursday.The next day, we had still not heard back from Senator Vanstone by 1.30 p.m. I did a doorstop and said that we would be opposing part 4 and that we expressed surprise that the minister's office had not abandoned the commitment to that provision. This nonsense that has been put forward by the parliamentary secretary that the government had decided to remove part 4 well before the debate that was first in the House must be said to be a complete misunderstanding by the parliamentary secretary of the truth. (Extension of time granted) I can only assume that that misunderstanding comes because he was misled by the minister.There can be no gainsaying those accounts. They are absolute fact. What possible purpose would there have been for us to have held a media conference in relation to this matter, had the minister's office given us the undertakings which we had been seeking? Absolutely none whatsoever. The first confirmation we had that the government was now intending to move for the removal of those provisions relating to Indonesian sovereignty over the Timor Gap was not communicated to us. In fact, we never had any communication in relation to this. We heard indirectly from journalists who pursued the matter with the minister's office that the government was now moving such amendments.In those circumstances, the opposition is pressing ahead with its own amendments to remove those provisions. We are not going to be churlish about this because we now know the government is going to move mirror amendments. There is no point in forcing a division or doing anything of that kind, but there is importance in putting on record what has been the most deceitful and stupid piece of parliamentary conduct by a minister that I have been aware of. It has been made worse by what is plainly a distorted set of histories in relation to this matter that the minister's office has conveyed to the parliamentary secretary.I find it personally quite offensive that it is being suggested that the government had decided to remove part 4 well before the unhelpful intervention, as it was described, by the parliamentary secretary, when the only indication was that the government was considering and looking at the drafting possibilities on the evening of 23 November—that is, imminently and immediately before the debate that actually started here on the 25th. On the 24th, when we had agreed that the minister's office would get back to us as to whether or not they would be deleting those provisions, by 1.30 p.m. we had still not heard from the minister's office. I do not know what I am supposed to do in those circumstances. Truly, I do not know what I am expected to do as a shadow minister. Am I expected to have some kind of third eye that enables me to read the mind of a minister whom we have been pressing about the good sense of removing these provisions and who will not tell us that the government intends to do that?VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—It would be a short read.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—It would be a short read indeed. I am not so prescient. What I do say to the parliamentary secretary at the table is that the now recent invention of an intention of the government to remove these provisions simply flies against the record and against the facts, and I regard it as a contemptible act by the minister involved to have briefed you in such a way. That is the first time I have used that language with respect to Minister Vanstone. I have often used tough language with respect to the wisdom or otherwise of particular decisions, but I do not say lightly that somebody has misled this House. I do not say lightly that they have sold you a pup and put you on a course of asserting as a truth a falsehood in this House, but they have.This is not a situation that I feel pleased about. This is not a situation that should be allowed to go unchallenged, and I will not allow it to go unchallenged. We will be moving these amendments. It is unfortunate that this issue has distracted attention from what otherwise is a substantial piece of legislative reform achieved not only through a succession of governments but, I am certain, through considerable effort by the Attorney-General and the minister for justice in the current government. (Extension of time granted) I just find it very sad and very unfortunate that, on this occasion, when we could otherwise have had a debate reflective of the fact that this legislation, other than the provisions of part 4, is a substantial achievement, a fact which we could have addressed without controversy, that has not been able to come to pass.Those who know my history of good faith in negotiating with the government through some very difficult issues we have faced in a series of areas of which I have had charge, I think, would realise that I do not operate on the basis of taking advantage of a situation where the government makes its intentions plain to my office and I then pretend that they have not done so and act in a way which is inconsistent with that knowledge. I want to make it absolutely plain that that was not the case in this instance. I just think this arse-covering exercise—because essentially that is what it is—of trying to defend a position that is absolutely indefensible is not a satisfactory way in which a minister of the Crown should behave.Those would be my remarks in relation to the amendments I have circulated. I understand that, because the government is proposing its own amendments now, it will take the course of defeating these, and that I will understand as part of the give and take of the parliamentary process. The end outcome will be achieved. But it really is pretty disgraceful when those kinds of wrong impressions are given by the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the minister. I take these things very seriously. I want to be able to behave honourably in respect of dealings with my counterparts in the ministry, and I expect the same in return.21:33:0012883Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I just want to make a short intervention in this moving of amendments. I was sitting in my office, watching the member for Sturt make his speech and then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration wind up. All I can say is that the parliamentary secretary must not have read my speech or listened to what I said. I supported this legislation all the way through. As for my saying that the government should sit on its hands and so on—and I actually got a copy of the speech that I made two weeks ago and had a look at it—nowhere did I say that. Most of my speech was a little outside the topic of the bill in that I was speaking of ILO 147. In fact, I thought someone would take points of order on me for that reason. But I was speaking of international seafarers and how they should be covered by domestic law, and that this legislation did not go far enough in that respect.In support of what the honourable member for Denison has said, perhaps we can go back two weeks to that second reading debate on 25 November. At that time the honourable member for Denison spoke first. I had discussed the opposition's stand with him previously—whether or not we were supporting the legislation. The honourable member for Denison had briefed me that, because of that particular area of sovereignty over the Timor Gap—because in the legislation it was claimed to be Indonesia's—we were going to move an amendment.After the honourable member for Denison had finished his speech, the member for Hughes got up to speak and someone then passed her a piece of paper. During her speech she said, `I have been informed' or `I want to give notice' or whatever the words were `that the government intends to move an amendment to pick up some of the points that the honourable member for Denison has moved.' At that time the amendments started circulating around the parliament. I was the next speaker and I was on my feet when someone stuck those amendments in front of me. If you look at my speech, you will see that I actually said something like `as for the amendments that are being circulated, obviously I cannot speak for the opposition; the opposition will have a look at these and, if they pick up the points that we're making, I am not sure what we'll do about it'—because I had not discussed the matter and I do not make opposition policy.The parliamentary secretary at the table then interjected, saying to me, `They should make you happy.' I replied, tongue in cheek, `Well, I'm pleased that the parliamentary secretary thinks they'll make me happy.' But that is the point. We on this side of the chamber had not been apprised at all of what the government intended to do. It was only while the honourable member for Hughes was speaking that a piece of paper was slipped in front of her and she read out what was on it.The point I am making is that I reject very much what the parliamentary secretary said about my contribution. What I was talking about was a little bit outside the ambit of the legislation, I was talking about why the Australian government had not ratified ILO convention 147, which would have picked up some of the atrocities and crimes that are committed against foreign seafarers in Australia. We can talk about boat people coming into the country and we can talk about such things as those who deal in the cargo of people. But the point I stressed in my first speech on this legislation and which I reiterated today is that, until we ratify ILO 147 and start allowing foreign crews access to Australian domestic law, as far as I am concerned, all these things will be meaningless.What I did say is that this legislation will have very little impact on foreign nationals coming to this country. Quite frankly, most of my speech was about Glory Cape and why Australia had not ratified ILO 147. I was quite amazed that no-one took a point of order on me and drew me back to the bill, but I was allowed to get away with it for 20 minutes—and who am I to argue with the wisdom of their decision?21:38:0012884Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Once again I would like to take the opportunity here in the House tonight to salute the member for Denison, Duncan Kerr. Quite plainly, the government have red faces—of a hue a bit like the member for Mackellar's outfit tonight. The government have very red faces over this and the member for Denison has given a very erudite speech in the chamber to persuade the government in relation to these amendments, and that is a very good thing. It was only after Duncan Kerr went public with the criticisms of the government's decision that they indicated their preparedness to entertain the appropriate amendments. I think the government amendments very much mirror the amendments that Duncan Kerr talked about from the outset. This would not have happened if the opposition had not forced the issue.I spoke about that a little while ago in the House and, as I said, in all innocence the member for Hughes responded to her advisers and, in fact, misrepresented the history of the communication between Duncan Kerr's office and Senator Vanstone's office. But it is good when we can have a vigorous debate in the chamber, and I must say that the winner on this one was Duncan Kerr. He was very convincing from the outset of this debate and, to the government's credit—and I will say it again for the member for Fisher, who is listening—they have come around. I will bring a little human dimension to this because this place is not a bad one. Many of us on this side of the House have friends on the other side of the House and some of those friendships are probably stronger than the ones we have with the members who sit around us over here. A little note from the member for Hughes was delivered to my office after I made that speech and it said:To dear John Murphy, Member for Lowe.A feast John, to your personal contribution in making this place a House of professional civility and style in face of the great partisan divide.May you linger longer here, and enjoy love, laughter and many long-time friends.Bob and Danna Vale.P.S. We enjoyed your lovely comments in the Crimes at Sea Bill this evening. Happy Christmas. I now salute Bob and Danna Vale because they are obviously very nice people and it is good that we can get along with one another.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—She had a magnificent result in the election.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—She is a great grassroots local member. But the piece de resistance is that, along with this lovely note from Bob and Danna Vale, there was a bottle of Pioneers Rest, and it looks a pretty good drop. I think maybe we are going to have to drink that here this evening. I hope so because, often, when we are sitting here late at night, one tends to need a good glass of red wine to send one to sleep after we go.In concluding, I again salute Duncan Kerr for the great job he has done on this; I congratulate the government and the member for Fisher for seeing the light; and I thank Bob and Danna Vale for their lovely gesture and may this sort of thing continue. When we work together and we get along, obviously that is what the people who vote for us, whatever side of the House they support, expect of their parliamentarians—that we get along together in the interests of our constituents and in the public and the national interest. I think the debate on this crimes at sea legislation has once again demonstrated that the opposition can work with the government and that the government can work with the opposition. I just hope Duncan Kerr continues to do the same sort of job as he did in the House tonight.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Are you getting paid by the word?83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—No, I am not getting paid by the word. You are not a bad bloke, too. (Time expired)21:43:0012884Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I think the honourable member has been enjoying some Christmas cheer. The honourable member for Denison has proposed three amendments to the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 . He is wrong again because the government does intend to support amendment (1) dealing with the omission of part 4 of the bill. Amendments (2) and (3) are closely related and can be dealt with together, and we will oppose those amendments at the appropriate time. During the contribution made by the honourable member for Denison—and I do respect that he is a person of integrity—in the second reading debate, he foreshadowed amendment (1) to omit part 4 of the bill. I do, however, want to reiterate that the government clearly intended, at the first opportunity when the bill was to be debated after East Timor's separation from Indonesia, to move a government amendment removing part 4 of the bill.I am advised that the office of the Minister for Justice and Customs had communicated this intention to the honourable member for Denison well before he issued his media release on 24 November and well before his contribution in the House on 25 November. It might be that the honourable member for Denison is somewhat confused insofar as the government advised that it would be removing part 4 and that some discussions may ensue with respect to what provisions would replace part 4. So maybe there is a sense of confusion on the part of the honourable member, but I want to reiterate that the government's support for the amendment has nothing to do with the contribution of the honourable member for Denison.When the bill was introduced into the House on 20 September this year, East Timor remained under the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia. History records that that situation changed on 25 October, the date of adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1272 which established the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor. Negotiations are under way regarding future arrangements in the Timor Gap. The government looks to the spirit of goodwill amongst the parties to enable the existing and proven system of exploration and exploitation in the Timor Gap to continue for the benefit of both Australia and the people of East Timor.It is for these reasons that the government intended to amend the bill by omitting part 4. As I said, the government had a longstanding commitment to achieve a smooth transition from Indonesia to East Timor in relation to the Timor Gap treaty. In fact, one ought to look at the comments made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs as long ago as 12 and 14 October, and the only point of doubt was identifying the treaty party to replace Indonesia during the transition period.In relation to the assertion that the office of the member for Denison was not informed, I am advised that the member for Denison is wrong. I have outlined how perhaps he was confused over the fact that the government said that part 4 would be removed and there may be subsequent discussions on what would replace part 4.The government has clearly placed its position on the record. We support the amendment being moved now by the honourable member for Denison. We will supplement it with our own additional amendments, and the details of these additional amendments will be outlined when we move them later in the debate. We intend to introduce new part 4 provisions before or during the debate in the Senate which will take into account the changed circumstances in relation to the Timor Gap. But, as I said, the government supports amendment (1) moved by the honourable member for Denison.Amendment agreed to.21:47:0012885Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—by leave—I move:(2) Schedule 2, item 7, page 29 (line 24) to page 30 (line 4), omit the item.(3) Schedule 2, page 29 (lines 22 and 23), omit "Petroleum (Australia-Indonesia Zone of Cooperation) Act 1990"Plainly, most of the substantive debate on this matter has been had. Might I just ask this rhetorical question for amusement sake: it might be an interesting exercise in parliamentary embarrassment were the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration to try to explain why, if all these matters were adverted to by the government in or around early October, the written copy of further amendments that were provided to my office on or around 18 October from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel did not take this matter up—that being some substantial period of time after the ballot in East Timor had occurred. Indeed, it might be interesting to ask why the provisions of part 4 appeared in the bill at all one month after the plebiscite that had occurred on East Timor which had voted for independence.I find the further suggestion that I might be suffering from some confusion in relation to the manner in which this matter was transacted between me and the minister's office even more offensive. I appreciate that it may have been intended to take some sting out of the situation but, frankly, it does not. The suggestion that there was any confusion is quite unjustifiable. There was no confusion. The provision was included in the legislation. It was maintained in the legislation after the interventions of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that were referred to. It was addressed by the government only after it was referred to us and when we indicated our intention to move amendments to remove it. Notwithstanding those discussions, even on the day before debate was formally had in this House, we had not heard back from Senator Vanstone's office up to 1.30 on that day when we had been told that the minister's office would be getting back to us on our proposal that morning. So we went public in relation to the matter. Of course, after having gone public on this, a satisfactory outcome has ultimately been achieved.But the method of that achievement does no credit to the Minister for Justice and Customs. Again, as I say, I take no particular pleasure in that. Whatever criticisms have existed between the minister and me hitherto, I have not made the kind of statements that I do this evening in relation to her misleading—through the parliamentary secretary at the table—of this parliament, but I can draw no other conclusion.21:51:0012886Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Once again I salute Duncan Kerr for his work here, but I did not get on the public record my interjection to the member for Fisher in relation to the bottle of red. I can assure the House that not a drop of the red or the white nectar or any other alcoholic beverage has passed my lips here this evening. But, in a spirit of bipartisanship and as Christmas is coming, I want to take the opportunity to wish the member for Fisher a happy Christmas. I certainly want to wish Bob and Danna Vale a very happy Christmas. I appreciate the contribution of the member for Hughes to this debate. But the hero is Duncan Kerr, the member for Denison and shadow minister for justice and customs. When we get back into government he is going to make a marvellous Minister for Justice and Customs. He is a terrific speaker.SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—He will be an old man by then!83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I do not think so. I think things are looking pretty good for us at the moment. Within the next couple of years, we will be sitting on that side of the House, and perhaps you will say something nice about me and other members of the Labor government, led by Kim Beazley.I do not want to delay the House any more this evening except to, once again, salute Duncan Kerr for a great job