2000-04-033915REPS1498702000-04-03—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees14987149871498712:31:0014987Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 30: Treaties tabled on 8 and 9 December 1999 and 15 February 2000, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The report I have just tabled contains the findings of the treaties committee's review of four proposed treaty actions and two treaties that have already taken effect. The proposed treaty actions are the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, a scientific and technological cooperation agreement with Korea, an agreement to establish the International Development Law Institute and a denunciation of the Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface. The treaty actions that have already taken effect are a series of amendments to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals and the agreement between Australia and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor on the continued operation of the Timor Gap Treaty. In this report we express our support for all six of these treaty actions.Our accession to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification is perhaps the most significant of these agreements. This convention came into being in December 1996, and it has been the subject of lengthy debate in Australia. In June 1997 the former treaties committee gave some preliminary consideration to this convention. They concluded that considerable further consultation with the states and territories was required before the government should consider ratifying it. At the time there were concerns about the potential impact of the convention on land management responsibilities within Australia. This debate has continued to the point where all state and territory governments now accept that the convention does not require any changes to the federal division of land management responsibilities in Australia or to the land management policies or practices of any Australian government. The Commonwealth government has agreed to confirm this understanding by making a public statement at the time it ratifies the convention. To ensure there is no further confusion about this matter, to make things absolutely clear, we believe the government should submit its public statement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations with its instrument of ratification. Australia has considerable experience in dryland management, and the ratification of this convention will allow Australian expertise to be harnessed in tackling land degradation problems around the world.The other particularly notable treaty action considered in this report is the agreement with the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor about the continued operation of the Timor Gap treaty. This treaty was negotiated with Indonesia in May 1990 to establish a regime for the joint development of the natural resources in the Timor Sea between Australia and East Timor. Following the Indonesian government's decision to transfer sovereignty in East Timor to the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor, it was plainly necessary to renegotiate the original agreement. Given the scale and potential of exploration and development activities to be undertaken in the Timor Gap and the pressing geopolitical and commercial time frames involved, the government exercised its right to take urgent action to implement this treaty before it was tabled in parliament. We have no quarrel with this decision—we do not quarrel with people often—and we note that, shortly after binding action was taken, a consortium of six companies committed itself to a $2.9 billion gas exploration program in the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation. This program is expected to reap considerable rewards for the companies and the state, territory and national governments involved, including the emerging government of the newly independent East Timor.I would like to conclude by thanking my colleagues for their continued diligence in reviewing proposed treaty actions. Few efforts among the committees of this parliament would equal that of the treaties committee—the amount of time and effort and the sheer brain power and sweat that is put into the consideration of these treaties. They come up in great numbers and, whilst we would not put down the efforts of any of our colleagues, I think it is about time we gave ourselves a bit of a pat on the back.12:36:0014988Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I concur with the remarks made by the chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the member for Wentworth. The latest report from the treaties committee contains a number of important issues. It might be noted that there is cross-party, unanimous support for the recommended actions, so I will not cover similar ground. I will restrict my comments to the migratory species treaty and the International Development Law Institute agreement. In both cases action has already been taken which binds Australia at international law to the terms of these treaties. The migratory species convention was established in 1979 to encourage the conservation of migratory species of wild animals and their habitat. The convention compels governments to take action individually or collectively to conserve and undertake research into species which migrate across and outside national boundaries. The convention also encourages member states to conclude regional agreements to conserve endangered species. At the moment 65 nations are members of the convention, 10 having acceded to this convention during 1999.This treaty is seeking to add seven new species to the endangered species list and 31 new species to the list of animals in the unfavourable conservation status. Eight of the latter are of particular interest to Australia as they range through our territory, and they are the Indian Ocean bottle-nosed dolphin, nominated by Australia, six species of petrel, nominated by South Africa, and the wild shark nominated by the Philippines. The minister has previously advised the committee that the convention contains provisions that resulted in amendments agreed by all parties automatically coming into force within 90 days of the parties agreeing to the amendments. These were agreed to at a conference of parties at Cape Town in November 1999 and entered into force on 14 February 2000. It was decided not to conduct a full review but merely to assure ourselves of the reasons for the treaty actions and that their early entry into force was sound. The committee believes that the Bonn convention provided a valuable framework for worldwide efforts to conserve and protect migratory species of wild animals. The obligations are within our capacity as a nation and we hope that no action by the federal government will lessen the importance of the treaty system and its operation.The other agreement for the establishment of the International Development Law Institute was done in Rome on 5 February 1988. The agreement and the institute are both already in operation. There are 14 countries who are party to this agreement. The IDLI has three main purposes: to encourage and facilitate the improvement of the use of legal resources in the development process, to encourage adherence to the rule of law in international transactions and to improve the negotiating capability of developing countries in the fields of development cooperation, foreign investment, international trade and other international transactions. It is in Australia's interests to become a member of the IDLI assembly and we would be in a position to directly contribute to the development of the IDLI priorities. All that the institute is offering is also consistent with Australian foreign policy, particularly in the field of economic law and good governance. It also helps us with the AusAID objectives. Accession to the agreement may benefit the Australian legal profession both financially and non-financially, as they have had a history of involvement with IDLI activities and are becoming increasingly involved with running training courses in the Asia-Pacific region.It is ironic that we are assisting in the development of human rights through legal assistance from Australia through this IDLI while reneging on our own human rights with the nonsensical mandatory sentencing laws in the north and west of Australia. We are jeopardising our position as a forward thinking, modern democracy by some of the stands taken by the federal Liberal Party and its leader.The committee is keen to see a regional office established in Australia. Although there are some reservations about supporting yet another international organisation based in Europe, a possible solution would be a regional office over here in Australia, as well as in Manila. It is important to help developing countries improve their legal and governmental systems and the aim of encouraging adherence to the rules of law is important in international transactions. The committee has decided that it was definitely in Australia's interests to be a party to this treaty and the other six treaties that we recommend in this report.12:41:0014989Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to speak to report 30 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and concur with the chairman's