on this bill. It has been a magnificent effort. I have been very happy to participate in the debate. I know Bob and Danna Vale are going to have a great Christmas, and so are the member for Fisher and the member for Mackellar, who is resplendent in a red top here tonight to match the red faces of the government when they back down from this bill. But that is in the past, and we are looking to the future.21:53:0012886Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—As I mentioned previously, the government will oppose amendments (2) and (3) moved by the honourable member for Denison. The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has ministerial responsibility for the Petroleum (Australia-Indonesia Zone of Cooperation) Act. The minister's department has been heavily involved in consulting with the United Nations, East Timorese representatives and industry stakeholders regarding future arrangements in the Timor Gap. Those negotiations are ongoing. We hope that future arrangements will be resolved in the near future. The application of the petroleum act will need to be examined in the light of the future arrangements agreed for the Timor Gap.The amendment to the petroleum act is necessary to ensure the integrity of Australia's crimes at sea legislation. The petroleum act confers civil jurisdiction on state and territory courts with respect to area A of the zone of cooperation but specifically excludes jurisdiction with respect to criminal laws within the meaning of the Crimes at Sea Act 1979. The amendment to the petroleum act contained in the bill updates this so that jurisdiction in respect of criminal laws within the meaning of the Crimes at Sea Bill 1999 is excluded.The effect of amendments (2) and (3), moved by the honourable member for Denison, is that preventing the application of extensive criminal laws in area A of the zone of cooperation will depend upon an interpretation of the 1979 act. The 1979 act is being repealed and replaced by this bill. Attempting to keep the repealed 1979 act on foot in this discrete area will cause only confusion and uncertainty. As far as the government is concerned, this situation is simply not at all acceptable.I would like to touch on a comment made by the member for Throsby. It is true that, as he mentioned during his contribution, more should be done to protect the interests of Third World seafarers, including the signatories of the International Labor Organisation instrument 147, `Conditions of work and access to Australian civil actions and remedies'. He is right that it was well removed from the purview of the legislation before the chamber. I want to point out that the bill is the Commonwealth's part of an agreed uniform national scheme. Clarity and simplicity are essential for the effective enforcement of the scheme. Accordingly, this bill is not an appropriate vehicle—as I think the honourable member privately would understand—for addressing separate matters such as labour standards and access to civil remedies.I was also challenged by the shadow minister opposite who asked why part 4 was included until some time after the plebiscite in East Timor. We all understand that there had to be a number of procedural steps for East Timor to be separated from Indonesia. East Timor ceased to be part of that nation only on 25 October this year—the date of the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1272, which established the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor. The opportunity to remove part 4 was taken on the first occasion the bill was to be debated after that separation. The government stand on firm ground in relation to this and, quite frankly, the course of action taken by the government and the Minister for Justice and Customs has been entirely appropriate.21:57:0012887Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I will just delay the House for one minute in reply to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Although he talks about ILO convention 147, and I agree with him on this, I want to know from the government if such things as murder, which happened to the radio operator on the Cape Glory in Port Hedland harbour, are covered by this legislation. That was a murder committed in Australian territorial waters—we are now talking about crimes at sea—and there has been no coroner's report on that murder. I want to know whether that is covered by this legislation or not.21:58:0012887Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—If a murder took place in Port Hedland harbour, then the state law of Western Australia would take effect. Indeed, under this legislation, state law takes effect up to a certain distance out from the coastline and then, after that, Commonwealth law takes over. It is absolutely indisputable that, if a murder was allegedly committed within the harbour of Port Hedland, the law which would relate to that alleged offence would be the criminal law of the state of Western Australia.21:58:0012887Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The consequential amendments that the government will be moving will certainly address a large number of issues appropriately. I quite understand the necessity, given the interaction between the amendments that the government is now moving and the provisions that I have circulated. It will formally oppose the amendments that we have urged in this instance. We will take that no further. The sum of the amendments now will address the total issue in relation to the Timor Gap arrangements.Might I say one of the ironies of political life is that, notwithstanding all that has been said, I have just received a note that I have an engagement to meet with Senator Vanstone's office in our office to discuss amendments to the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1999 as soon as the debate on this bill concludes. It says `Regrettably, the minister is unable to join us.' Perhaps it is just as well in the circumstances.Amendments negatived.22:00:0012888Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 4 and 6 to 14 as circulated:(1) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 11 and 12), omit the definition of Area A of the Zone of Cooperation .(2) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 24 and 25), omit the definition of law of criminal investigation, procedure and evidence .(3) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 26 to 28), omit the definition of petroleum .(4) Clause 4, page 4 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definition of police officer .(6) Schedule 1, page 17 (line 25), omit "territory", substitute "area".(7) Schedule 1, page 22 (line 31), omit "proceedings on the charge", substitute "the proceedings".(8) Schedule 1, page 25 (lines 14 and 15), omit the definition of the Petroleum Act .(9) Schedule 1, page 25 (line 19), omit "Petroleum Act", substitute "Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (Commonwealth)".(10) Schedule 1, page 25 (lines 23 and 24), omit "Petroleum Act", substitute "Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (Commonwealth)".(11) Schedule 1, page 25 (line 27), omit "Petroleum Act", substitute "Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (Commonwealth)".(12) Schedule 1, page 26 (line 6), omit "Petroleum Act", substitute "Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (Commonwealth)".(13) Schedule 1, page 26 (lines 12 and 13), omit "Petroleum Act", substitute "Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (Commonwealth)".(14) Schedule 1, page 26 (line 18), omit "Petroleum Act", substitute "Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (Commonwealth)".The proposed government amendments to the bill as foreshadowed remove minor discrepancies in the wording used in the bill compared with the state bills and acts. The minor discrepancies emerged between the Commonwealth and the states because of different drafting protocols.Three government amendments do not involve any change to the meaning of the provisions. The first item changes `territory' in subclause 2(3) in schedule 1 to `area'. This ensures that `area' is used throughout the bill, as in the state and Northern Territory acts and bills. The second item changes `proceedings on the charge' in subclause 7(4) of schedule 1 to `the proceedings'. Again, this ensures uniformity across the Commonwealth, state and territory bills and acts. The third item changes `the Petroleum Act' whenever it appears in both clause 13 and 14 to `the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967' so that the full name of the act will appear throughout the bill. This is consistent with the approach adopted by the states and the Northern Territory. I commend the government amendments to the chamber.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.12888Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Committees12888128881288822:03:0012888Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee on Public Works, I present the 12th and 13th reports of the committee for 1999 relating to the Staff Colleges Collocation Project, Weston Creek, ACT, and the ANZAC Hall extension, Australian War Memorial, Canberra.Ordered that the reports be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—The reports I have just tabled give approval for two facilities which will add to the existing range of works projects located in the national capital. These are the proposed construction of a collocated defence staff colleges complex at Weston Creek and a new exhibition hall for the Australian War Memorial at Campbell.The estimated cost of the collocated defence staff colleges project is $28 million, while the Federation Fund is providing the $11.9 million for Anzac Hall.The committee has recommended that the works should proceed. Both projects will significantly enhance the value of existing facilities in Canberra and complement the national institution functions of the federal capital.The first report I have tabled deals with the collocated defence staff colleges. Each of the three single services currently conducts middle level officer training in separate staff colleges. These services colleges are located at Queenscliff, Victoria; Balmoral, Sydney; and Fairbairn, ACT for Army, Navy and Air Force respectively. Collocation of the three colleges onto one site was most recently proposed in the context of Defence Efficiency Review studies.The Department of Defence proposes to collocate the three existing single service staff colleges in new facilities to be constructed at Weston Creek, ACT, adjacent to the existing Australian Defence College. The works are needed to improve efficiency in the delivery of middle level officer training and thereby realise savings in operating costs. Collocation is also seen as a means of reinforcing an emerging ADF joint culture.The committee took evidence from Defence officials at the public hearing held in Parliament House, Canberra, on 11 June 1999. In addition, on 17 August the committee met with the councillors and staff of the Borough of Queenscliffe before inspecting historic buildings and a new military instruction facility at Fort Queenscliff. The opportunity was also taken to have informal discussions with members of a large group of local residents assembled at the entrance to the fort who expressed deep concerns about the ramifications of the relocation of the Army Staff College from Queenscliff to Canberra. On 2 and 30 September and 21 October, the committee held further hearings at Parliament House, Canberra and took evidence from Defence officials and the Australian Heritage Commission. The committee noted the concerns of local residents that collocation of the Defence staff colleges in Canberra would require abandoning Queenscliff, with a modern military instructional facility, and developing a similar institution at another site. The committee therefore sought to quantify the extent of these benefits and, between August and October, sought additional information from Defence to substantiate the decision to collocate the colleges in Canberra.In its conclusions, the committee has made reference to the future use of the Fort Queenscliff property when the Army college is collocated in Canberra and has stressed the necessity to preserve the heritage value of the property when ownership is transferred. Whilst the committee's inquiry on this reference was unusually protracted, it was felt necessary to conduct an exhaustive examination of the rationale and justification for the location decision.The second report I have tabled concerns the construction of a new exhibition hall for the Australian War Memorial at Campbell. The importance of this site has been recognised since 1941. Since that time, the memorial has developed and maintained a collection of historic material, conducted research into all aspects of Australia's military conflicts and is involved in other activities such as the dawn service on Anzac Day.Anzac Hall will provide visitors to the memorial the opportunity to view much of the memorial's collection at the one site, including many of the large relics that have been housed at the Mitchell depository. One such relic is the Japanese midget submarine that was recovered from Sydney Harbour, with the Lancaster bomber—`G for George'—and other assorted tanks and artillery expected to be strikingly displayed in the modern exhibition space at Anzac Hall.It is proposed that Anzac Hall be constructed on the existing car park at the Campbell site and be connected to the Aircraft Hall in the memorial by way of a glass link at a mezzanine level. The loss of the existing car park will require the development of several new parking areas. The committee is particularly concerned that adequate parking spaces are provided, including spaces for people with disabilities and for buses.The construction of such a large exhibition hall obviously entails a considerable expanse of roof. At the public hearing, the committee extensively questioned the architect and representatives of the memorial and the National Capital Authority about various aspects of the roof. The committee is satisfied that the nature of the design, being set behind the memorial and sunk into the ground, minimises any visual impact that the roof expanse may have when viewing the memorial along Anzac Parade or from places such as Parliament House.The committee is also satisfied that the proposed Colorbond roof meets the requirements of the brief. This is despite the fact that both the National Capital Authority and the Australian Heritage Commission have indicated that a better quality material, such as zinc or copper, would be more appropriate. At an additional estimated cost of $2 million, the committee does not believe that a zinc or copper roof represents value for money. However, in recognition of the concerns raised by those organisations, the committee has recommended that the Australian War Memorial and the National Capital Authority resolve the issue prior to the commencement of work.The committee recognises that as many people as possible should be able to access a building of such national importance. The committee notes the progress of the memorial in this area over the past few years and supports the decision by the memorial to engage a consultant to advise on issues relating to people with disabilities.It is anticipated that, subject to parliamentary approval, the construction of Anzac Hall will be completed by 31 March 2001 and officially opened on Anzac Day 2001. The addition of Anzac Hall to the memorial complex can only enhance the experience of the visitor; it can only enhance the understanding of the individual sacrifices made in times of war. I commend both reports to the House.22:10:0012890Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—by leave—I refer to the recommendation of the Public Works Committee tonight to approve the collocation of the staff colleges. It is with a heavy heart that I support this recommendation. I am a member of the Public Works Committee and those other members who are here in the chamber tonight will understand that this was a very difficult decision for the committee to make. Australia's largest Army base is in Townsville in my electorate of Herbert. Many of the people at that Army base have been to the staff college so I sought their views. I asked them what they felt about this proposal to the Public Works Committee. Many of them wanted to see Fort Queenscliff stay because of the heritage and tradition of the place.It is a magnificent location and the committee certainly put more effort into this decision than many of the other decisions, and rightly put that effort into this decision. But, at the end of the day, it was also right to make this recommendation to the parliament tonight. Having talked to the Chief of the Defence Force and other senior officers I know they are very pleased that the committee is recommending this to the parliament tonight. It was of course also recommended by the former government. I support the chairman of the committee in her recommendation to the parliament tonight.22:11:0012890Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—by leave—I wanted an opportunity to place on the public record my appreciation for the Australian War Memorial. The member for Pearce introduced two reports from the Public Works Committee here tonight. The member for Herbert has spoken about the first of those. What happens at our War Memorial is something that, as Australians, we ought to have as a focus point as a source of national pride. Over the years I have had the opportunity to visit the War Memorial—before I entered parliament, with my family, and since then with my family—and I have seen the way in which the memorial has changed and modified the way it exhibits the special memorials that are down there.I place on record a commendation to the Director of the Australian War Memorial, Major General Stephen Gower AO, for the work he has done. I cannot think of a more fitting project that qualifies for support through the government's Federation initiative than Anzac Hall, which the second report addresses. It is a great opportunity to further place on exhibit memorials of Australia's war experience and of our history that are currently not easily accessible for the public to see. Whilst the member for Herbert spoke about the first report, which is really history in the making—a new experiment in terms of collocation in the training of our defence forces and senior ranks—I refer to our proud military history which will be on exhibit at the memorial.In relation to the issue which the member for Pearce has made reference to, the National Capital Authority's insistence that $2 million be spent on a roof that very few people will look at, that money would be far better spent on an exhibit inside the building. I am hoping that the authority will come to a point and accept the modern material—albeit, Colorbond. It really is only a colour and, with all of the textures available these days, it can be made to be an acceptable perspective from Mount Ainslie.At the end of the day, it is the memorial itself that we want Australians to have access to. In the last 12 months, 800,000-plus people have visited the memorial. That number is growing every year. It is interesting to look at the statistics of the age groups that visit the memorial. It is not an older generation, as we might expect; it is young people, young children, young families with their children, all on their own search to find something about a father, a grandfather or an uncle's participation in the war experience. I commend both of these reports to the House and thank the House for the opportunity to speak to them.Bills12891The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 Parliamentary Zone1289110000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Mr Speaker has received messages from the Senate transmitting the resolutions agreed to by the Senate:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority for the erection of temporary structures associated with the running of the `National Capital 100' V8 Supercar race proposed by the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation, to be held in June 2000.That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the following proposals by the National Capital Authority:(a) upgrading the East Block and West Block car parks;(b) installation of banner poles at the National Archives of Australia;(c) landscaping works to the John Gorton Building; and(d) refurbishment of the Treasury Building.Bills12891r96912891Bill—by leave—presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.1289122:16:0012891McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 seeks to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to make the Australian content licence condition for subscription television broadcasting licensees enforceable; to limit the scope of international agreements that apply to the functions of the Australian Broadcasting Authority; and to establish a new broadcasting licence regime for international broadcasting services transmitted from Australia.Firstly, the bill gives effect to the outcomes of the ministerial review of Australian content on subscription television broadcasting services conducted in 1997. The review identified that the existing Australian content licence condition is unenforceable because it does not take into account the operating practices of the subscription television industry. In view of the high level of non-compliance with the existing requirement over successive years, the government has decided that legislative amendments are necessary to make the licence condition enforceable so that the intended policy outcomes are achieved.The government recognises the important role of television drama in developing and reflecting a sense of Australian identity, character and cultural diversity. The aim of the licence condition is to require the subscription television industry to contribute to the production of Australian drama programming for the cultural benefit of Australian audiences. The licence condition will also promote the further development of the highly acclaimed Australian drama production industry, providing further employment opportunities and new Australian product available for export. The amendments will also ensure that the licence condition complies with Australia's obligations under the Protocol on Trade in Services to the Closer Economic Relations Agreement with New Zealand, by treating services provided by New Zealand personnel to the production of drama programs no less favourably than services provided by Australians.The government will closely monitor the operation of the enforcement measures contained in the bill to ensure that they are effective in delivering the intended policy objectives. A review of Australian and New Zealand content on subscription television broadcasting services will be conducted by 31 March 2003. This review will, amongst other things, provide an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the enforcement measures contained in this bill. The government expects the subscription television broadcasting sector to comply with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the new enforcement arrangements over the next three years leading up to the review.The government recognises the importance of the documentary genre in developing and reflecting a sense of Australian identity, character and cultural diversity, and believes that the extension of the requirement to documentary channels warrants further consideration. The government is also aware of some industry concerns in relation to the treatment of development expenses under the bill. Therefore, the government will be asking the ABA to consider both of these issues and report back to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, within 12 months. Secondly, the bill will limit the scope of international agreements that apply to the functions of the ABA following the decision of the High Court of Australia in Project Blue Sky versus the ABA. The High Court held that the Australian content standard for commercial free-to-air television was unlawfully made, because it was not consistent with the CER Services Protocol, which I mentioned a few moments ago, as required by a section 160(d) of the Broadcasting Services Act. Section 160(d) provides that the ABA is to exercise its functions in a manner consistent with Australia's international obligations. This bill will amend section 160(d) to limit its scope to the CER Services Protocol with New Zealand. By doing so it will protect the level of Australian content on free-to-air television so that foreign access to local content quotas under the section will be explicitly confined to New Zealand. The amendment will accommodate the CER Services Protocol and retain the special position of New Zealand, while making it clear that there are no flow-ons under the amended section to other treaties. It will also assist the ABA in the exercise of its regulatory responsibilities.Thirdly, the bill will establish a new licensing category for international broadcasting services transmitted from Australia. The scheme is being introduced because there is currently no regime governing the content of international broadcasts from Australia. In certain circumstances, such broadcasts could be contrary to the national interest. The bill provides a means for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to determine whether a broadcast service is likely to be contrary to the national interest. In determining this, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will have regard in particular to the likely effect of the service on Australia's international relations.Under the new licensing scheme, all international short-wave radio services transmitted from Australia and all international satellite radio and television broadcasting services originating in, and transmitted from, Australia will be required to obtain an international broadcasting licence from the ABA. The ABA will refer applications for licences to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make an assessment of whether the proposed service would be contrary to the national interest. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will also be empowered to direct the ABA to issue formal warnings to international broadcasting licensees or to suspend or cancel an international broadcasting licence if, in the opinion of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the service is contrary to Australia's national interest.Significant growth in international broadcasting is expected, and Australia is likely to be a base for some services operating in the region. This new regulatory regime will provide a licensing framework for international broadcasting services transmitted from Australia, whilst safeguarding Australia's national interest. I table the explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills12893r64612893Consideration resumed from 25 November.Senate's amendments—(1) Page 2 (after line 4), after clause 2, insert: 2A The objects of this Act (1) The objects of this Act are as follows: (a) to ensure that Regional Forest Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States are consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992; and (b) to establish a Wood and Paper Industry Council. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992 if it: (a) provides for: (i) the development of internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable wood production and wood product industries, maximising value- adding opportunities and efficient use of wood resources; and (ii) the management of Australia's forests in an ecologically sustainable manner for a range of uses that includes tourism, recreation and the production of non-wood products; and (iii) the maintenance of an extensive and permanent forest estate in Australia; and (iv) the protection of nature conservation values in forests; and (v) conservation of the full range of values that forests can provide for current and future generations, including biological diversity and heritage, indigenous and other cultural values; and (vi) the protection of catchment values to ensure the availability of reliable high quality water supplies from forested areas; and (vii) the expansion of employment opportunities and the skills base of people working in the forested industries; and (b) ensures that Australia fulfils its obligations under relevant international agreements; and (c) applies the precautionary principle within the meaning of section 3.5.1 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (a copy of which is set out in the Schedule to the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 ); and (d) fosters community understanding of and support for ecologically sustainable forest management; and (e) provides opportunities for public participation in decision-making.(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 24), before paragraph (a) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (aa) the agreement has regard to the objects of this Act;(3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 25), omit "was entered into having", substitute "has".(4) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 8), after paragraph (c) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (ca) if the agreement is made after 1 March 1999, it was made in accordance with the public and parliamentary scrutiny provisions of this Act;(5) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 10), after paragraph (d) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (da) the agreement provides for structural adjustment packages, including relocation and retraining for affected workers and their families;(6) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4A Public scrutiny of draft RFAs Within 21 days of receiving agreement from a State or Territory to the text of a draft RFA, the Minister, after consulting with the Minister for the Environment, must publish in the Gazette : (a) a statement as to whether the draft RFA is in accordance with this Act; and (b) a notice of the Minister's intention to enter into the RFA; and (c) a copy of the draft RFA.4B Parliamentary scrutiny of draft RFAs (1) The Minister must not enter into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth except in accordance with this section. (2) Before entering into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth, the Minister must cause a copy of the proposed RFA to be tabled in each House of the Parliament. (3) Either House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the proposed RFA has been tabled, may, under motion upon notice, pass a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA. (4) Where: (a) a notice referred to in subsection (3) is given with respect to a proposed RFA; and (b) at the expiration of the period during which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA could have been passed: (i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the relevant motion has not been called on; or (ii) the relevant motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of; the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of. (5) If: (a) either House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); or (b) the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister must not enter into the proposed RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth except in accordance with subsection (7). (6) If: (a) neither House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); and (b) the proposed RFA is not deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister may enter into the RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth on or after the day immediately following the last day on which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA could have been passed. (7) If an RFA has been disapproved of under subsection (3) or (4), the Minister may resubmit the RFA under subsection (2) provided that a period of not less than 15 sitting days has elapsed since the day on which: (a) a resolution disapproving of the RFA was passed by a House of the Parliament; or (b) the RFA was deemed to have been disapproved of. (8) An RFA which is resubmitted under subsection (7) may be resubmitted in an amended form. (9) Proposed amendments to an RFA are subject to section 4A and this section. A reference in these sections to a proposed RFA includes a reference to proposed amendments to an RFA.(7) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4C Minister to establish forest database The Minister must cause to be established a comprehensive and publicly available national forest database to ensure that decision-making and management of long-term timber supplies are based on the best available information.(8) Clause 5, page 4 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (d), add ", except in so far as it applies to: (i) a property included in the World Heritage List; or (ii) a wetland included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention; or (iii) forestry operations that are incidental to another action whose primary purpose does not relate to forestry.".(9) Page 4 (after line 27), after clause 6, insert:6A Amendment of RFAs Nothing in this Act is to be taken to prevent the amendment of an RFA by the parties to an RFA where the parties agree that the circumstances are such as to warrant amendment of the RFA and where they have consulted interested stakeholders about the amendment.(10) Heading to clause 7, page 4 (line 28), after "breach ", insert ", amendment or termination ".(11) Clause 7, page 4 (line 29), after "compensation", insert "in relation to actual losses arising from the loss of legally exercisable rights".(12) Clause 7, page 5 (line 1), after "RFA", insert "for a breach, amendment or termination of an RFA".(13) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 8), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Commonwealth is not liable to pay compensation except in accordance with subsection (1) or (2).(14) Clause 8, page 5 (line 19), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; and (c) incorporating the full text of the RFA.(15) Clause 8, page 5 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: (3) In this section: RFA includes an amendment to an existing RFA.Senate's additional amendment—(1) Omit all words after "at the end of the Bill, add:", substitute:9 The Wood and Paper Industry Council The Wood and Paper Industry Council is established.10 Objectives The Council, in the performance of its functions, must pursue the objectives of enhancing: (a) the development of Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (b) employment opportunities in Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (c) the downstream processing and value-adding of forest products; and (d) the international competitiveness of the forest and forest product industries; and (e) the principles of ecologically sustainable development of forest industries.11 Functions of Council (1) The functions of the Council are: (a) to investigate market and import replacement opportunities for the industry and make recommendations to the Minister about pursuing such opportunities; and (b) to inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, matters referred to it by the Minister in relation to the industry; and (c) to develop, and to submit to the Minister, recommendations, guidelines and plans for measures consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development designed to safeguard or further the interests of the industry; and (d) to consult, and cooperate, with other persons and organisations in matters affecting the industry; and (e) to periodically inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, policies and procedures governing the export of unprocessed wood; and (f) to establish subcommittees and working parties in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Council; and (g) such other functions (if any) as are conferred upon the Council by the regulations. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Council, in the performance of its functions, may take into account any matter raised at an industry conference convened under section 13.12 Powers of Council The Council has power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of its functions.13 Industry conferences (1) The Chairperson may, from time to time as he or she considers appropriate, and after consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, convene conferences of persons concerned with the industry. (2) The Chairperson must convene a conference under subsection (1) whenever he or she is directed to do so by the Council. (3) The purpose of convening a conference is: (a) to assist the Council in identifying matters of concern to the industry; and (b) to promote a better understanding of problems within the industry; and (c) to foster a consensus on policies to be instituted to safeguard the interests of the industry; and (d) to increase markets, downstream processing, value-adding and international competitiveness. (4) A conference is to be convened at a time and place determined by the Chairperson. (5) Persons entitled to attend a conference are: (a) the members of the Council; and (b) such other persons concerned with the industry as the Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, invites. (6) The Chairperson is to preside at all conferences.14 Publication of Council reports (1) Where a Council report is given to the Minister, the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament, as soon as practicable after its receipt by the Minister. (2) Where a member disagrees with a finding or recommendation to be included in a Council report, the report must include a statement of the views of that member in respect of that finding or recommendation and must identify the member holding those views.15 Constitution of Council (1) The Council is to consist of the following members: (a) a person representing the Commonwealth; (b) a person nominated by each of those States which have entered into RFAs under this Act; (c) 2 persons nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; (d) a person representing persons having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems; (e) a person nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation; (f) a person representing the interests of the hardwood sawmilling sector; (g) a person representing the interests of the softwood sawmilling sector; (h) a person representing the interests of the pulp and paper sector; (i) a person representing the interests of the timber furniture sector; (j) a person representing the interests of the reconstituted wood products sector; (k) a person representing the interests of merchandisers and retailers of timber products; (l) a person representing the interests of the forest-related tourism sector; (m) such other persons (if any) as represent such other bodies or organisations connected with the industry as are specified by the Minister in the instrument of appointment. (2) The members hold office on a part-time basis. (3) The members, other than a member referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), are to be appointed by the Minister and hold office for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as is specified in the instrument of appointment but are eligible for re-appointment in accordance with this Act. (4) The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are each to represent one of the following interests: (a) the interests of the industry; (b) the interests of employees in the industry. (5) A person represents the interests of the industry if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) or (l). (6) A person represents the interests of employees in the industry if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(c). (7) If the Chairperson represents one of the interests mentioned in subsection (4), then the Deputy Chairperson must represent the other interest mentioned in subsection (4). (8) After each 12 months in office, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson must exchange positions. (9) The members hold office on such terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not provided for by this Act as are determined, in writing, by the Minister. (10) The performance of the functions, and the exercise of the powers, of the Council are not affected by reason only of vacancies in its membership.16 Acting Chairperson (1) The Deputy Chairperson is to act in the office of Chairperson: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Chairperson (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chairperson is absent from duty or from Australia or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. (2) Anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under subsection (1) is not invalid merely because: (a) the occasion for the person's appointment had not arisen; or (b) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the person's appointment; or (c) the person's appointment had ceased to have effect; or (d) the occasion for the person to act had not arisen or had ceased.17 Deputies of members (1) The Minister may, if requested by a person, body or organisation referred to in subsection 15(1), appoint a person to be the Deputy of a member referred to in that subsection. (2) The Minister must, if requested by the person or body that nominated a person to be the Deputy of a member, terminate the appointment of that person. (3) A Deputy of a member may resign by giving to the Minister a signed notice of resignation. (4) The Deputy of a member is entitled to attend a meeting of the Council that is not attended by the member of whom he or she is the Deputy and, while so attending, is taken to be a member. (5) The appointment of a Deputy of a member, and anything done by or in relation to a Deputy of a member, is not invalid merely because: (a) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the Deputy's appointment; or (b) the occasion for the person to act under this section had not arisen or had ceased.18 Resignation of members A member may resign by giving to the Minister a signed notice of resignation.19 Termination of appointments etc. (1) The Minister may: (a) terminate the appointment of an appointed member for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity; or (b) on the ground of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity—give a written direction that a member, other than an appointed member, is not entitled to attend meetings of the Council or receive allowances under section 22. (2) If: (a) a member becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit; or (b) a member fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 20; or (c) a member is absent, except with the leave of the Chairperson, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Council; the Minister must: (d) in the case of an appointed member—terminate the appointment of the member concerned; or (e) in the case of a member other than an appointed member—give a written direction that the member is not entitled to attend meetings of the Council or receive allowances under section 22. (3) In this section: appointed member means a