comments and also commend the chairman for his outstanding leadership of the committee. I wish to focus my remarks on section 5 of this report, which deals with the denunciation of the Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface, 1952, or the Rome convention. Some 52 per cent of all aircraft taking off from Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport pass over my electorate, and my constituents take a special interest in the nature of this particular agreement. It is a little different from others, and we are denouncing a particular convention.This convention, to which Australia has been a signatory for over 40 years, has failed in its primary objective, which has been the provision of uniformity in the compensation of the victims of damage caused by foreign aircraft. One in four of the member countries of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, are subject to this convention, which puts Australia at a significant disadvantage, even more so when one compares the safety standards of Ansett and Qantas with some overseas international carriers. This convention is not one to which countries are flocking to sign and ratify. It is largely seen as outdated, having been drafted to protect a developing aviation industry post World War II, which at the time comprised airlines that could not sustain sizeable payouts. In denouncing this convention, we follow other countries like Canada which have denounced the Rome convention for exactly the same reasons the Australian government's treaties committee recommends in this report.The government believes that this convention lets airlines off too lightly with regard to their legal obligations to the victims of aviation accidents. A compensation limit of only $36 million is likely to be grossly insufficient should a large plane ever crash in an Australian metropolitan centre. Of course, the vulnerability of my own electorate makes us pay particular attention to this, and of course this convention, drafted at a time when we did not have the current round of jumbo jets flying regularly into Kingsford Smith. So it is particularly important that we are not party to the provisions of the old 1952 agreement, and both of our large carriers, Ansett and Qantas, support the treaties committee's decision on that.Denunciation of this convention to the ICAO by the government brings into force the Damage by Aircraft Act 1999. This act replaces the Civil Aviation (Damage to Aircraft) Act 1958, through which Australia has complied with the Rome convention since 1959. So we are not just leaving it out there; we are bringing forward the Damage by Aircraft Act 1999 which substantially increases the penalties involved, and that is more appropriate in line with recommendations from Canada.Following a six-month period following notification to the ICAO, it will be up to the courts to decide what level of compensation to innocent third parties on the ground suffering death, injury or property damage will be appropriate. As the member for an electorate in close proximity to Kingsford Smith, it is very clear that in one accident you could have hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to property alone, without considering the human loss, if a large aircraft did crash in that area. We are particularly pleased that the government has legislated in the meantime to stop damage by aircraft in one critical area in particular. Through the Air Navigation (Fuel Spillage) Regulations 1999, penalties have been set for the jettisoning of fuel during flight. In an emergency, air traffic control can give permission for fuel dumping over areas where such dumping would not create a hazard. If during inspection it is found that an aircraft will dump fuel, it can be grounded and also penalties of up to $13,750 will apply for any illegal release of fuel in flight. That has happened quite a number of times. The airline Evergreen has been caught on five occasions. People in my electorate are very sensitive to that.I commend the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, for his efforts in this regard and for his sensitivity to the issues. I also commend the government for bringing forward the legislation. I for one, as a member of this committee, am very pleased to see the government's legislation in this area.12:46:0014990Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am very pleased as always to rise in support of the tabling of yet another report from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—our 30th such document in a little under four years. It is probably, as committee work goes, some sort of record that has been set as far as the number of items we have looked at and reported to the parliament on.It is always important to restate the general principles under which we are operating as a committee. The notion of `What's in it for Australia and why are we signing this?' is the raison d'etre of the committee on an everyday basis. At every particular juncture when we are inquiring into matters—be it something as controversial as the draft MIA through to review of the Convention on the Rights of the Child through to some of the more mundane and everyday matters—we are still, nevertheless, applying that same general criteria on behalf of all senators and members in this place and of course, through them, the people of Australia.What is important to know on the tabling of this document today, though, is that, as a result of almost four years work, I believe the committee has achieved a change of culture amongst a lot of the government departments of this country. It is interesting to reflect upon some comments at this morning's hearings from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the level of consultation that they are now undertaking. The departmental official said to us this morning—and I think I am paraphrasing it correctly enough to report it to this place—that consultation now opens them up to a wider community opinion. The Department of Family and Community Services, who copped a fair old shellacking from the committee a few months ago because of their failure to consult, have learnt a valuable lesson. They are now saying that they have learnt a lot as to what they can gain from the consultation process, that they are now factoring consultation with the community into their long-term planning of their activities as a department and that consultation is now a matter of course. I think that is a tremendous thing that has occurred over the four short years of this committee being in existence, because it is important, as our laws are governed not just by what we aspire to in this nation but also by international linkages, that the people of Australia feel very comfortable with what is put before them as a result of treaties and other matters that are negotiated by people within the public sector on behalf of all Australians.It is worth also reflecting on the 48-hour trip that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties took to New Zealand last week at the direct invitation of the New Zealand parliament and at their cost, I should add too, Mr Speaker. We thank your opposite number in the New Zealand parliament, the Speaker, the Hon. Jonathan Hunt, for his generosity in making it possible for eight of us to venture over. We found that the New Zealand parliamentarians are in fact in awe of the process that we have been undertaking as a committee.Graham Kelly MP, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee of that parliament, hosted the trip, but it was the conversations with a couple of distinguished jurists that stuck in my mind about just how important the processes are that the Australian parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties undertakes. We spoke with the Rt Hon. Sir Kenneth Keith, a landmark jurist in New Zealand, and also the President of the New Zealand Law Commission, the Hon. Justice Baragwanath. He made an observation that is worth repeating here: that laws are being made more and more often overseas and that, whilst judges used to make their own assessments based on the local criterion of a particular nation's values and sets of laws, now all criterion are not exactly always local and, as a result, we can get some inconsistency between international agreements and local laws. That in itself justifies the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.We have to maintain a deal of faith—or perhaps in a lot of instances restore faith—in key institutions in this country. The people of Australia must be comfortable with the laws that we create in this place and in state parliaments, because if people are not in support of the laws that are created they may find it impossible or at best difficult to adhere to them. So the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is proud of its record of exposing the processes of the bureaucracy that were in the past hidden. I think it is one of the great achievements of the Howard government to bring this process into place, but I must add that members on both sides of the chamber of all political parties and representatives in this place and in the Senate are very supportive of this consultation process, of this exposure process, brought about by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wentworth wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr Andrew Thomson—I do. I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102(b), 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.Private Members' Business149911499112:52:0014991Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I move:That this House acknowledges the historic links between public education and the development of democracy in Australia.