member other than a member referred to in paragraph 15(1)(a) or (b).20 Disclosure of interests (1) Where: (a) a member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered, or about to be considered, by the Council; and (b) the interest could conflict with the proper performance of the member's duties in relation to the consideration of the matter; the member must, as soon as practicable after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge, disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the Council. (2) A disclosure under subsection (1) must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.21 Meetings (1) The Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, may convene such meetings of the Council as he or she considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions, provided that the Council must meet at least every 2 months. (2) The Chairperson must convene a meeting of the Council on receipt of a written request signed by at least 4 members. (3) Meetings of the Council are to be held at such places and at such times as the Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, determines. (4) The Chairperson is to preside at all meetings of the Council at which he or she is present. (5) If the Chairperson is not present at a meeting of the Council, the Deputy Chairperson is to preside at the meeting. (6) The Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson is to preside at all meetings. (7) At a meeting of the Council, a quorum is constituted by 5 members. (8) A question arising at a meeting of the Council is to be decided by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting. (9) At a meeting of the Council, the member presiding has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote. (10) The Council must keep minutes of its proceedings and publish them on the Internet within 14 days after each meeting. (11) The Council may invite a person to attend a meeting of the Council for the purposes of advising or informing it on any matter.22 Remuneration and allowances (1) The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but if no determination is in operation, the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. (2) The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such allowances as are prescribed. (3) Subsections (1), (2), (4) and (5) have effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 . (4) A member (other than the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson of the Council) is to be paid such travelling allowance as is prescribed in relation to the performance of his or her duties as a member. (5) A member of the Council is not a public office within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .23 Staff of Council (1) The Chairperson may, on behalf of the Council and in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, engage such employees as are necessary for the performance of the Council's functions. (2) The terms and conditions of employment of persons engaged under subsection (1) are as determined by the Council in writing. (3) The Chairperson may, on behalf of the Council and in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, arrange with a Commonwealth authority or another body for the services of officers or employees of the authority or body to be made available for the purposes of the Council.24 Consultants (1) The Council may engage as consultants persons having suitable qualifications and experience. (2) The terms and conditions of engagement are to be determined by the Council.25 Money to be appropriated (1) There is payable to the Council such money as is from time to time appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the Council. (2) The Minister for Finance may give directions as to the amounts in which, and the times at which, money referred to in subsection (1) is to be paid to the Council.26 Money of Council (1) The money of the Council consists of money paid to the Council under section 25. (2) The money of the Council is to be applied only: (a) in payment or discharge of the expenses, obligations and liabilities of the Council arising under this Act; and (b) in payment of remuneration and allowances payable under this Act; and (c) in making any other payments required or permitted to be made by the Council. (3) Subsection (2) does not prevent investment of surplus money of the Council under section 18 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 .27 Taxation The Council is not subject to taxation under any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory.28 Annual report (1) The Council must, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and give to the Minister a report of its operations during the year that ended on that 30 June. (2) A report under subsection (1) must be prepared in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 . (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1), if this section does not come into operation on 1 July in any year, that subsection has effect in relation to the period commencing on the day on which this section comes into operation and ending on the 30 June next following that day as if that period were a period of one year ending on that 30 June.29 Regulations The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters: (a) required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed; or (b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed in carrying out or giving effect to this Act.22:23:0012899Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I move:That the amendment made by the Senate to the additional amendment made by the House be disagreed to.This Senate amendment to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 typifies the attitude of the Labor Party in opposition to this legislation from the very day that it became the property of this government and no longer the invention of the Labor Party, as it was as part of the National Forest Policy Statement. The amendment seeks to replace the Forest Products Advisory Council proposed by the government with a Wood and Paper Industry Council. The government never saw the need to establish any advisory council by legislation, but we have made a commitment to establish such a body as part of our action agenda, and that commitment stands. It was our view that legislation was likely to impose unnecessary restraint on an advisory council's activities and limit its flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances in the timber industry. Nevertheless, we have been happy to cooperate with the unions and the opposition and to consider what amendments might be acceptable. When I discussed this matter with the member for Reid, he told me that the principal requirement was to obtain agreement from the CFMEU, so we did that. The CFMEU's national secretary wrote to me on 28 September agreeing to the proposal that the government proposed to put up as an amendment to the original RFA legislation.This is no longer good enough for the opposition. If you are a spoiler opposition, even your own close constituency has no influence; you are simply opposed to everything. In fact, I think the opposition wants to punish the CFMEU, and I have read to the House in recent times their view of this opposition. They are strongly of the view that the opposition broke their promises before the last election—promises to their own constituency and their own work force. The CFMEU is to be punished by the Labor opposition for having the audacity to look after the interests of their members rather than play the opposition's political games.We obtained the agreement of the CFMEU to the establishment of a Forest Products Advisory Council—exactly what the member for Reid asked us to do. What has the opposi tion done now? It has cooperated with the Greens and the Democrats in the Senate to pass a series of unwieldy and very constraining amendments to establish a Wood and Paper Industry Council which has no hope of really achieving anything. But I think that is what their attitude has been to the whole legislation—mix it up, mess it up and, in the process, make sure it does not work.The opposition has even added the representation of the Australian Conservation Foundation to a council designed to promote a forest products industry. The Australian Conservation Foundation's agenda is well publicised: it is opposed to any form of native forest harvesting whatsoever. However, by other amendments, which will be dealt with by further resolutions of this House, the Labor opposition has furthermore effectively thrown the baby out with the bathwater in opposing this piece of legislation and making it unacceptable to the government. Therefore, it cannot be passed.The government has already created a steering committee under its action agenda and this will become our advisory council. We do not need the opposition's assistance to do that. We do not need a vote of the parliament. We have just invited the CFMEU to provide a member to that committee and I am sure in due course they will accept that invitation. This committee will have the capacity to assist and advise the government in its determination to provide jobs and security for timber workers—and the opposition is clearly intending to do the opposite. In due course, we will give the member for McMillan the chance to come in here and vote again. Last time, he slid out under the carpet, never made a bump and would not even come in here. He writes letters to me saying how interested he is in regional forest agreements and such things, but the member for McMillan is just like another group of people that come into this place. (Time expired)22:28:0012900Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The reality is that the government's original Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 made no provision whatsoever for a body to promote industry development measures. It is all right for the Minister for Forestry and Conservation to come in here and grandstand about what is deficient in other amendments, but the fact of life is that the government made no provision for this whatsoever. They were shamed into doing so by the opposition's consistent advocacy of a proper wood and paper industry council. I am pleased that the Senate, after some toing and froing, has now agreed to support Labor's proposal. The minister has come here tonight alleging that somehow this is a Democrat or Green mechanism. Rather, the reality is that in the first vote the Democrats failed to support the Labor Party on these amendments. It is a Labor initiative and the minister well and truly knows that.I remind the House that the 1992 National Forest Policy Statement encompasses more than just resource security and conservation values. On industry development, it contains quite specific undertakings about the efficient use of wood products, value adding, structural adjustment and international competitiveness. Subsequently, the former Labor government consulted key stakeholders about the development of WAPIS—a wool and paper industry strategy. This strategy was publicly announced in December 1995 and included additional funding of $38 million, in addition to the $107 million previously announced structural adjustment funding under FISAP.Consideration interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.22:30:0012900Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—It is interesting that the Minister for Forestry and Conservation is in the House this evening. I was interested to listen to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in question time today trying to justify their never, ever tax—the tax that Australians voted against at the last election, the tax they do not want but the tax they are going to get: the GST. Try as they might, the government will not dispel the rising wrath against the GST because—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member for Paterson, but there seems to be some misunderstanding in the House. I thought the member for Paterson was rising, not surprisingly, on the regional forest debate and for that reason called him. The matter before the House is the Regional Forest Agreements Bill because the adjournment debate has been negatived.3E4SULLIVANMrs Sullivan—Mr Speaker, we voted no to the minister's question, which was that the question be put forthwith.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am reassured by the Clerk that my ruling was in order. The question that was put was simply that the House do now adjourn, and we agreed that the noes had it and that the House was not moving into the adjournment stage.3E4SULLIVANMrs Sullivan—The minister moved a motion that the question be put forthwith without debate. We understand that we negatived the motion that the minister put and so were moving straight into the adjournment. That was certainly the intention of the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will rephrase this. I proposed the question that the House do now adjourn and that question was put forthwith without debate and was carried in the negative. The House is not currently in the process of adjourning; the House is in the process of considering the Regional Forest Agreements Bill.Debate interrupted.Adjournment12901Motion (by Mrs Sullivan) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1290122:34:0012901Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—It was interesting to listen to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in question time today trying to justify their never, ever tax—the tax that Australians voted against at the last election but the tax they are going to get: the GST. Try as they might, this government will not dispel the rising wrath against the GST. As we approach 1 July of next year, the incidence of the GST appearing on accounts for such things as insurance policies or any contract is going to increase, and people resent that component.I spoke on this matter just two weeks ago. I challenged the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, the Hon. Wilson Tuckey, to explain just how the GST will affect livestock sales. He declined of course, but then he put out a press release in my electorate to simpli fy the matter and explain the issue. The media statement that he put out reads:"The position is that vendors can advise the auctioneer how they want their livestock sold, either GST-exclusive (meaning the GST is added to the final bid) or GST-inclusive (meaning the final bid includes GST)."Auctioneers will have the right to state their preference on this regard, however vendors will then clearly have a choice of auctioneer," Mr Tuckey said.That is very interesting. What the minister did not tell us is that there is, of course, another category. In the Hunter and in many coastal regions, there are a large number of hobby farmers in particular, and people do not sell $50,000 worth of livestock a year. They will have the choice of registering for GST or not. So there is going to be a category of livestock that will come onto the market for which GST is not payable.What chaos, what pandemonium and what an utterly ridiculous situation will exist at any livestock sale after 1 July next year. People will have no idea what they are buying, what they are paying for or whether GST is included or not. That is the state that this government has got one of our largest industries into. It is impossible for a minister of this government to put out a media statement to clarify the situation. All he has done is confuse the issue more.Another point the Treasurer has tried to make over recent weeks is about the great Australian dream: the Australian home. According to him, it is going to get cheaper. He seems to think that there is a wholesale sales tax on the goods that go into a home. Actually, very few items that go into the building of a home attract the wholesale sales tax. But the Treasurer dismisses it quietly by saying, `But, of course, we're going to give a first home owners grant.' He also takes great pride in the fact that he says, `Interest rates are at a historic low.'A study done by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute at the RMIT, called Falling out of home ownership: mortgage arrears and defaults in Australia, shows that the default on mortgages is at a record high. Why is it at a record high? It is at a record high because of job insecurity, because of marriage break-up, because of aggressive marketing of loans and because people are going out and incorporating car, boat and all other sorts of loans in their mortgage. The point is that, under the Howard-Costello government, more people are defaulting on housing loans than ever before.This government can stand up and crow all it likes about how strong the Australian economy is but studies such as this one that I have just quoted indicate that the workers out there in Australia are doing it tough. It is about time this government recognised the hardship it is forcing onto the workers of Australia.1290222:39:0012902Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Physical inactivity is a health hazard, and tonight I would like to comment on the government's Active Australia program. Every credible report that has been produced concerning preventive health endorses the importance of keeping fit as one of the most effective ways to remain healthy and to help avoid serious illness.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Of course you're practising what you're preaching.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Indeed, and you are doing the same thing yourself. I see you in the gym on a regular basis. According to my colleague the federal Minister for Health and Aged Care, Michael Wooldridge, studies have demonstrated that, if just five per cent of adults undertook regular, moderately intensive physical activity, over 700 premature deaths could be prevented each year.A healthier population is not only a good social policy outcome but also a positive economic outcome. A healthier population presents less of a demand on our public and private health systems and would considerably reduce escalating costs. It is generally accepted that regular exercise will help reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, adult onset diabetes, colon cancer, osteoporosis and high blood pressure.In addition, the proactive health feature of exercise is that it assists mental health by reducing an individual's susceptibility to depression and anxiety, which is something that we in this place could all do with, the management of arthritis, mobility, balance and muscular flexibility, which also reduces the risk of injury to an individual through falls. Yet, despite the commonality of this knowledge, almost all reports indicate that Australians are exercising less and, on average, are becoming more overweight. As a result, the national rate of health complications, such as adult onset diabetes and coronary heart diseases, is increasing.Mr Kerry O'Brien, who owns and manages a gymnasium in my electorate of Sturt and is very passionate about helping people lead healthier lives, recently sent me a copy of an editorial from a fitness journal called Body Life. The editorial says, in part:In 1987, 13.7 million Americans were working out in fitness clubs; that number increased to 24.2 million by year-end 1998. Between 1995 and 1998, membership increased by 1.7 million each year.A major contributor to this rapid growth of the past years was the 1996 Surgeon General Report, wherein he reiterated the importance of fitness training for the prevention of many illnesses and for the promotion of good health.The 1996 US Surgeon General report into physical activity and health remains one of the most authoritative and comprehensive studies regarding the nexus between physical activity and good health. The report also explores methods to promote more active lifestyles whilst taking into account that, in a highly technological society, it is increasingly convenient to remain sedentary, and that discourages physical activity in both obvious and subtle ways.The key recommendations contained in the report advocate an integrated approach to promoting physical activity, with a particular emphasis to be placed on school based interventions for youth. Specifically, the report stated that `every effort should be made to encourage schools to require daily physical education in each grade and to promote physical activities that can be enjoyed throughout life'. The report also identifies the importance of community based initiatives to promote more active lifestyles.An important feature of these initiatives is the necessity to cater for the needs of special populations such as people with disabilities, the elderly and racial and ethnic minorities. Whilst the United States has a different ethnic composition from Australia, it is worth noting that Australia's Aboriginal population, particularly those in remote communities that do not have access to affordable fresh foods, have some of the poorest standards of health in the country.In Australia, this government, through the Active Australia program, has taken some important steps to promote more active lifestyles among the population. Active Australia is a national participation framework to encourage all Australians to participate in physical activity such as organised sport, community recreation, fitness training at gymnasiums and outdoor and other physical activities. Similar to the recommendations of the United States Surgeon General's report, the Active Australia model promotes the delivery of participation opportunities at the local or grassroots level and highlights both the personal and the community benefits