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—These days whenever public education is mentioned too many people assume a dump on the many private systems of education in Australia will follow. That is not the case in this speech. I have no problem with private systems being strengthened. However, I do have a problem with that strengthening being at the expense of the public system.Attempting to do justice to the motion, debating the historic links between public education and democracy in Australia, is basically impossible in 10 minutes. For that reason I have relied heavily upon the works of two very important publications: firstly, an article by Associate Professor Alan Reid of the University of South Australia in Australian options May 1999 `Public education and Australian democracy' and, secondly, the watershed report by the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne The state of our state schools. I hope they understand my not attributing every phrase I have borrowed from the two publications due to the constraints of time. What is public education? According to the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, public education is:... a quality education system open to all, irrespective of social, economic, ethnic or religious background, which offers equal access to that knowledge and values which are widely shared in our society which enables society to draw upon the widest possible range of abilities in our population which prepares people for effective participation in a democratic society'. Public education grew with the rise of the modern democratic state. It has been both the expression and the guardian of democracy.Public education may support neither the imposition nor the suppression of religious beliefs, political views, ways of life and so on.Education is fundamental to citizenship. Schools have a special role in building social cohesion. What is democracy? According to Associate Professor Alan Reid, a democratic society needs a sense of community. He wrote:A democratic society relies on the creation of shared and common values. A democratic society nurtures differences. Shared values and differences should be kept in healthy tension without one dominating or obliterating the other. A democracy requires a public and publics don't just happen; they are made. The institution of public education more than any other in our society is central to the making of democratic publics.Public education has steered the majority of Australians for almost one hundred years towards a common national and civic identity.This cannot be achieved when a schooling system is organised by division, separation and stratification.People need to live out associations beyond the comfort zone of a narrow group.Some people seem to have forgotten or taken for granted that Australian democracy was founded on the secular state. What has happened to public education? Until 20 years ago we had in Australia a first-class education system. Public education is now under stress. We have increased expenditure on non-government schools—not a bad thing—but at the expense of government schools, which is a very bad thing. We have placed unnecessary competition on both the public and the private systems. Schools have closed. Class sizes have increased. Curriculum has changed. Management systems have been revamped. Policies to rectify social and location disadvantage are being dismantled. And how is this for democracy? State governments are now averse to making available information which might be used by critics of its policies. Teachers and others employed by departments of education in this country are forbidden to comment upon government policies. Welcome to the modern Australian democracy.What has happened to public policy in public education? Public education is a major prerequisite of a democratic society and is essential for the individual and common good. Until 20 years ago, the development and expansion of public education in this country was seen as a priority by successive governments of both sides of politics. State education was seen as the symbol and the means of national unity. But today we are confronted with a changed vision of education. Education is being marketised. Efficiency is supposedly increased. Management is supposedly increased. Responsibility for funding cutbacks pass from government to the school supposedly reducing political pressure. The impact on education and democracy is totally ignored. The application of market principles to education has the potential to destroy the public education system in this country. The subsequent detrimental impact on democratic processes in this nation may be far swifter than many people in this House are prepared to admit. While markets have an important role in our economic system, the rules of the market are insufficient for the government of a society. To set citizens in competition with each other, so that there are winners and losers in everything, is to undermine the development of community and hence democracy. To value education in purely financial terms is to seriously undervalue it. Much of education brings intrinsic rather than financial reward—a love of literature and the arts, enjoyment of sport for its own sake, respect for law and order and respect for the rights of others. These attributes enrich all our lives. There is no financial reward for that. To meet the needs of some in education at the expense of others is anti-democratic. To increase division, separation, stratification is anti-democratic. To encourage competition—laugh, laugh—between inadequately resourced schools will produce and is producing the alienation and resentment that fragments and threatens democracy. It is no mistake that depression now is the second biggest disease in this country and splits heart disease and cancer. The democratic purposes of schools are being impaired by various private purposes.What happened to expenditure? The 1998-99 Commonwealth budget provided $2,243.7 million to non-government schools compared to $1,289.1 million for government schools. Today state and federal governments contribute an average of 75 per cent of running costs in non-government schools compared to 40 per cent in 1974. In some schools it is 90 per cent. Not surprisingly, the proportion of students in non-government schools has increased from just over 20 per cent in 1974 to over 30 per cent now.Who are the opponents of public education? The opponents of public education argue for maximum choice. Privatising the public education system is very popular with some religious and ethnic groups who wish to transmit their particular culture to their children. But it comes at a cost. The social cost of privatising schools is increased inequalities for disabled children, rural children and children from poor socioeconomic areas. The weakening of national cohesion is a threat to democracy as we know it. The capacity of the public school system to be the major source of national unity, as it has been for the last century, is now being threatened.If private and economic purposes are allowed to be determinants of education, democratic purposes cannot be achieved. In an environment where public education is privatised into stand-alone schools, the following questions should be asked: who will undertake the full educational task? Who will accept the social commitment to ensure that good quality education is available to all regardless of a capacity to pay, status, ability or location? Do we now accept the suppression of social solidarity and the normalisation of inequalities? It is extraordinary that the compassionate and democratic values that inspired public eduction to include all—no matter what their status, ability, capacity to pay or location—should now have to be defended and defended vigorously. But if we value democracy and education we must defend the right of all to be included in education.Only a centralised public education system run by the state is able to achieve the democratic purposes of education because only the state can be inclusive of all students. The present public policy of emphasis on choice and denial of the need for resources for public education is just plain wrong. The government believes in blurring the divide between public and private schools. It has forgotten the damage done to public secondary education in the creation of the single comprehensive high school. Sameness is dangerous; diversity is safe. With the drift to private schools now actively rewarded by the federal government, so the diversity of public schools—and inevitably private schools—will diminish. This is what is forgotten: private schools are going down a very dangerous road which will harm them as well. (Time expired)13:02:0014993Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—I rise to support the words of the motion moved by the honourable member for Port Adelaide, being `That this House acknowledges the historic links between public education and the development of democracy