of being active.But the Active Australia initiative must continue developing and evolving. Ultimately, the program needs to make the same sort of impact on the community as the Norm: Life Be In It campaign of about two decades ago. With the 2000 Olympics just around the corner, we have an excellent marketing opportunity to further promote the benefits of physical activity. (Time expired)1290322:44:0012903Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—It is Xmas time again—that jingle `Ho, ho, ho' and consumerism, that period of political correctness. I say Xmas for that is what Christmas has become. I refer to an article in the Sun-Herald of last Sunday week entitled `Away from the manger: Mary, Joseph and Jesus' by Candace Sutton. The article states:Baby Jesus is disappearing from Christmas pageants in Australian kindergartens as political correctness sweeps Christianity off the seasonal agenda.. . . . . . . . .One of Sydney's largest kindergarten groups, KU Children's Services, has issued a circular, written by a "cross-cultural consultant", advising its pre-school centres to acknowledge diversity in children's races and religion and that celebrating Christmas "may, in fact, be offensive".Multiculturalism means the active and positive tolerance amongst races, cultures and religions and their observances. It does not mean erasure of ancient cultural traditions. I will stand up in this House for anyone's right to practise their faith. I support strongly multiculturalism which means the positive adoption of universalism, which is the cornerstone of human rights. Human rights include freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of religious observance. On the strength of the Sun-Herald newspaper article, KU Children's Services through its `crosscultural consultant' has seriously violated the very foundations of human rights, the spirit of multiculturalism and the philosophy of universalism.Christmas to Christians is the second most important feast day on the religious calendar, second only to Easter—the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The feast is about the birth of Jesus Christ, who is regarded by Christians as the Saviour of the world and the Son of God. What will be next? Will we abolish Easter holidays and Easter observances because it is politically incorrect and offends other people? That is the logical conclusion to such reasoning as that portrayed by the KU kindergarten group. It is also totally consistent, according to this `politically correct' philosophy, to deny, say, fasting at Ramadan or deny basic rights which are part and parcel of the universalist, human rights which allow different religions to exist.This version of `political correctness' is anathema to reason. It is anathema to Australian pluralism and cultural tolerance. It makes martyrs of the very essence of Christianity, still the widely held belief system of the vast majority of Australians. Multiculturalism does not mean no religion. It does not mean, as is depicted in the Sun-Herald article, `At Lakemba Children's Centre, where Muslim and Chinese families mix with Anglo-Saxon children, the December party will be Santa with a festival air.' Christmas's primary focus is not St Nicholas; it is about the birth of Jesus Christ.The spiritual significance of Jesus's birth is of profound significance to not only Christians but the whole world. The birth of Jesus Christ is the very reason why we are shortly to celebrate the year 2000 at all. We think of the year 2000 in terms of the Olympics, in terms of the Y2K bug and about our com puters going bust. But the reality of the year 2000 is that it will be a worldwide celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. For KU Children's Services to eradicate this fact totally from their festive season celebrations is a serious slight and error on the part of their reasoning. It offends the spirit of multiculturalism. It offends the vast majority of Australians of all persuasions. It culturally sets a standard that says, `Any action which offends another must be eradicated.'Multiculturalism means the positive practice of one's religion set within the parameters of universally accepted standards of tolerance. The KU kindergarten circular is culturally intolerant. It positively discriminates against the cultural sensitivities of Christianity and therefore offends every other religion for the same reason. If we universally apply this standard to other religions we will simply resort to a positive discrimination of cultural and religious observances elsewhere.This article is political correctness gone mad. I am aware of what absolutism means in other countries. There are many countries which have absolutist regimes—regimes which positively discriminate against other people's faiths, expressions of their will, and denial of basic human rights. We saw this recently in East Timor. It is not a `long bow to draw' when there is similarity in the philosophy being exercised here. We as a country that prides itself on our tolerance, on our cultural acceptance, cannot allow ourselves to positively discriminate against any religion. We accept that a philosophy, religion, creed or race should be free to perform and observe their spiritual religious observances.Christmas is not Xmas. Christmas for Christians is about the birth of Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour of the world. That is the faith and belief of all Christians who universally believe at least this revelation. We approach the year 2000. It is Jesus Christ's 2000th birthday, and I urge this parliament to allow all Australians to be free to celebrate it.1290422:49:0012904Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—Thank you for an opportunity to place on the public record a tribute to the Australian speedway world cup team. Speedway is motorcycle racing, which is very popular in the Riverland and, Mr Speaker, as I know, in Waikerie as well. But its birthplace I lay claim to as being Mildura. The speedway world cup team is made up of riders who have all had their origins in Mildura: Leigh Adams, whom I have a photograph of in my office here in Parliament House when he won the 1994 world championship; Jason Lyons; Jason Crump and Ryan Sullivan—all of them youngsters who grew up and obtained their motorcycle experience in Mildura. Mildura is so chuffed and pleased about their success on 3 October in Czechoslovakia that the Mayor of the Mildura City Council, Councillor Howard Crothers, is having a very special civic acknowledgment for the team as they arrive back in Mildura early in the new year.Leigh Adams is the Mildura international speedway rider and Australian test team captain. His success in the Czech Republic on 3 October earned him the Czech Golden Helmet individual event, and the Australians won the team cup in a very convincing fashion with a splendid team effort to score 51 points over second place home team, Czech Republic, with 35 points. A run-off race was required to decide third place, which went to the United States, over fourth place to England—both had finished on 29 points. My constituents who originate from Mildura are very pleased to be ahead of the United States team and particularly the British team. It is always good to beat the English team.The first pair, Crump and Lyons, scored 23 points out of a possible 30, which is a brilliant score. If you know anything about this particular game, it is very high risk. It involves a 500cc-motorcycle, which I would not ride, on a compacted sand track, reaching speeds of up to 150 kilometres an hour. So anybody who rides in this particular sport has my respect, and I am looking forward to adding to the photograph that I have already of Leigh Adams a photograph of the whole team, which I would be proud on any occasion to show off to members of this place.We often go on about the big sports. The Prime Minister is off tonight with our cricket team, and we have heralded our successful ladies' basketball teams and others who come back with big ticket sports. Here is a world renowned sport with Australian champions that originate in Mallee, and we down there are very proud of them. I am very pleased tonight to have an opportunity to place that sense of pride on the public record in this place. I commend each of the young men involved. They have my respect, admiration, support and encouragement. I will be looking forward to taking part with the rest of the Sunraysia community around Mildura in supporting the mayor, Councillor Howard Crothers, in giving them a civic acknowledgment of that respect.1290522:53:0012905Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The collapse of the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation at Seattle at the weekend can surely come as no surprise to anyone who has paid even cursory attention to the issue of international trade. The fundamental areas of difference are not new. About six weeks ago in a contribution in the Main Committee, I quoted remarks of President Clinton which are now worth re-examining. Addressing a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council in Washington in October, President Clinton predicted that the Seattle meeting would attract a range of protesters: environmentalists, human rights activists, trade unions and labour organisers. President Clinton rightly pointed out that the WTO had brought much of the criticism on itself.In a memorable phrase which I quoted in my speech on 21 October, the President suggested that the WTO had for too long been `treated like some private priesthood for experts'. Finally, President Clinton proposed that access to the deliberative processes of the WTO would have to be opened up so that interest groups had an opportunity to be heard. The predictions of protest became a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the protesters did not cause the collapse of the talks; they merely heralded its inevitability.The knee-jerk response of the Minister for Foreign Affairs was typical of a member of the `priesthood'. The protesters were `Luddites of the 20th century' who were standing in the way of progress. As the editorial in last Sunday's Canberra Times pointed out, this sort of glib swipe is `precisely the kind of politics of dismissal that contributes to such protests in the first place'.It is acknowledged on a bipartisan basis that further trade talks hold out the prospect of many advantages for Australia. Greater market access for Australian exporters in manufacturing as well as in agriculture can lead to more jobs and, in theory, to cheaper products for consumers. The government must recognise, however, that many Australians simply do not accept these sorts of predictions and assurances at face value. For many Australians, if the term `free trade' means anything at all, it conjures up the spectre of unemployment. Dismissing these legitimately based fears as Luddism does not advance the debate.The migrant worker in their late 40s whose industry may face the prospect of unfair competition does not want to be told that they are standing in the way of progress. The foreign minister knows full well that these concerns were not shared just by a few Trotskyites and hotheads on the streets of Seattle. President Clinton and Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, met on 27 October and agreed that the new round needed to be different in content and process from its predecessors. As the European Union News reported, the presidents agreed that the new round would have to:. . . take into account the rapid advances in technology, particularly related to electronic commerce. The social dimensions of trade should be addressed, as should the relationship between trade policy, trade liberalisation, development and labour rights, in order to maximise the benefits of open trade for all workers.The United States has of course shown a great capacity for wanting the best of both worlds by seeking to uphold both sides of the argument. On the one hand, over the issue of lamb, the American government is prepared to ditch free trade at the drop of hat when the interests of its own producers are threatened. On the other hand, in my electorate, I have seen ample evidence of the American government running to the WTO to invoke the doctrine of free trade against an Australian company that is making inroads into one of their domestic markets. The company in question, Howe Leather, employs 350 people, including many in my electorate.Whilst those who attack President Clinton for playing domestic politics at Seattle and accuse the United States of failing to show leadership may well have a point, they overlook one extremely unfortunate consequence of this line of argument—it diminishes the importance of the issues that President Clinton raised: the protection of the environment, the elimination of the exploitation of child and forced labour and the establishment of basic conditions of labour. These are not frivolous issues. In my view, the US agenda had, and still has, overwhelming merit. I have said before in this place that free trade must also be fair trade. Put simply, this means that the level playing field must be level.Australian companies which are required to provide safe conditions for their workers, which are required to pay them an appropriate wage and which are required to protect the environment cannot fairly compete with those who do not. Our standards of occupational and public health, remuneration and environmental protection must not be compromised for the sake of a theoretical commitment to free trade. Countries should retain the sovereign right to reject products that have been produced under conditions that are below their standards. This is the primary duty of government: to protect the national interest. It must never be forgotten that trade is not an end in itself; trade is a means to an end. If taking a principled stand on these issues is Luddism, then so be it. Maybe the followers of Ned Ludd had a point. (Time expired)1290622:58:0012906Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—It is my pleasure to inform the House of an important celebration of the New Year which will occur in a city in the far west of my electorate, Broken Hill. The celebration of the new century in Broken Hill is one that I believe parallels much of regional and rural Australia as we move into the new century. Broken Hill has a special place in the history of Australia over the last 100 years. It is a history of overcoming hardship, heat, dust and drought. It is a history of prosperity through hard work and mateship. It is a history of a community. It is, in a sense, a history of us all.Fittingly, a celebration of Broken Hill will not only be an event enjoyed by the people of Broken Hill but also will be part of a global television event filmed by Channel 9 and televised world wide. The Countdown 2000 New Year's Eve Party is the coordinated effort of the Broken Hill Chamber of Commerce, City Traders and the Broken Hill City Council. It is organised by the Countdown 2000 committee, chaired by Sharon Hocking. The Broken Hill celebration of 1999 will be the celebration of a city that is looking forward to a future almost totally opposite to the future faced by the city 100 years ago in 1899.In 1999, the great natural treasure vault in Broken Hill is all but empty. The natural treasure which earned Broken Hill its livelihood and which indeed has contributed greatly to the wealth of Australia over the last 100 years has gone. The owners of the last remaining mine have given notice that that mine will cease operation in 2006, yet the people of Broken Hill still celebrate. They celebrate their past. They celebrate their future. The people of Broken Hill are no strangers to adversity, and the closure of the mine is but one more obstacle to overcome.The people of Broken Hill and the far west still have what some may say is a distinctive outlook and approach to their own affairs. They still have the stuff of which legends are made. They have as a community formed the Transition 2010 group. The Transition 2010 group is a community organisation that is taking on the challenges of the new century without mining. It is working to make the next 100 years of Broken Hill as prosperous as the last. The Transition 2010 group, led by Executive Officer, Susan Devine, together with Broken Hill City Mayor, Ron Page, and Scott Howe, Ken Boyle and Chris Ellis, recently undertook a trip to this distant seat of government and met with various ministers and departments.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 3 p.m. tomorrow in accordance with the resolution agreed to this sitting.House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing12907The following answers to questions were circulated:12907(Question No. 814)81412907Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Did he state in his "Safeguarding the future: Australia's response to climate change" ministerial statement on 20 November 1997 that the Government will be bringing forward the phase out of leaded petrol ahead of 2010, with details of implementation to address social equity issues; if so, what are the details.(2) What is the new date for the phase out of leaded petrol.(3) Has the Government consulted motoring organisations and the petroleum industry to develop options for meeting the adjustment needs of owners of leaded petrol vehicles; if so, what are the options; if not, why not.12907Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The statement "Safeguarding the future: Australia's response to climate change" (20 November 1997) included a commitment to bring forward the phase out of leaded petrol, taking equity considerations into account.In response, I am advised that Environment Australia circulated a discussion paper (December 1998) designed to identify the issues resulting from the complete withdrawal from sale of leaded petrol, encourage stakeholders to raise additional issues they considered relevant, and assist in the development of a national strategy to phase out leaded petrol.Environment Australia is now reviewing stakeholder comments, and will prepare a strategy for the phase out of leaded petrol for consideration by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in late 1999. This strategy will include implementation details that address social equity issues.(2) A national phase out date has not yet been set. It is intended to specify a date in the national leaded petrol phase out strategy.I am advised that Western Australia announced on 2 August 1999 that leaded petrol will be phased out in WA by 1 January 2000. Shell Australia Limited has announced that it intends to introduce a lead replacement petrol (LRP) in Victoria in late 2000. Shell has already introduced a LRP at two sites in Perth.(3) Yes. Motoring organisations and the petroleum industry have been consulted to ensure the availability of a suitable replacement fuel for use in those pre-1986 vehicles that require leaded petrol.This can be achieved by either pre-blending an anti-valve seat recession additive (ASRA) to high octane unleaded fuel at the refinery; or through the sale of customer-added ASRAs at service station forecourts.12907(Question No. 823)82312907Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Will the Government act to protect employee entitlements in the event of employer insolvency by requiring that compulsory occupational superannuation contributions be paid on a more frequent and regular basis.(2) Does the Superannuation Guarantee Act provide that, unless required by an industrial award, the payments referred to in part (1) are only required to be made after the end of each financial year.12907Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) On 22 July 1999, the Government announced that it would seek to amend the Corporations Law to better protect employee entitlements in the event of a company failure. The measures would introduce a new offence to stop directors from entering into agreements or transactions that avoided payment of employee entitlements, strengthen the existing prohibition against insolvent trading and allow for Court-ordered compensation where an employee has suffered loss or damage. In addition, in August 1999 the Government released a discussion paper outlining options for the protection of a range of other employee entitlements in the event of employer insolvency.(2) Under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act, the Superannuation Guarantee charge does not apply if the required contributions are made at any time during the year or by the 28th day following the end of the financial year. 12908(Question No. 858)85812908Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) As part of a campaign by Jubilee 2000 Debt Reduction Coalition, are members of the public sending money in the form of cheques to him, via their local Member of Parliament, to be used to reduce foreign debt in Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs).(2) What sum has been forwarded to him for this purpose.(3) Has he used this money to reduce crippling foreign debt in HIPCs.(4) Is the Government taking other measures to reduce the level of foreign debt in HIPCs; if so, what.(5) Will he follow the lead set by European countries such as the United Kingdom in reducing the foreign debt in HIPCs by writing off amounts owed to the Australian Government.12908Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The money has been returned with the suggestion that the donation could be made to poor country debt relief through an appropriate organisation. Records have not been kept of the amounts involved.(3) See answer to (2).(4) Yes. The Australian Government recognises that the international debt of HIPCs is a serious problem and fully supports finding a lasting solution. At the recent IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings the Government pledged an additional sum to bring to a total of $A55 million Australia's contribution to HIPC, more than doubling its previous contribution.In addition to support for the HIPC Initiative, Australia is a member of the Paris Club (an informal group of 17 creditor countries) which meets monthly to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the negotiation of debt rescheduling or, in some cases, write-downs of government-to-government debts in developing countries.(5) By working through the Paris Club, Australia will provide bilateral relief to eligible HIPCs additional to the amount pledged at the multilateral level, which in itself is additional to the annual aid program. 12908(Question No. 860)86012908Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:Has the Sydney Airport Corporation made payments to organisations or individuals since 1997 for the purposes of (a) media lobbying and (b) membership of tourism-related associations; if so, what was the size and purpose of the payment in each case.12908Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No payments have been made for the purpose of media lobbying by the Sydney Airports Corporation Limited since its inception on 1 July 1998.The Sydney Airports Corporation Limited is a member of the following tourism-related organisations:-1. Tourism Council Australia2. Tourism Taskforce3. Sydney Visitors and Convention Bureau4. The State Chamber of Commerce5. St George and Botany Business Enterprise CentresAdditionally, the Sydney Airports Corporation Limited supports, through donations and sponsorship, the following organisations:-1. The Sydney Children's Hospital2. The Sydney Youth Orchestra3. Childflight4. The NSW Institute of Sport5. Handicapped Children's Centre, NSW6. Life Education, Inner West7. Youth Off The Streets8. The Botany Bay Gift9. Randwick/Botany PCYC Cricket ClubThe Sydney Airports Corporation Limited also supports many local organisations and schools.The Sydney Airports Corporation Limited treats information in relation to the size of memberships, donations and sponsorship as commercial in confidence. 12909(Question No. 875)87512909Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 25 August 1999:(1) What sums did the Government budget for revenue from the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra for (a) 1999-2000, (b) 2000-01, (c) 2001-02 and (d) 2002-03.(2) What sums is the Government budgeting for revenue from the sale of the remaining 16.6% of Telstra for (a) 1999-2000, (b) 2000-01, (c) 2001-02 and (d) 2002-03.(3) What reduction in Commonwealth debt arising from the sale of Telstra is assumed in the 1999 Budget.(4) What is the revised estimate of debt reduction arising from the sale of 16.6% of Telstra.12909Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable Member's question is as follows:(1) (3) The estimates for Budget purposes of proceeds from the sale of the Government's remaining shareholding in Telstra, together with the estimates relating to the sale of 16.6% of Telstra and estimates of debt reduction that may be derived from those figures, are commercially confidential.(4) Commonwealth Government debt will be reduced by $8.761 billion following receipt of the first instalment of the T2 share Offer and the provision of $1 billion in funding for the Telstra 2 social bonus. The debt is estimated to reduce by a further $6.265 billion following receipt of the second instalment in November 2000.12909(Question No. 884)88412909Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 26 August 1999:(1) What guarantees can be given that the passage of the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 and the rewrite of the Oilcode will lead to (a) cheaper fuel in rural and regional Australia and (ii) more vigorous competition in the provision of petroleum products to regional markets.(2) Will deregulation of the petroleum industry see efficiency gains passed on to consumers in the form of lower retail fuel prices; if so, why; if not, what measures will be put in place to ensure regional consumers benefit from the industry's deregulation.(3) When does the Government aim to (a) finalise negotiations about the substance of the new Oil Code and (b) have the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 enacted?(4) Is it proposed to lift restrictions on the wholesale price of petrol; if so, will the Government legislate to ensure that all daily terminal wholesale prices, plus transport costs, be made openly available to the public: if not, why not.(5) Is the purpose of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 to restrain vertical integration by the major oil companies and to encourage competition; if so, how does the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulation 1999 (No. 2), which aims to increase BP Australia Ltd's allocation of retail sites from 102 to 212, conform with the purpose of the Act.(6) Why is the Government introducing the retrospective Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 2) when the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 is yet to be secured and the terms of the new Oil Code have not been finalised or agreed to by the petroleum industry.12909Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions:(1) The (then) Industry Commission (1994) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) both identified that the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 (the Sites Act) restricts competition and should be repealed. Greater competition in the marketplace, consequent of the repeal of the Sites Act, will narrow the city—country price differential.(2) The Government's petroleum retail reform package will deliver a more competitive and efficient petroleum retails sector, particularly in rural and regional Australia. Competitive pressures, particularly from independent retailers, which are driving the reform process should ensure that the efficiency gains are passed on to consumers. These benefits will be particularly felt in rural and regional areas, where competition is currently suppressed by virtue of the effects of the existing regulatory arrangements.(3) The Government will seek to enact the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998, and the provisions of the agreed Oilcode, as soon as possible after participants in the industry agree on the future of the Sites Act.(4) Prices surveillance on the wholesale price of petroleum was lifted by the Treasurer on 1 August 1998 and replaced with a system of retail price monitoring undertaken by the Australian Automobile Association in cooperation with the Australian Institute of Petroleum. Information from this retail price monitoring is posted on the Internet. The Government has agreed with the major oil companies to a system of enhanced price transparency, both in terminal pricing and transport costs, as an element of the petroleum retail reform package. In addition, the major oil companies agreed that a contestable system of fuel transportation would be introduced as an element of the reform package. As with the other elements of the petroleum reform package, these initiatives will not be implemented until agreement has been reached by the industry participants on the future of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980.(5) Both the then Industry Commission (1994) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) recommended the repeal of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 due to the anti-competitive effects the legislation was having on the petroleum retail market. As such, if the purpose of the Act is to encourage competition then independent inquiries have determined that it does not achieve this aim. Increasing quotas under the Sites Act, therefore, is unlikely to be anti-competitive (and in some markets is likely to be pro-competitive) and entirely consistent with the competition purposes of the Act.(6) The Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.2) were introduced to ensure that BP Australia, in seeking to restructure its site operating arrangements as existing franchises expired, was not disadvantaged by the delay in consideration of the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998. The increase in site quota was intended as a transitional arrangement with expiry on 30 September 1999. The Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.2) were disallowed by the Senate on 23 September 1999, such that BP Australia's quota reverted to 87 sites.12910(Question No. 910)91012910Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Was the issue of microeconomic reform one of his stated reasons for his involvement with the Patrick Stevedores v. MUA dispute.(2) If so, was one aspect of microeconomic reform the lowering of costs to importers and exporters via a greater per hour crane lift at Melbourne and other Australian ports.(3) What was the price of loading and unloading a (a) full, (b) half and (c) quarter container with Patrick Stevedores (i) prior to the Patrick—MUA dispute and (ii) now.12910Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As a consequence of the allocation of portfolio responsibilities following the 1998 federal election, this matter does not now fall within my portfolio responsibilities but those of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. The Member may care to redirect the question to that Minister.12910(Question No. 911)91112910Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Since the conclusion of the waterfront dispute is he able to say whether the Chairman of Lang Corporation or Patrick Stevedores has made comments relating to the cost to importers and exporters of importing and exporting goods; if so, (a) do the statements relate to prices for Australian importers and exporters and (b) what are the prices.(2) Has the Government made approaches to Patrick Stevedores or Lang Corporation about the need to pass on the benefits of the increased productivity, particularly the higher crane rate lift, to Australian importers and exporters.12910Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As a consequence of the allocation of portfolio responsibilities following the 1998 federal election, this matter does not now fall within my portfolio responsibilities but those of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. The Member may care to redirect the question to that Minister.12910(Question No. 922)92212910Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 425 (Hansard , 11 May 1999, page 5101), has his attention been drawn to comments of Mr J. Bosnjak, Chairperson of the Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board, on page 24 of the Monday, 16 September 1999 edition of the Daily Telegraph, regarding the building of the Western Sydney Orbital Road System.(2) Are there plans to speed up the release of finances to complete the proposed orbital road.(3) Would many of the present road users who would make use of the Orbital be diverted off the suburban roads presently in use.(4) Does he or his Department have alternative plans to assist the road transport bottlenecks in the Western Sydney region. 12911Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) An article in the Daily Telegraph of Thursday 16 September 1999 referring to Mr Bosnjak's comments has been drawn to my attention.(2) The Government proposes to construct the Western Sydney Orbital (WSO) when funds are available. No timetable on funding for construction has been set.(3) On completion the WSO will provide a high standard through road between Liverpool and Hornsby and is intended to attract through traffic that currently uses existing routes. It will also serve a number of developing industrial and residential areas through which it will pass. However, it will not divert traffic that has an origin or destination in western Sydney serviced by the existing routes, which is the bulk of existing traffic.(4) The Commonwealth Government has responsibility for the National Highway. The WSO will form the National Highway link through Sydney when it is constructed. Until that time the Cumberland Highway will continue to be the interim National Highway link and the Government has committed $21 million over the next two financial years for the completion of widening works on that link.The other roads in western Sydney are the responsibility of the NSW Government and local councils. I note from the article in the Daily Telegraph that Mr Bosnjak has called on the NSW Government to deliver on the commitments outlined in its strategy, Action for Transport 2010.12911(Question No. 924)92412911Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 22 September 1999:(1) Is the Minister able to say whether the impending closure of the Analogue Mobile Phone System (AMPS) is causing some hearing aid wearers to fear that they will not be able to continue in business because the CDMA system is not available outside Sydney and Melbourne.(2) Has Telstra informed the hearing impaired of published results in relation to assessments of GSM and CDMA digital mobile phone systems: if not, why not.(3) Will the Minister regulate for an exemption from the phaseout of the AMPS service until a mobile system can be used with teletypewriter phones and carriers have complied with the education requirements in the Analogue Closure Plan. (4) Is the Minister able to say (a) whether GSM digital mobile phones make an unbearable noise in some hearing aids and (b) that information literature treats CDMA technology as being equal to GSM technology for the hearing impaired; if so, will the Minister's Department take action on this matter.(5) Is it a fact that the CDMA network will not be available in several capital cities until October.(6) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the superior range, speech quality and noise suppression characteristics of AMPS and CDMA mobile networks compared with the GSM system; if so, will compensation be offered to the hearing impaired and rural users where disadvantage and complications have occurred.(7) Will an appropriate education program process be included in the Analogue Phaseout Plan.(8) Will Telstra have a competitive advantage with the introduction of CDMA equivalent to its assumed advantage of the AMPS; if so, will the Government provide equal access to the hearing impaired by maintaining the AMPS beyond 31 December 1999.(9) Is the Minister able to say whether mobile phone carriers have passed the responsibility of mobile phones for the hearing impaired on to audiologists and the Deafness Forum of Australia; if so, what action will the Government take.(10) Are mobile phone carriers telling the hearing impaired to buy high immunity C2 type hearing aids which cost $2,500 per aid; if so, (a) who will pay, (b) will carriers share the burden and (c) can closure of AMPS be delayed.(11) Is the Minister able to say whether (a) Telstra is claiming that CDMA phones could be used with suitable (i) medium immunity C1 type hearing aids, (ii) hands free handsets or (iii) personal inductive coupling loops and (b) CDMA and AMPS handsets are suitable for the hearing impaired.(12) Are hearing impaired persons entitled to unencumbered mobile phone services.(13) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to complaints by the hearing impaired about (a) hearing aid interference on Adelaide radio stations, (b) the closure of AMPS services and (c) the delay in CDMA services for Adelaide.(14) Is the Minister able to say whether hearing impaired mobile phone consumers are told that GSM and CDMA mobile phones will not cause interference within one metre of C1 type hearing aids.(15) Is there is a process for regulating compliance with the new Therapeutic Goods Administration standards for electromagnetic immunity; if so, what are the requirements. (16) Do the performance and economic reasons given for closure of the AMPS network in 1992 still exist.(17) Will the Government review the decision to close the AMPS after consulting with mobile phone carriers.(18) Will (a) compensation be paid for loss of access to a mobile phone system or (b) an adequate CDMA education program for the hearing impaired be funded.12912McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) AMPS mobile users, whether they are hearing impaired or not, will be able to use AMPS services in all areas until 31 December 1999. On that date the AMPS services in all mainland metropolitan areas and 130 regional areas will close. Telstra's CDMA network is already operational in all mainland metropolitan areas. Telstra has advised that all AMPS base stations that are due to close on 31 December 1999 now have available CDMA services. Those people who currently use the AMPS network in those areas that are scheduled to close on 31 December 1999 have between now and the end of the year in which to decide whether to migrate to the CDMA or the GSM mobile networks for their future mobile services.(2) Assessment of hearing aid interference from CDMA phones was undertaken this year by the National Acoustics Laboratory (NAL—trading as Australian Hearing) on behalf of Telstra. The report is published and available on NAL's website at http://www.hearing.com.au/Research/index.html. The CDMA report was provided by the Department, on behalf of NAL, to the Deafness Forum, the Deafness Council of NSW and others on 1 September 1999. NAL has also published research done in 1995 entitled Interference to Hearing Aids by the Digital Mobile Telephone System, Global System for Mobile Communications, (GSM)—NAL report No.131 May, 1995. Copies of the report are available from NAL.(3) The Minister is not in a position to regulate for an exemption from the phaseout of the AMPS. Any extension to the operation of the AMPS system requires the voluntary consent of Telstra, Optus and Vodafone. Telstra, Optus and Vodafone are all members of the Australian Communications Authority's (ACA) AMPS Closure Public Education Advisory Committee and have co-operated fully in the context of that committee.(4) (a) The Minister understands that some hearing aids may produce a buzzing sound when in close proximity to a GSM mobile phone. There are available hands-free accessory kits which enable many hearing aid users to use a GSM phone.(b) The Minister is not aware of the particular information literature the Honourable Member is referring to, nor in what sense the technologies are considered equal. Whilst GSM and CDMA are both digital mobile networks they are very different technologies with differing characteristics. The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has, in co-operation with the ACA, the Deafness Forum and industry developed a brochure called Hearing Aids & Mobile Phones. The brochure is aimed at providing information to the hearing impaired consumer and is in the process of being updated by the ACA to include the latest research on CDMA. This brochure was widely distributed to the hearing impaired communities by organisations such as Deafness Forum and Better Hearing Australia.(5) Telstra is progressively rolling out its CDMA infrastructure. CDMA is operational in all mainland capital cities and all AMPS areas that are scheduled to close on 31 December 1999. Telstra anticipates that CDMA will be available in Hobart by April 2000, and Darwin by October 2000.(6) The Minister is aware of certain differences between the AMPS, CDMA and GSM mobile technologies. In an open market, such as the Australian telecommunications market, consumers will choose which mobile service best suits their needs. The AMPS phaseout arrangements will ensure existing AMPS users enjoy a reasonably equivalent digital service. There will be no compensation offered.(7) The Government in its 1999-2000 Budget has provided the Australian Communications Authority with $630,000 to undertake an Analogue Closure Public Education Program. The Education Program is designed to inform AMPS users of the timelines and other details of the staged closure of the AMPS base stations and assist consumers to make informed decisions, particularly with respect to purchasing telecommunications products and services when migrating to the digital mobile network. The ACA has already undertaken discussion with emergency services, government bodies and consumer groups in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Adelaide, Perth and Canberra. The ACA has also published and widely distributed an information brochure on the AMPS network closure.(8) In an open market, any carrier may provide mobile telecommunications services. In addition to the existing mobile carriers Hutchison Telecommunications and AAPT have announced decisions to establish CDMA networks and One.Tel is to provide GSM services. The existing and new mobile carriers will seek to achieve competitive advantage through improving service quality and prices. The Government can not maintain the AMPS network beyond 31 December 1999 except in accordance with the announced phased closure.(9) The Government is not aware that carriers are passing the responsibility of mobile phones for the hearing impaired on to audiologists and the Deafness Forum of Australia. Carriers have been involved in a number of initiatives, in co-operation with hearing impaired representative groups and the hearing aid industry to provide more information to the hearing impaired about mobile phones.