in Australia'. If I might, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will concentrate on two words. The first of those is `democracy'. Democracy means to me equality: equality before the law, equality of opportunity, equal treatment by all, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association. All of these concepts are contained within our understanding of the word democracy. When I talk about public education, I speak about the mass education of all of our citizens, both young and old, and not in the finite descriptive terms of the member for Port Adelaide who talked about the differences between so-called private and so-called public.In the 1800s Alexis de Tocqueville, the noted French philosopher and essayist, travelled from France to the United States and wrote several books as a result of his experiences, trying to come to grips with what this word democracy meant. The outcome of some of the writings of De Tocqueville was concern that, in that very early democratic country, transferring education from the elite, from the landed gentry, to the entire population—that is, making it universally available—would detract from the quality of education, reduce the numbers of brilliant thinkers in society and the numbers of those who really contributed to the advancement of society. De Tocqueville could not have been more wrong. It is demonstrable that the broad based education of the masses not only enhances democracy but in many cases leads to its very formation. We empower individuals by getting them to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to work with others and to contribute to the whole thing called society. Empowering the individual through the mind is what has opened up society and made this world so much greater in the last dying hours, days, weeks and months of the 20th century.Young Australians have frequently shown a lack of interest in the institutions of government. They have shown, however, much greater interest in broader debates, such as debates on the so-called republic, on immigration and on reconciliation between Aborigines and the rest of Australian society. That is appropriate. I have noticed in my own electorate that there seems not to be a great emphasis on the structure of government, of our constitution and of our formal systems which allow us to practice democracy, and perhaps to our detriment. But nonetheless somehow we wind up with 18-year-olds becoming entitled to vote, going to polling stations and managing to inform themselves about the issues that are being debated around any election—be it local, state or federal—and voting according to their consciences. That is the point about democracy, and it also links in to education: without a good education, it would be impossible in these days of so many words and so much mass communication to be able to understand the issues if one were totally deficient in education.Australia was one of the first countries to provide public education in the early 1900s. I believe that civics education actually started in schools in about 1901 and continued until the 1930s. In the early 1900s we moved to universal suffrage, and that meant everyone—firstly, every male in Australia and then, very soon, every female as well—had the right to vote. And we were one of the first countries in the world to give the vote to women. It is to Australia's great credit that these milestones and these achievements were made. That took away from those who were the landed gentry, from those with property rights, the sole right to determine how people lived their lives, where they lived them, and the outcomes for individuals.This business of democracy is not very old, yet Australia, small in number though we are, has been at the forefront of democratic institutions since Federation—indeed since before—so that we have been able to give our citizens an understanding of what democracy means through mass education. I believe Australia is classified as one of the most radically democratic countries in the world as it has broad based democratic institutions which far exceed many and most other countries. Through the years we have instilled in Australians the idea that they should fight for their democratic way of life, and through a number of wars and other actions Australians have shown their valour and their determination to fight for their country and to fight for their fellow Australians, and they have died on battlefields to prove their belief in a democratic way of life.I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that democracy is really a very fragile institution. If we do not continue to work at it constantly we run the risk of losing it. I remind honourable members that in Chile democracy was lost—it was displaced by a military dictatorship—and that only recently has it been won back again. Chileans are determined never, ever to lose their democratic institutions again.Civics education is an important part of this process. In addition to education generally, I believe very strongly in civics education so that young people can come to an understanding of how our democratic institutions evolved and are written down, what they mean, what is the balance of power between various democratic institutions in Australia, and how those power balances are played out. In this place we argue between one side of the chamber and the other over detailed issues, but we have never argued that Australia is not a democratic country. In 1996 I had been sitting on the other side of this chamber for some six years, and, in April or May when we reassembled after the March 1996 election, I found it quite remarkable that those who had been sitting on this side moved over to the left side of the Speaker and we moved here. Not a gun was raised; no bullets were fired; no-one told people what to do. We simply went to our set places because that is what we knew was right and was expected. So the former Prime Minister was no longer Prime Minister and we had a new Prime Minister and a new government. It was democratically and freely and fairly done.In the 1970s we again started to teach civics. It was a separate education subject in schools, generally known as politics. In the 1980s civics education re-emerged at a national level. It was highly likely that that came about because of the 1988 bicentennial celebrations which heightened interest in Australia's identity. Currently we have a program called Discovering Democracy, which is the latest attempt at civics education put in place by this government in 1997. It is different in the sense that it includes citizenship education activities. Not only does it educate students but it also educates adults as well. It is fundamental to the outcome of this program that not just the institutions of government themselves but also all the issues surrounding the institutions and the political issues that are alive and well in Australia at the current time are discussed within that program. This is fundamentally a part of the Australian ethos—that we are able to debate openly and freely all the concerns that we have as a free society.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr 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.1499513:12:0014995Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—I move:That:(1) the Parthenon Marbles are part of a unique cultural treasure that is an intrinsic feature of the Parthenon in Greece;(2) the architectural and cultural integrity of the Parthenon continues to be compromised by the fact that the marbles cannot be viewed in close proximity to the Parthenon;(3) the government of Greece has guaranteed the safe preservation of the Parthenon Marbles should they be returned to Athens; and (4) every effort should be made by the United Kingdom to facilitate the return of these items of immense cultural value to the people of Greece.This motion follows a submission that was recently jointly sponsored by the honourable member for Melbourne and me, and supported by 43 members from both chambers of this parliament, to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee which is currently inquiring into the restitution of cultural property. That submission called on the Blair government to return to the people of Greece the Parthenon Marbles, which are currently held by the British Museum in London.Members will be aware that the issue of the restitution of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece has attracted significant public interest in Australia. In particular the issue has enormous cultural and emotional significance for the Greek Australian community. The issue of the Parthenon Marbles has also attracted support from a cross-section of prominent Australians, including former Prime Ministers the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser and the Hon. Gough Whitlam, former Victorian Premier the Hon. Jeff Kennett who did a very nice program on the marbles, and New South Wales Premier Bob Carr. I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of members the sentiments of colleagues who supported the petition to the House of Commons. I have extracted the key points from that submission which I would like to place on the record today.There are few who would not agree that the Parthenon represents a unique achievement of Athenian and Western architecture. It has come to embody the achievements