(10) Consumers have a choice of whether to use GSM or CDMA mobile communications. Should a hearing impaired person wish to use a GSM phone, and their hearing aid is not of a standard that would allow access either with or without a hands free accessory kit, mobile carriers would be correct to advise that customer to upgrade their hearing aid to either the C1 standard in conjunction with a GSM hands free accessory kit, or to the C2 standard should the person not wish to use a hands free accessory kit.Telstra has advised that it suggests that its hearing impaired customers determine which services and features are important before selecting the MobileNet network which best satisfies their needs, for example coverage area or international roaming to certain countries. If customers have no specific preferences, Telstra suggests that MobileNet CDMA may be the better option since it is least likely to cause interference with Hearing Aids.(a) The hearing impaired person would pay should they decide to upgrade their hearing aid.(b) It is a matter for the carriers whether funding assistance is given for a person's hearing aid to be upgrade.(c) The closure of the AMPS network can not be delayed beyond the already agreed limited extension for some rural areas without the agreement of Telstra, Optus and Vodafone.(11) (a) Telstra has advised that its advice to the hearing impaired reflects the results of Hearing Australia's research of hearing aids with the CDMA mobile phone. These tests indicate that many hearing impaired people will be able to use a CDMA mobile phone. Telstra has reflected these results in its comments on CDMA performance.Hearing Australia's research indicates that:(i) C1 standard hearing aids should be able to use the CDMA phone; and(ii) many hearing aids, which are a lesser standard than the C1 standard, may be compatible with the CDMA phone without the use of a hands free accessory kit, however, the report does not suggest that this would apply to all hearing aids. For those hearing aids that are not directly compatible with CDMA phones, many should be compatible if used in conjunction with a hands free accessory kit.(iii) Currently Nokia CDMA phones have not been approved for use on Telstra's CDMA network and therefore the Nokia personal inductive loop is not currently available in Telstra shops.(b) Based on the Hearing Australia's research, the Minister understands that the majority of hearing aid wearers are able to use the AMPS handset and that the majority should also be able to use the CDMA handset.(12) The telecommunications industry is subject to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) in the same way that other industries in Australia are subject to the DDA. Currently the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is conducting an inquiry into whether the DDA has been breached in relation to mobile phones and people with hearing impairment. The HREOC inquiry is the appropriate forum to examine this issue.(13) (a) The Minister is not aware of complaints about hearing aid interference on Adelaide radio stations.(b) The Minister is aware of complaints about the closure of AMPS services.(c) The Minister is not aware of complaints about the delay in CDMA services for Adelaide. CDMA has been operational across the greater metropolitan Adelaide area from Mallala in the north to Normanville in the south since 22 September 1999. Telstra has advised that there was no delay in its schedule to roll out CDMA to Adelaide.(14) The Therapeutic Goods Administration has advised that a hearing aid compliant to the level of the C1 Standard should generally be immune to interference from a mobile GSM handset operated at a distance of one metre or more from the aid. The Department has passed on this information to Telstra, Optus and Vodafone for distribution to their customers. This information has also been published in the ACA's brochure Hearing Aids and Mobile Phones which is currently being distributed by the Deafness Forum and Better Hearing Australia.(15) The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has advised that from 1 July this year, C1 Standard compliance has been required for all new products before they can be entered in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (the Register). Existing products already listed on the Register at that time will be allowed to be supplied until 1 July 2001. To apply for listing, a sponsor will be required to certify that the hearing aid has been tested and is in compliance with the performance requirements of the C1 Standard. Certificates of compliance and test reports are not required to be supplied at the time of application for listing, but sponsors must have them available for post-market audit if requested. A date for compliance with the C2 Standard has yet to be determined. The TGA will consult with users, suppliers and industry to ensure that compliance is achievable given existing technologies used in the manufacture of hearing aids.(16) The reason for the closure of the analogue AMPS network is that in 1992, the then Government made a legally binding agreement with Vodafone to close the AMPS network. A breach of that agreement would almost certainly attract litigation by Vodafone exposing the Government to the significant risk of substantial compensation.(17) Following consultation with the parties concerned, the Government agreed there will be a limited extension of the AMPS network in some areas for a period up to 31 December 2000. The Government does not intend seeking the agreement of the carriers to a further extension of AMPS mobile phone services beyond this date.(18) (a) No compensation will be paid since reasonably equivalent access to the mobile phone system will be maintained across Australia.(b) The Government has already funded the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) to undertake an Analogue Closure Public Education Program, which is designed to inform AMPS users of the timetable and other details of the phased closure of the network. The ACA has offered limited funding to the Deafness Forum to aid its participation in the AMPS phase out education program to provide information to the hearing impaired about mobile phone use. Telstra also has advised that it is conducting its own public awareness campaign to all its AMPS customers on the closure of the network and the launching of the new CDMA network.12914(Question No. 927)92712914Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the potential problems caused by the introduction of the new tax system and its effects in relation to oyster farmers.(2) Have oyster growers since 1997 been seeking special consideration in valuing their stock as an asset with respect to their taxable income.(3) Is it fact that oysters cannot be treated as ordinary livestock as it is very difficult to place a value on them until they are harvested or sold.(3) Will the valuation of oyster crops for taxation purposes each year be difficult, particularly for small farmers. (4) Will standing crops and timber be exempt from valuation for taxation purposes.(5) Will action be taken to exempt oyster farmers from having to undergo year-end tax valuations; if so, what.12914Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Under current arrangements section 70-35 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 requires all taxpayers who are in business, including oyster farmers, to value their trading stock at the end of the financial year.The Government is still considering its response to a number of the recommendations of the review including the tax value/cashflow method of calculating taxable income for business. However, in relation to trading stock the review has not recommended any significant changes.(2) to (4) The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has been discussing with oyster farmers since 1997, through industry representatives, about how to value their trading stock. These discussions are progressing.(5) Under the current law, standing crops and timber are not ordinarily considered to be trading stock until severed from the land. This is the result of a number of court cases over the years.(6) The Government has accepted the Review's recommendations on a Simplified Tax System for small business. Oyster farmers who meet the small business criteria will not be required to conduct a stocktake each year unless they have fluctuations in trading stock of more than $5000. This measure will mean that over 75% of small business taxpayers will not have to account for trading stock for the purposes of preparing their annual tax return.The Simplified Tax System for small business was announced by the Treasurer on 21 September 1999 and will take effect from 1 July 2001.Refer also to (2) to (4) above.12914(Question No. 940)94012914Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 28 September 1999:(1) Is the Minister able to say whether the Wool Task Force recommended in its recent draft report the closure of the CSIRO's research facility at Prospect in Western Sydney and concentrating the CSIRO's wool and animal production research at its laboratory in Chiswick, near Armidale; if so, can the Minister say on what grounds the Task Force made this recommendation; if not, why not.(2) Is the Minister able to say whether the Wool Task Force, in its final report, withdrew its recommendation to close the CSIRO's research facility at Prospect in Western Sydney and concentrate the CSIRO's wool and animal production at its laboratory in Chiswick, near Armidale; if so, can the Minister say on what grounds the Task Force dropped this recommendation; if not, why not.(3) Would the closure of the CSIRO's research facility at Prospect in Western Sydney (a) involve the loss of approximately 80 per cent or more of the highly skilled research staff currently stationed at Prospect and risk the closure of several research programs owing to the loss of key scientific expertise, (b) incur months of disruption to research programs of national importance to the $7 billion livestock industry that would affect producers across Australia, (c) cut established links between the CSIRO's Prospect facility and the animal nutrition, pig, dairy and veterinary pharmaceutical industries based in Western Sydney, (d) directly cost the taxpayer an estimated $10 million through redundancy pay, relocation of staff and equipment, recruitment of new staff and the construction of new biotechnology facilities at Chiswick, (e) waste the $12 million of taxpayer's money spent on upgrading the research facility at Prospect in 1995 and (f) create a precedent of providing an employment and financial benefit to a particular electorate or regional centre to the detriment of the nation's scientific and agricultural interests; if not, is he able to say why the Task Force omitted this recommendation from its final report.(4) Does the Minister support the proposal to close the CSIRO's research facility at Prospect in Western Sydney and concentrate the CSIRO's wool and animal production research at its laboratory in Chiswick, near Armidale; if so, why; if not, why not.(5) Will the Minister take action to ensure that the CSIRO's research facility at Prospect in Western Sydney will not be closed in order to concentrate the CSIRO's wool and animal production research at its laboratory at Chiswick, near Armidale; if not, why not.(6) Has the Minister received representations from Members proposing the closure of the CSIRO's research facility at Prospect in Western Sydney and the concentration of the CSIRO's wool and animal production research at its laboratory in Chiswick, near Armidale: if so, (a) what Members have made such representations, (b) how many representations has the Minister received and (c) when were the representations made.12915Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions:(1) The draft report of the Wool Industry Future Directions Task Force did contain a recommendation to the effect that CSIRO's animal production research at Prospect be relocated to Chiswick. Only the Chair of the Task Force could provide advice about the Task Force's reasons for including such a recommendation in its draft report.(2) The final report of the Wool Industry Future Directions Task Force did not include any recommendation that CSIRO's research at Prospect should be relocated to Chiswick, near Armidale. Only the Chair of the Task Force could provide advice about the Task Force's reasons for choosing to omit such a recommendation from its final report.(3) (a) I am advised by CSIRO that based on past experience, yes it could occur.(b) I am advised by CSIRO that based on past experience, yes it could occur.(c) CSIRO research programs in animal nutrition, pigs, veterinary pharmaceuticals and dairying would be moved further away from many of its customers, who are located in the greater Sydney region.(d) I am advised by CSIRO that based on past experience, yes it could occur.(e) The high technology facility at Prospect, which cost $12 million to upgrade in 1995, would need to be assessed to identify future usage but based on current information, would probably be closed.(f) It is important that the national research effort be conducted to benefit all Australia. The New England area will be best served by the building up of research activities there through means other than the closure and relocation of an entire research facility from elsewhere.(4) There is no formal proposal to close CSIRO's research facility at Prospect and concentrate CSIRO's wool and animal production research at Chiswick, near Armidale.(5) Refer to answer to Question 4.(6) (a) Yes.(b) and (c) Representations have been received from the following members: Two letters from Mr Stuart St Clair MP, Member for New England dated 22 July 1999 and 20 October 1999. One letter from the Hon Warren Truss MP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry dated 28 September 1999. 12916(Question No. 942)94212916Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 September 1999:(1) Did the Special Minister of State and he write the text of the advertisements that have appeared in national and local newspapers informing the public about the two issues to be decided at the 6 November Referendum on the republic model and the proposed preamble.(2) Is it a fact that the section of the advertisements dealing with the preamble states that the preamble would not affect the interpretation of Australia's laws.(3) Is he able to state whether there is a range of conflicting legal opinion regarding the legal implications of the proposed preamble, even with proposed new section 125(A).(4) Is it a fact that constitutional experts do not agree on how the proposed preamble will influence Australian laws; if so, why is the statement referred to in part (2) included in the public education material.(5) Is the statement referred to in part (2) misleading; if so, what action will be taken to rectify the situation; if not, why is there divided legal opinion about the legal impact of the proposed preamble.12916Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—My response to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Special Minister of State and I were responsible for the final written form of the Commonwealth Government's public education program on the referendum. Accordingly, we were identified as the authors on all the program's written material. The press advertisements which formed part of this written material were based on a more comprehensive information pamphlet. An expert panel consisting of Sir Ninian Stephen (Chairman), Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Professor Cheryl Saunders, Dr John Hirst and Dr Colin Howard reviewed the content of the pamphlet to ensure that it was fair and accurate.(2) Yes.(3) While it has been the general practice of successive governments not to disclose whether specific legal advice has been provided to government for the purpose of developing government policy or making specific government decisions, I can assure the honourable member that the possibility of contrary arguments, recently expressed by some commentators, was carefully considered by the Government and its legal advisers. The Government received consistent and clear legal advice that proposed section 125A of the Constitution would have been fully effective to ensure that the preamble would have had absolutely no legal effect.(4) The Government does not accept that there is any doubt that the proposed preamble would have had no legal effect.(5) The Government is confident that its public education program, including those elements dealing with the proposed preamble, was fair and accurate.12916(Question No. 947)94712916Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:(1) Does the Government recognise the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara(2) Will the Government review its policy with regard to establishing official contacts with the independence movement in Western Sahara, the Polisario.(3) Has the Government's attention been drawn to allegations of Moroccan violations of human rights in Western Sahara.(4) Will the Government send independent observers to monitor the UN referendum in the Territory scheduled for July 2000.12916Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Australia supports the principle of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. In 1988 Polisario and the Moroccan Government agreed in principle to UN settlement proposals to facilitate a ceasefire and conduct a referendum for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. Australia supports the holding of a United Nations referendum, scheduled for July 2000, on the future of the disputed territory. Building a framework for an acceptable solution remains the responsibility of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO).(2) Australia considers the Polisario Front to be representative of an important body of West Saharan opinion, but the United Nations-sponsored referendum, due to be held in July 2000, is designed to clarify the wishes of the population of Western Sahara on the issue of self-determination. Dealings occur with Polisario on an informal basis in New York, and Australian parliamentarians and officials meet with Polisario Front representatives informally. Since many Polisario representatives also hold SADR positions, Australian Ministers do not formally receive them, because to do so might be presented as Australian acceptance of the SADR as the government of Western Sahara. (3) The Government continues to monitor the human rights situation in the Western Sahara as part of its commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights internationally. Over the last few years, individual cases of alleged human rights abuses in the Western Sahara have been brought to the Government's attention through a longstanding arrangement whereby Amnesty International "Urgent Action" cases are considered and, where appropriate, pursued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on behalf of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group. The Australian Embassy in Paris, which has responsibility for Morocco, has made representations to the Moroccan authorities and will continue to do so where appropriate.(4) In this type of case the UN may formally request member states to provide independent observers. To date the Government has not received any such request from the UN in respect of the planned referendum in Western Sahara. In keeping with its long interest in seeing a just and lasting resolution of the status of Western Sahara, as evidenced by Australia's participation in MINURSO, the Government would be prepared to consider a request from the UN to provide observers to help monitor the referendum. In considering any such request the Government would need to balance its interest in assisting the referendum process in Western Sahara with the demands of other foreign policy priorities.12917(Question No. 974)97412917Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 October 1999:(1) Are editions of the book "Lord Elgin and the Marbles", written by William St. Clair and published by Oxford University Press, available to him and his Department; if so, which editions.(2) On what occasions, in what circumstances and with what results was the question of the Parthenon marbles last reviewed by him or his Department.12917Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) If and when I or my Department require a copy, one will be obtained from various library sources.