and contributions of classical Greece as well as represent one of the great cultural symbols and monuments of Western culture and society. In a recent essay on the Parthenon Marbles, Professor Robert Browning shed some perspective on the enormous cultural and historical significance of the Parthenon:When work on the Parthenon began Aeschylus was recently dead, Sophocles and Euripides were at the height of their powers. Socrates as a young man watched the Parthenon rise ... it was to be an everlasting monument to a unique and dazzling society.In the early 1800s, however, this Greek national treasure had the majority of its sculptures—sculptures that were part of its structure—ripped away and removed. As a result of the removal of the marbles, the Parthenon was despoiled and denuded of its ornamental statues in one of the most serious incidents in its two and a half thousand-year life.Lord Elgin, the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire that then ruled over Greece, commissioned these acts. The legality and legitimacy of Elgin's actions have since been the subject of ongoing controversy in the United Kingdom and Greece—and internationally. In 1816, despite significant opposition, the British parliament purchased the marble sculptures and friezes from Lord Elgin and placed them in the British Museum, where they have remained, despite numerous requests by the government of Greece that they be returned to the Acropolis.In the course of the appropriation of the property, individuals acting under the instructions of Lord Elgin inflicted significant damage on the Parthenon Marbles and on the Parthenon itself. Subsequently, upon their stay in Britain, further damage was caused to the marbles by restorers at the British Museum who, according to the historian William St. Clair, tried to polish the marble faces with steel brushes and in so doing rubbed away much of the statues' patina.It is the view of members of this parliament who have lent their support to the submission to the House of Commons committee that the Parthenon Marbles are an exceptional cultural icon that deserves to be returned to Athens. It is hard to imagine a similar example of artefacts that remain of such value to an existing culture, that are such an intrinsic, aesthetic and historical part of a national monument and that still remain in exile in a foreign museum. International sentiment welcomes the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece. The President of the United States, Bill Clinton, reflected the mood of the international community when he reportedly said recently:If it would be me I would give them back immediately.In 1985 the Kinnock Labour opposition committed themselves to the return of the marbles if elected. The Blair government has not followed through with this commitment. This motion sends a strong message to the government of Britain that, together with the European Union and the United States, there is a strong sentiment in Australia in favour of the return of the marbles to Greece.The British Museum claims that the return of the marbles to Greece could create an international precedent for the return of art, artefacts and cultural property that are the subject of historical dispute. On this point, I think it is important to note that, despite the removal of substantial quantities of other cultural treasures from Greece, the government of Greece has requested only the return of the Parthenon marbles. It is also important to note that there have been occasions when parts of artefacts that have been exported have subsequently been discovered in Greece and that they have been reunited in another country by the Greek government.The restitution of property from the collections of modern museums remains a contemporary and ongoing feature of the art world. It is hard to envision a more substantial and legitimate claim than that which the people of Greece have over the Parthenon Marbles. Indeed, there have been, over the years, a number of proposals originating in the United Kingdom to return the Parthenon Marbles to Athens. As early as 1816, during the House of Commons debate over the purchase of the marbles from Lord Elgin, it was proposed by Hugh Hamersley that the marbles be held `only in trust till they are demanded by the present, or any future possessors of the city of Athens.' In 1941, at the height of hostilities with Nazi Germany, it was again proposed in the House of Commons that, in some recognition of Greece's valiant war effort, the Parthenon Marbles be returned at the conclusion of hostilities.Advocates of the marbles remaining in Britain claim that climatic conditions in Europe today militate against transferring the marbles from the British Museum to Athens. But recently the government of Greece has undertaken extensive conservation and restoration of the Acropolis and plans to construct a new museum that would allow for the display and preservation of the Parthenon Marbles. In his work Lord Elgin and the Marbles, William St Clair argues:With the return of a new museum in Athens, the opportunity exists to correct what some regard as the worst aspect of the present situation: the fact that the surviving pieces of the Parthenon, which are fragmentary enough, cannot be seen or studied together.Robert Browning argues:The Parthenon has been and is for almost all Greeks the symbol par excellence of their national identity, of their links with the past, and of the contribution that they and their forefathers have made to the civilisation in which we all share.The return of the marbles is a moral, cultural and historical imperative. Natural justice would dictate that every effort be made to restore to the place and to the people from whom they were taken one of the most significant cultural icons of Western civilisation. I commend the motion to the House.13:22:0014997Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—I have great pleasure in seconding the motion and I commend the honourable member for Kooyong for his contribution. I want to run through the major facts that are relevant to the issue of the Parthenon Marbles and the need for them to be restored to their rightful place in Athens at the Parthenon. First, between 1801 and 1810 Lord Elgin, who was then the ambassador for Britain to the Ottoman Empire, caused a very substantial proportion of the existing marbles attached to the Parthenon to be removed as a result of a combination of bribery, the use of the power of the British Empire—to which the Ottoman empire was then very susceptible because of its fear of Napoleonic France—and a variety of other activities.Considerable damage was done to the Parthenon as a result of the removal of the marbles, and you can actually see this in a diagram that was published in The Economist. It shows in colour the areas where marbles were removed, and it is actually quite a substantial percentage of the total decorated areas that were literally cut out, excised, from the structure. The basis for the argument that has been put by successive British governments and a number of commentators since then that the removal was legal, and that it was approved by the proper authority, the government of the Ottoman Empire at that time, is, at best, dubious. An authority called a firman was issued to Lord Elgin and the only surviving evidence of this authority is an English translation of an Italian translation of the original Turkish document.When you read this particular document, as I have, in its form annexed to the report of the 1816 committee of the House of Commons which inquired into this question, you will see that there is very little basis for the claim that there is clear legal title in the marbles vesting in Britain. At best, it can be said to be ambiguous. It does state that whatever is removed should not lead to any damage to the structure—which tends to suggest that there was no intention to allow the removal of the marbles, which did require substantial damage—and it seems to imply that it is focusing on pieces that may have been on the ground or even under the ground. It is quite a difficult document to interpret and, clearly, the multiple translations make that hard. It is also noteworthy that the 1816 select committee, which considered this in the British Parliament, was asked explicitly whether Lord Elgin had legal title to the marbles, title that could, therefore, be passed on to the British government if they purchased them. The committee did not answer this question: that, in the context of the time, speaks volumes for the doubt over the legal validity of Lord Elgin's ownership of the marbles.It is interesting to note that Professor David Rudenstine, a constitutional law expert at a university in New York, is currently working on these issues and is very firmly of the view that legal title did not vest in Lord Elgin. When you actually look at the issues, at best all you can say is that whoever has the burden of proving a particular point on that issue will fail: if the onus is on those asserting that British title is good, they will be unable to do so, but, if the onus is on those asserting that the title is not good, they equally will be unable to do so—largely because of the lack of substantial evidence to demonstrate it.We also know that in the late 1930s, as was mentioned by the honourable member for Kooyong, substantial