(2) The position of the Australian government on the question of the Parthenon Marbles remains unchanged from that contained in the answer to question 422 of 15 February 1999.12917(Question No. 975)97512917Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 October 1999:With which countries and for what periods has Australia been in a state of war at any time since the federation of the Australian colonies.12917Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:"State of War", is defined in the Defence Act 1903 part 1, subsection 4(1) as:`any invasion or apprehended invasion of, or attack or apprehended attack on, Australia by an enemy or armed force;'Using this definition, Australia has only ever been in one actual `state of war'. During World War II (WWII), which began 3 September 1939 and ended 8 May 1945, the Australian mainland came under direct attack of Japanese bombers in north-western Australia and Japanese midget submarines in Sydney harbour. This occurred in 1942.By broadening the scope of the definition to include armed conflicts in which Australia has contributed troops, the following can be provided:WarPeriodCountries InvolvedBoer War11 October 1899—1 June 1902British Empire (including Australia; South Africa; Ceylon; New Zealand; Canada); independent republics of Dutch-Afrikaners (Boers)Boxer Rebellion6 August 1900—25 April 1901China; Britain; Italy; US; France; Germany; Austria; Russia; Japan; AustraliaWorld War I4 August 1914—11 November 1918Britain; France; Belgium; US; New Zealand; Germany; Turkey; Australia; Russia; Luxembourg; Italy; Austria-Hungary; Serbia; New Guinea; Bulgaria; Portugal; Rumania; TransylvaniaEgyptian RebellionEarly 1919Australia; New Zealand; BritainWorld War II3 September 1939—8 May 1945Britain; France; US; New Zealand; Canada; Australia; Austria; Bulgaria; Cyprus; Czechoslovakia; Denmark; Ethiopia; Finland; Georgia; Iceland; Indonesia; Korea; Macedonia; Netherlands; Norway; Philippines; Poland; Singapore; Switzerland; Ukraine; Yugoslavia; Germany; Italy; Syria; Lebanon; Japan; Soviet UnionKorean War29 June 1950—27 July 1953South Korea; US; Australia; New Zealand; North Korea; China; South Africa; Canada; Belgium; Luxembourg; Columbia; Ethiopia; France; Great Britain; Greece; Netherlands; Philippines; Thailand; Turkey; Denmark; India; SwedenMalayan Emergency31 May 1950—31 July 1953Malaya; Britain; AustraliaIndonesian Confrontation10 October 1963—1 October 1966Indonesia; Malaysia; Britain; AustraliaVietnam War3 August 1962—1 January 1973US; Canada; Australia; South Vietnam; North Vietnam Gulf War17 January 1991—28 February 1991Iraq; UN Coalition: US; Afghanistan; Australia; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Belgium; Britain; Canada; Czechoslovakia; Egypt; France; Germany; Honduras; Italy; Kuwait; New Zealand; Niger; Oman; Poland; Qatar; Romania; Saudi Arabia; South Korea; Syria; United Arab Emirates12920(Question No. 976)97612920Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 October 1999:(1) On what dates was the Australia Act approved by the Parliaments concerned.(2) Is the Attorney-General able to say which Governors of Australian States have been appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Premiers of those States.12920Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australia Act 1986 was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament on 2_December 1985, assented to on 4_December 1985 and came into operation on 3 March 1986 at 5 am Greenwich Mean Time. The Australia Act 1986 of the United Kingdom Parliament came into force at the same time. The United Kingdom Act was enacted pursuant to a request made and consent given by the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth in the Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1985, which came into force on 4 December 1985, and with the concurrence of all the States of Australia made by the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 of each State. The State Acts were passed during September-October 1985.(2) Subsection 7(1) of the Australia Act (Commonwealth and United Kingdom) provides that Her Majesty's representative in each State shall be the Governor and subsection 7(5) provides that advice to Her Majesty in relation to the exercise of the powers and functions of Her Majesty in respect of a State shall be tendered by the Premier of the State. Section 10 of the Australia Act provides that, after the commencement of the Act, the Government of the United Kingdom has no responsibility for the government of any State. All State governors appointed by the Queen from the time the Australia Act came into force on 3 March 1986 have been appointed on the advice of State Premiers. Prior to that, from the late 1940s, State governors were chosen by State governments, but the appointment was formally recommended to the Queen by the British Secretary for Dominion, and later Commonwealth, Affairs.12920(Question No. 977)97712920Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 October 1999:(1) Which administrators of Australian Territories have been appointed since 1979.(2) When and by whom were the administrators referred to in part (1) appointed.12920Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Attachment 1 lists Administrators appointed to Australian territories since 1979.(2) Attachment 1 lists appointment dates for these administrators. All appointments were made by the incumbent Governor-General.ADMINISTRATORS OF AUSTRALIAN TERRITORIES APPOINTED SINCE 1979Administrators of the Northern TerritoryDate of AppointmentENGLAND John Armstrong, CMG, ED1 June 1976JOHNSTON Commodore Eric Eugene, AO, OBE1 January 1981MUIRHEAD The Hon James Henry, AC1 July 1989ASCHE The Hon (Keith John) Austin, AC1 March 1993CONN Dr Neil Raymond, AO17 February 1997Administrators of Norfolk IslandO'LEARY Desmond Vincent, OBE, VRD4 September 1976COLEMAN (William) Peter5 September 1979TREBILCO Air Vice Marshal Raymond Edward, AO, DFC28 January 1982MATTHEW Commodore John Alexander, CVO, MBE29 April 1985MAC DONALD (Herbert) Bruce, AM13 April 1989KERR, Alan Gardner, AM13 April 1992MESSNER The Hon Anthony John4 August 1997Administrators of Christmas IslandBOYLE Frank1 November 1977HOLTEN The Hon Rendle McNeilage, CMG19 May 1980YATES William26 May 1982PATERSON Thomas Ferguson10 August 1983TAYLOR The Hon Donald John04 August 1986MCKENZIE William25 February 1990GRIMES Michael10 March 1992GILLESPIE Dan Ambrose1 July 1994HARVEY Ronald George, CVO1 October 1997 TAYLOR William Leonard11 March 1999Administrators of the Cocos (Keeling) IslandsBUFFETT Charles Ivens, OBE16 November 1977HANFIELD Eric21 April 1982CHAN Dr Ken12 December 1983STUART Caroline20 November 1985LAWRIE Dawn8 November 1988CUNNINGHAM Barry Thomas1 December 1990READ The Hon John Bell5 December 1992MOWBRAY Dr Martin1 February 1995HARVEY Ronald George, CVO1 October 1997TAYLOR William Leonard11 March 199912921(Question No. 984)98412921McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 October 1999:(1) With reference to recommendation 5 of the Proponent's Statement (June 1997) for the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) issued by Airservices Australia, what system or systems have been adopted to provide periods of respite.(2) With reference to recommendation 6, what monitoring and operational experience indicate that adjustments could not be achieved satisfactorily with only the other nine modes, hence requiring the operation of Mode 8.(3) With reference to recommendation 19, what is the status of the noise abatement climb procedures standardisation.(4) With reference to recommendation 21, how many ANEIs have been produced since the commencement of the LTOP, and what are the figures in relation to those ANEIs.(5) With reference to recommendation 24, is the number and distribution of aircraft movements the only method of informing the community about distribution of aircraft noise; if not, what other methods are used; if no other methods are used, are there plans for more accurate methods, including the size of the aircraft or the heights of the aircraft.(6) With reference to recommendation 27 has the formal safety analysis been completed; if so, will he provide me with a copy; if not, what were its major findings.(7) Has the aim, expressed at page 3-22, of the LTOP that low-power, low-noise approaches are to be supported, been effected; if so, (a) how has it been effected, (b) when was it effected and (c) what data is available to evidence the approach.12921Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) A system of runway rotation so as to share the noise and possible respite is in place at Sydney Airport with ten different modes of operating the runways at Sydney Airport under the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP). Areas around the airport which are overflown vary according to which of the runway modes is in use. Under the Plan the runway modes are used as weather and traffic conditions permit to provide respite.(2) The LTOP has been progressively implemented since August 1997 and the distribution of traffic using different runways has been closely monitored to assess progress towards the LTOP noise sharing targets. Mode 8 is being introduced in an attempt to move closer to the LTOP targets.(3) Following detailed examination of the climb procedures for each of the runways, ICAO A departure procedures have been adopted for Runways 34L and 34R. ICAO B departure procedures are in place for the other runways.(4) Quarterly ANEIs have been produced since the commencement of LTOP. These are all made available to the Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF), the peak consultative body on LTOP, of which the Honourable Member is a member. The SACF Secretariat can make further copies available to the Honourable Member on request.(5) A number of ways are being used to provide information to the community on the distribution of aircraft noise in addition to the number and distribution of aircraft movements. As stated in (4) above, ANEIs are being produced on a regular basis. Reports are also regularly given to the community on the noise levels monitored at the 11 permanent and up to three mobile noise monitoring stations located in the suburbs around the Airport. Noise contours showing the number of noise events above 70 dB(A) have also been produced. The information in all three of these approaches takes into account the size and height of aircraft.(6) Yes. Airservices Australia advises that a safety case was undertaken for each stage of LTOP implementation. The safety cases found that the various procedures to implement LTOP were safe to introduce and implementation was conditional on safety requirements identified in the safety cases being in place. A copy of the safety cases can be provided to the Honourable Member.(7) I am advised that work is continuing on the revised approach procedures outlined in the Long Term Operating Plan, which include low-power approaches.12922(Question No. 1002)100212922Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 October 1999:(1) What percentage increase did the Government predict would occur in construction costs as a result of the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST).(2) Has his attention been drawn to claims by the Queensland manager of ArchiCentre, Mr R. Tanton, that building costs have blown out by 15% to 20% in the last six months, running up an extra $10,000 to $15,000 on an average home or renovation valued at $100,000(3) What implications would such price rises have for the Government's estimated GST-induced price rises of 1.9%.12922Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) In the A New Tax System, it was estimated that the GST would raise the price of new homes by 4.7 per cent.(2) No.(3) None.12922(Question No. 1004)100412922Martin, Stephen, MPMr Martin8I4CunninghamALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 October 1999:Does the Defence Housing Authority have houses that have been vacant for more than 3 months; if so, (a) how many, (b) in what geographical areas are the houses situated, (c) why are they vacant, (d) what is the estimated rental lost to the Commonwealth during the period the houses have been vacant and (e) what action has been taken to either tenant the houses or sell them.12922Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes.(a) 124 houses or 0.6% of total housing stock are vacant houses where rent is not being received. (b) ACT (1), Brisbane (39), Cairns (4), Darwin (5), Hunter (4), Melbourne (2), Nowra (3), Perth (4), Riverina (2), Sydney (45), Katherine (4), Toowoomba (3), Townsville (8).(c) Sold, awaiting removal (5)Sold, awaiting settlement (15)Awaiting market preparation and sale (25)On the market (72)Structural defects/suitability issues (6)Awaiting redevelopment (1)(d) $720,631 (0.2% of total rent bill).(e) Wherever possible, houses are leased pending sale. Houses are released for sale in a controlled manner so as not to distort local housing markets.12922(Question No. 1016)101612922Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:(1) Is he able to say whether (a) requests have been made from the School of Infantry at Singleton to reopen Stockton Rifle Range near Newcastle and (b) the reopening of the range is necessary as a training venue to train the two and a half battalions proposed to be raised to enable rotation of Australian military forces in East Timor; if so, what are the details.(2) If the Stockton Rifle Range is required for the purposes referred to in part (1) will he take immediate steps to remove control of the range from Defence Properties.12922Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The School of Infantry has not made any request for the Stockton Rifle Range to be reopened.(b) Stockton Rifle Range is not required to train Australian forces for rotation to East Timor.(2) See response to part (1) above.12922(Question No. 1018)101812922Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the Stockton Rifle Range Heritage Assessment recommendation that any future conservation policy should not include measures to stabilise the dune system and any attempt to this would reduce the significance of the natural system.(2) Will residential development of the rifle range site require stabilisation of the dunes; if so, what action will be taken to protect the range site from residential development and to protect the dunes, as referred to in the Heritage Commission recommendation.12923Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Given that the dunes are part of the much larger Stockton Bight Sand Dune System, any decisions taken with respect to stabilisation would need to be taken in the context of total management of the system. This would be a matter for the relevant State and local authorities, drawing on a range of studies, including Defence's heritage assessment.(2) Residential development on the non-dune portion of the Stockton Rifle Range may or may not require stabilisation of the dunes. As mentioned above, any requirement to stabilise the dunes would be determined by the relevant authorities. The Defence heritage assessment was undertaken by a consultant and not the Heritage Commission.12923(Question No. 1019)101912923Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:In respect of the preparation of the valuation of the Stockton Rifle Range, what weighting was given to the (a) preservation of the heritage assets and sites, particularly in the light of the recently completed Heritage Assessment of the site, (b) cost to preserve those assets and upon whom would the obligation rest, (c) removal of the area upon which the significant assets rest from the area to be sold, (d) removal of contaminants from the site, both surface and buried, notably asbestos and ordnance from past usage, (e) State's coastal lands policy, (f) impact upon the site if the Kooragang Airport proceeds, (g) diminution in the available useable area from the encroachment of the dunes and (h) estimated $14 to $30 million cost to stabilise the dunes if residential development is to occur.12923Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The most recent valuation was undertaken in May 1998 on the basis of continued use of the Stockton Rifle Range as a rifle range. Two earlier valuations undertaken in September and October 1996 were on the basis of the sale of the property for residential development.(a) The 1999 heritage assessment identifies five areas spread over the site as having moderate to high cultural significance, two areas of the site having moderate to high natural heritage significance, and two aboriginal artefact sites. In the context of the earlier valuations, it is considered that the location of these features is such that residential development would not be unduly constrained, as they could be contained within the open space provisions of the development.(b) The cost and responsibility to preserve those areas considered by the relevant State and local authorities to be of heritage significance, and as being worthy of preservation, would reside with the future owner or owners, and the State and local governments.The actual cost would depend on the type of heritage asset and the management regime required for its preservation.(c) As advised in part (a) the location of these heritage features/areas is such that residential development would not be unduly constrained as they could be contained within the open space provision of the development. Neither valuation assumes residential development occurring on the dunes.(d) In the absence of precise information on the nature and extent of any contamination all valuations have been made on the assumption that the property is uncontaminated. In the event of residential development being proposed on part of the property, an assessment of the area proposed for development would be required, and depending on the results of that assessment, remediation to the standard required to permit residential development may be required.(e) The New South Wales Coastal Policy was released in October 1997. Any revision of the residential valuations would need to take account of the principles and objectives for development outlined in this policy. However, without a development concept, the practical effects of this policy on the value of the property could not be determined.(f) Defence understands that the Kooragang Airport proposal was released by its proponents earlier this year. If it goes ahead its effect on the property, if any, would need to taken into account in any subsequent revaluation.(g) Both residential valuations are based on the assumption that only between 45 to 50 hectares of this 111.3 hectare property could be developed, because of the development limitations imposed with the sand dunes. Residential development on the property may or may not require stabilisation of the dunes, or some other management regime as determined by the State and local government authorities, to prevent them encroaching on the development area.(h) Both valuers who valued the property for residential development adopted different approaches to how the cost of the dune stabilisation could be addressed in determining the value of the property. Each attributed a different level of risk based on the estimated extent of dune stabilisation and associated maintenance. Defence is not aware of the existence or basis of any estimates of $14 to $30 million to stabilise the dunes on Stockton Rifle Range if residential development were to occur.12924(Question No. 1025)102512924Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:(1) What representations has the Australian government made on behalf of Gendun Choekyi Nyima, the eleventh Panchen Lama, the second-highest incarnation in Tibet, who, in 1995, was kidnapped at the age of six, along with his parents, by the Chinese authorities in Tibet and has not been seen since.(2) What efforts has the Australian Government made to ascertain the whereabouts of the Panchen Lama and his family.(3) Was this matter raised (a) in the most recent Australia-China Human Rights dialogue, (b) at any of the previous dialogues or (c) in any other representations on human rights that the Australian government has made to the Chinese Government.12924Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's questions are as follows:The Australian Embassy in Beijing raised the case of Gendun Choekyi Nyima with the relevant Chinese authorities on 10 October 1995. We have also raised his case in all three meetings of the human rights dialogue held so far. The Chinese have told us that the boy was not in detention, that he was living a normal life, and that his parents wanted to be left alone. In November 1999, they repeated these assurances to the visiting British Foreign Office Minister, John Battle.12924(Question No. 1026)102612924O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KeefeCE4BurkeALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:(1) Does the Freedom of Information Act impose time frames for responses to be provided; if so, is (a) Comcare Australia and (b) the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office required to abide by the time frames.(2) What remedy is available to persons or organisations who do not receive replies within specified time frames.(3) Will procedures be introduced to ensure that these bodies abide by the time frames stipulated by the Act; if so what.12925Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows:(1) The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) requires agencies (under s.15) to advise applicants within 30 days of their decision regarding access. However where an agency must consult a third party, the agency may extend that time by another 30 days. The provisions of the FOI Act apply to both Comcare Australia (except in relation to documents in respect of its commercial activities) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.(2) A person or organisation that does not receive notice of an agency's decision within the time limits prescribed under the FOI Act can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT). The Commonwealth Ombudsman also has power to investigate other agencies' actions under the FOI Act, including decisions, delays, and refusal or failure to act.(3) The Government is concerned to ensure that all agencies bound by the FOI Act should continue to give effect to the spirit of the FOI Act as well as observing its requirements. In this regard the Secretary of my Department recently wrote to all agency heads reminding them of their obligations under the FOI Act. The statistics in the FOI Annual Report for 1998-99 show that the vast majority of requests are processed within the required time frame. Having regard to this fact, and the existence of a right to appeal to the AAT or complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, it is not considered necessary for further measures to ensure compliance by agencies to be introduced at this time.