damage was done to the marbles by the British Museum as a result of a botched attempt to clean the marbles, and that this was covered up. Only recently has the extent of this cover-up and the damage been revealed by William St Clair. Also, in 1941, the British government contemplated offering to return the marbles to Greece as a gesture to ensure strong Greek support in the battle against Nazi Germany.Also it is now clear that, irrespective of what may have been the case in the past, Greece clearly can look after the marbles perfectly adequately and just as well as they can be looked after in Britain. We also know, of course, that the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee is now conducting a formal inquiry into the question of the return of cultural property generally, which will inevitably focus on the marbles issue. The honourable member for Kooyong and I have circulated a submission to that inquiry, and it has been signed by over 40 members of parliament and senators from all the major parties, and I sincerely hope that that, along with many other submissions, does have an effect on the thinking of the members of that committee.In May 1998, I met with the relevant British minister who has responsibility for cultural and heritage issues, Chris Smith, whom I happen to know reasonably well. I raised the issue with him and his response, which has also been made publicly both before and after that time, was to say that Britain legally owned the marbles; that more people could see them in Britain than they could in Athens, because more people came to England than they did to Greece; and that to return them would set a very difficult precedent which would raise questions about other items of cultural property, both in British museums and all around the world. Of course, there are very many examples of pieces that have been taken from many parts of the world, not only Greece, where the validity of that removal is highly dubious.In response to these points, it is worth noting today that, firstly, as I have indicated, the question of legal title is a very ambiguous and dubious one; and certainly anybody who seeks to prove that Britain has genuine legal title to the marbles is destined to fail. Secondly, the assertion that the fact that more people are in England and more people are able to go to the British Museum than to the Parthenon is a reason for retaining the marbles in Britain is clearly ludicrous. On that basis, we might as well move the pyramids to New York because they are inconveniently located and not enough people can get to see them.The third point is obviously a difficult issue. Clearly, we have seen this issue, the question of return of cultural property, arise in many contexts in recent times, including in issues affecting Australia. We have returned some items, and one or two items have been returned to us. So it is a growing world issue and I hope that the committee does shed some light on how we should deal with these issues for the future. Nonetheless, there is a way out. There is a way around this problem in this particular instance, and it is also worth noting that Greece has made it plain that it does not wish to pursue any other claims against Britain about any other items that it may hold. The way out is to make a gift—for Britain to say to Greece, `We still assert our legal title, but we wish to put that question aside, and we are either going to give the marbles to you, perhaps in recognition of the return of the Olympic Games to Athens or, alternatively, we will make a permanent loan.' That way everybody, in a sense, is satisfied on this particular issue.The Parthenon is one of the greatest, if not the absolute greatest, symbols of human and, indeed, Western civilisation. It represents the ideals of democracy, of culture, of civilisation and of education, and is virtually universally recognised, certainly in the Western world. It is an icon above virtually all other icons. The marbles were an integral part of the Parthenon, and the Elgin actions were an appalling act of vandalism, perhaps more understandable in the times—the turmoil of the Napoleonic Wars, British imperialism at pretty much its peak—but nonetheless still an act of appalling vandalism, and it is long overdue that the world corrects this and long overdue that the British government takes action to do so.Greece has been making extraordinary progress in recent years in modernising, qualifying recently to join the Euro—and I have no doubt that it will do so—successfully winning the right to host the 2004 Olympics after failing to win the right to host the 1996 Olympics, largely because it was then felt that Athens and the Greek government simply did not then have the capacity to do so, and recently building a very important level of initial rapprochement with Turkey, its traditional enemy, emerging initially from the reaction on both sides to the earthquake tragedies that both countries recently suffered. So great change is occurring in Greece, great advance is occurring in Greece, and it would be highly appropriate for the British government, not so much in specific acknowledgment of that but in broader acknowledgment of the importance of this issue to the Greek people not only in Greece but also the Greek diaspora around the world, to recognise that now is the time to act. It does not have to set a precedent about the prospective return of any other icons of cultural property; the Parthenon marbles are part of something which is way above virtually all the other items of cultural property that may be subject to debate about this issue around the world and this really is an exceptional issue, something that is very much at the heart of the iconography, at the heart of the symbolism, of Western civilisation and human civilisation. It really is very much at the core of what our society and all other Western societies represent and what we aspire to.It is something, I think, that it is time the British government took heed of. It is time to avoid worrying about what may be a nationalistic, jingoistic, childish, tabloid response that perhaps might cause spin doctors to have a few heart flutters. It is time to do the correct thing, the honourable thing, and return the Parthenon marbles to their rightful home in Greece at the base of the Parthenon, where they will be properly housed in a new museum. (Time expired)NaN:00:0014999Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Built at the time of Pericles in the fifth century BC, the Parthenon marbles are undoubtedly an intrinsic feature of Greece's culture and history, and I would defy anyone to argue otherwise. They have been on display in Britain for only a small proportion of their overall time, and the story of how they came into the possession of Britain raises serious doubts as to the moral, if not legal, right of Britain to resist the international call to return the marbles to the people of Greece.The marbles were removed from the Parthenon in 1801 after Lord Elgin, an ambassador to the Ottoman court in Turkey, which at the time controlled Greece, acquired the marbles to decorate his London mansion. Lord Elgin approached the Turkish government for a firman to remove the marbles. The exact terms of the firman have long been debated and it could be speculated that Elgin was acting outside his legal authority. It is also unclear whether Elgin had permission from Constantinople to remove the quantities that he did. In 1816, shortly after Elgin brought the marbles to London, he struck financial troubles and decided to sell the marbles to the British government for £35,000 pounds. The marbles were then entrusted to the British Museum.Central to Britain's argument to retain stewardship of the marbles is their claim that the British Museum can preserve and care for the marbles better than the Greek authorities. Among these advocates is British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair's stance is surprising. His position is at odds with two of his Labour leader predecessors, Neil Kinnock and Michael Foot, who both pledged that a Labour government would return the marbles. But recent revelations, primarily led by William St Clair, a Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, have exploded the myth that the British Museum is best equipped to care for the marbles. St Clair has revealed that the marbles have been substantially damaged as a result of London's polluted air, particularly in Victorian times. St Clair also points out that it was not until 1962 that the marbles were exhibited in premises that had proper air quality control filters. But St Clair's most damaging revelations concern the bungled attempt by the museum to restore the marbles earlier this century. The restoration process involved the use of copper chisels and a substance called carborandum, the hardest material then known to science, to scrape and scrub the delicate marble surface. It is estimated that approximately 80 per cent of the marble surface was damaged by this process. St Clair makes the incredible claim that the museum attempted to cover up the damage to the marbles by coating the carvings with wax.It was also recently disclosed that for about £35,000 corporations or wealthy individuals have been holding functions or fundraisers in the room where the marbles are exhibited. Those wanting to hire out the venue are required to take out a £2 million indemnity insurance. But this would be hopelessly insufficient if the marbles were damaged. Sir Kenneth Alexander, a former trustee of the National Museum of Scotland and a former Chancellor of Aberdeen University, describes the British Museum's undignified practice as a `crass misuse of one of the world's greatest antiquities'.For nearly 20 years there has been a campaign by the Greek government to have the marbles returned to Greece. The call has been echoed in other parts of the international community by the likes of United States President Bill Clinton, former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and former Premier of Victoria Jeff Kennett. Joining that chorus are many Greek Australians, including my friend Petro Georgiou, the member for Kooyong, who put the motion, and many others, some of whom live in my electorate of Sturt. I join them in calling for the marbles to be returned.The Greek government has proposed to have the marbles exhibited in a purpose-built museum to be constructed at the foot of the Acropolis Hill on which the remains of the Parthenon temple stand. The return of the marbles will enhance the architectural and cultural integrity of the Parthenon.The force of the moral argument is on the Greek side. The Parthenon marbles are important to Greece's national culture and heritage. Every effort should be made by Britain to accommodate the return of these items of immense cultural value to the people of Greece and to classical scholars throughout the world.13:37:0015000McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I am pleased today to contribute to the debate on the Parthenon marbles. Like the other members who have already spoken on this motion, I believe strongly that the marbles should be returned to Greece. We are all familiar with the history of these treasures. They were taken from the Parthenon in Athens by Lord Elgin, then British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, with the agreement of the Turkish authorities, who were occupying Greece at the time.Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have visited the Acropolis and to have seen the Parthenon standing high above the sprawling city cannot fail to be impressed by the buildings. Memories of our early education flood back—Greece as the cradle of democracy, the philosophers, poets, artists, great architects and, of course, the Olympic Games. How appropriate it would be if in this Olympic year a firm decision were made to return the marbles in time for them to be appropriately on display in Athens for the 2004 Olympic Games.There is no doubt also that the marbles are one of the main drawing cards of visitors to the British Museum in London. Just as those of us who have visited Greece remember our first glimpse of the Parthenon, visitors to the British Museum are also forever impressed by their first viewing of the marbles. But times have changed since the marbles were first removed from the Parthenon and taken to England. We are familiar with the arguments put forward about why they should stay where they currently are. One of those is that if they had remained on the building in the Parthenon they would have deteriorated irretrievably. But conservation techniques of doubtful worth have been inflicted upon the marbles by the British Museum itself. Indeed, those conservation techniques earlier in this century have caused irreparable damage to the marbles. Even at the time Lord Elgin acquired the marbles he was criticised by his contemporaries, including Lord Byron, and described as a plunderer and a marble-stealer.The compelling argument for me, however, is that the marbles were taken from Greece by a person from another country who negotiated a deal with an occupying empire to whom the building and its architectural worth meant nothing. The original idea of the purchaser of the marbles was to have them adorn his home back in Scotland—no worthy altruistic aim of preserving these treasures for the sake of posterity; no generous offer of preserving for all to see historic works of art that might otherwise be lost. Lord Elgin's motives were not noble; he saw and took an opportunity to acquire some objets d'art for his own personal use. The fact that they ended up in the British Museum had more to do with his subsequent bad fortune and need to sell most of them.But in many ways I think what happened in the past is now irrelevant. There is not much point in criticising Lord Elgin. He was a man of his time and certainly not the only person to take advantage of circumstances to obtain antiquities—witness the vast amount of Egyptian antiquities in the same British Museum. What is important now is that there is an opportunity to return the marbles to their country of origin, which wants them returned and has asked for their return. They are certainly among the most famous antique treasures in the world. They belong to Greece, which has promised to display them in a specially constructed place close to their original home. It seems to me inexcusable for the British government not to consider the request for their return and not to agree to it.At present a House of Commons committee is conducting an inquiry on the restitution of cultural property held by British museums. I hope that when this committee considers this issue it does the right thing and recommends the return of the marbles to Greece. Many public figures in Australia on all sides of politics are passionate about the need to return the marbles to Greece. They are critical of the attitude of the current British government, which appears loath to take any action. Gough Whitlam has recently accused the British government of being ignorant and intransigent on the issue.Anyone who has taken any interest in this issue knows that Lord Elgin's action was an act of vandalism. But times have changed since Lord Elgin first took the marbles, and it would be a magnanimous and correct position for the British government to agree to the return of the marbles to Greece. Britain would of course then receive a lot of acclaim from the world, rather than be in the present position where people are considering the things Gough Whitlam said about it to be absolutely correct. There is no doubt that the return of the marbles would enhance those great architectural treasures of the Acropolis. The return of the marbles would be a way for the world to see that the British government has accepted the role that it has in the world, and the Olympic Games would proceed with them. (Time expired)13:42:0015001Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I commend the member for Kooyong for bringing on this motion and I commend the other members who have spoken in support of it. What this motion is about is really one of the most difficult things that any of us ever do, whether as individuals or indeed as a nation, and that is admit that the wrong thing has been done. The time has come for the British government, encouraged and supported by the rest of the world, to return the Parthenon marbles—or the Elgin marbles, as they are known—to their rightful owner, and that is Greece.There are many Australians who might say, `What has this got to do with us? Why should we be discussing this in the Australian parliament?' I just ask any Australians who perhaps feel a bit that way: how would we feel if significant sections of the Australian War Memorial, some of our greatest paintings or, for example, some of our Victoria Crosses were forcibly taken from Australia to another country or if sections of Ayers Rock were forcibly removed by chicanery and corrupt acts and taken to another country to be displayed in one of their museums or, indeed, if some of our historic Aboriginal paintings were taken?It is time to admit that Britain is wrong. It becomes increasingly difficult for the British government to sustain the argument that it has. It is also not clear whether in fact Elgin had any kind of permission from Constantinople to take the quantities that he did—one whole caryatid, huge pedimental figures taken from the Parthenon itself, friezes, sculptures, columns, the stripping down of the Acropolis. In fact, it took over a decade to remove the quantities that were taken. When you consider that £35,000 was paid in the early part of the 18th century by way of restitution from the British government to Elgin it gives you an idea of just how valuable these things were considered in that day.The marbles represent a high point for not only Greek civilisation but civilisation itself. Anyone who is concerned about European culture and values will need to understand it. A strong case that is made by some in Britain, including the British government, is that the best interests of the marbles and Greek culture are served by having Greece's treasures remain in these foreign museums. In this day and age no-one can sustain that argument. And in the case of the Parthenon marbles the task has been accomplished and it is now time to return them to their rightful owners.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members150021500215002Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS 83XBendigoALP00—The denial of a permanent licence to Central Victorian Gospel Radio has generated a considerable amount of bad feeling in rural Victoria. This is demonstrated by the many thousands of people who signed the petition presented to this House on 13 March. Central Victorian Gospel Radio had been operating successfully in this region for 15 years, without relying on government assistance or support. It provided a 24-hour service, seven days a week. This service has now gone and a comparable service will not be offered by any of the other radio stations operating within central Victoria. Many people within the rural community feel that denying Central Victorian Gospel Radio a permanent licence will deny many Christians access to this outside contact, thereby denying them access to their religion. I refer to those people who are unable to attend church services for a variety of reasons and who look to these broadcasts as a substitute for attending those church services.I would appreciate it if the minister would look into this matter personally to provide a solution to this present dilemma, bearing in mind that Central Victorian Gospel Radio ceased broadcasting on 31 March. This is just another example of another service being withdrawn from regional Australia, a service which is badly needed and which was appreciated by many thousands of people throughout central Victoria. I would urge the minister to intervene—he has that power under the act—and to make sure that there is another frequency available to allow these people to receive these broadcasts, which had been going on for some 15 years without a hitch.1500215002Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON 1K6DunkleyLP10—Once a year the hard work of the capital comes down to some men trying to simulate some athleticism when the annual government versus the press gallery cricket game is on. It is my melancholy duty to inform the House that the press gallery won this year. After two consecutive victories by coalition MPs we were overcome by climate conditions and, in some areas, a distinct lack of talent when we needed it. I report that the junior minister at the table, Mal Brough, scored 34 magnificent runs. Joe Hockey scored 50 runs as well, and most of the other coalition members got off to a reasonable start but could not capitalise on that good start, scoring 178 runs in 39.2 overs of perpetual drizzle in Canberra yesterday.Mark Ludlow from News Ltd unfortunately got 2-13 and Tom Allard from the Sydney Morning Herald took 2-28. We thought we were in good shape until we started defending our total. Steve Lewis, the captain of the press gallery team, helped us greatly with a very poor opening effort of one, but then the rot began with Andrew Probyn for News Ltd hitting 50, Richard McGregor from the Australian getting 43 runs and Tom Allard—in possibly a best on ground performance—backed up his bowling effort with 45 not out. Sadly, the gallery won at 8-180, with overs and wickets to spare. Mr Brough bowled well and Paul Everingham from Treasury got 3-6 off five overs. I happened to hit the pitch occasionally and got 2-16. We look forward to the rematch.1500315003Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD MK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to speak about an important joint venture in my electorate of Greenway between the Seven Hills-Toongabbie RSL Club and Grantham High School. The joint venture involves the construction of a multipurpose centre on land owned by the Grantham High School. The RSL club will foot the $1.2 million cost of the project. Construction has already commenced and it is expected that the complex will be open in mid-May. The complex will provide the 540 Grantham High School students with an Olympic size indoor basketball court, together with volleyball, badminton, netball and handball courts and the latest gymnastic facilities. After school hours and at night and weekends, the complex will become a modern community youth centre for between 800 and 900 of the district's young people, catering for a wide range of indoor sports such as judo and gymnastics, as well as ballroom, jazz, ballet and tap dancing. The complex is the brainchild of the RSL club president Barrie Kendell, former principal Russell Turner and current Grantham High School principal, Joe Allan. This is the first time that a school in Greenway has linked with a local community club to provide a combined school and after-hours recreational facility. I congratulate both organisations on this joint venture.1500315003St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR 84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise to draw to the House's attention amendments to the Young Offenders Act 1997 in New South Wales. These amendments will come into effect this Wednesday and will mean that a cautioning or warning scheme for juveniles and adults will operate for those who are caught in possession of small amounts of prohibited substances. In the case of heroin that is one gram and in the case of cannabis leaf that is 30 grams. The quantity in the case of heroin is enough, if it is high grade, to kill up to 10 12-year-old schoolchildren and in the case of cannabis leaf it is enough to keep a schoolchild high for a month.Drug use is still growing—and growing at an alarming rate. The fact that pushers are out there lacing cannabis joints with heroin and then providing starter packs free to children should be of major concern to all people in this country. We are seeing the dreadful results of substance abuse right across every sector of our community and those affected are getting younger and younger. We cannot keep taking the soft option when it comes to these matters. There is no doubt in my mind that people who engage in dealing in or supplying these types of drugs are nothing more than murderers in taking the lives of our children and they should be treated as such. I find it difficult to believe there are elected members to various parliaments and senior advisers who appear to have a pro-drug focus and who continue to demand the legalisation of many of the drugs to which we refer.1500301:51:0015003Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK 83WCanningALP00—Last week I was contacted by a constituent who had recently visited her family in the eastern states. This lady is on a pension and has a seniors card—an initiative of the last Western Australian Labor government. The seniors card entitles the holder to a number of discounts and benefits, one of which is a reduced fare on public transport. When the lady arrived in the eastern states, she discovered that there was no reciprocal agreement and she had to pay the full fare when using public transport.I have checked with each of the other states and territories and discovered that New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria do not recognise the seniors card and do not have any method in place to give a discount to seniors who are visiting from other states. In South Australia, seniors can apply 30 days before they travel to be issued with a seniors card from that state. The ACT and Tasmania give discounted public transport fares when either the seniors card or pension card is produced. Western Australia allows any visitor who has a pension card to have reduced public transport fares. As many families are now spread over a number of states, we should be doing all possible to ensure that family members are able to visit each other. Seniors have made a great contribution to our country. In recognition of this, the appropriate ministers from each state should recognise the cards issued by each of the other states to make it easier and more affordable for our seniors to travel. (Time expired)1500413:52:0015004Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Recently I had the privilege of assisting the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Scott, to open the new Department of Veterans' Affairs office in my electorate of Robertson. The old Veterans' Affairs office was badly located. It was difficult for veterans to get to, and they even had a few stairs to climb. It really was not appropriate. When the lease ran out, there was some concern in the community that the Veterans' Affairs office was not going to be relocated. Of course, this was never an option for the government. The government are committed to expanding and enhancing support for veterans. We were able to open the new office, which is located near the Gosford railway station and next to a major bus interchange, making it much easier for the veterans to access it. I have some 10,000 veterans and war widows in my electorate of Robertson—I think it is the highest population of any electorate in Australia—and there is a total of 18,000 veterans and war widows on the Central Coast of New South Wales. Most of those veterans, Second World War veterans in particular, are now well into their mid-seventies and eighties. The needs for those veterans are increasing every day. The opening of this new office is a recognition by the government of the need to continue support for the veterans to whom we all owe a great deal. I would like to also commend the staff of the Veterans' Affairs office for the way they conduct their business. (Time expired)1500413:54:0015004Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—The release of Alan Bond recently has stirred many emotions, especially in those people affected by mandatory sentencing. As one man is freed, they see another young life ruined by these laws. When a man commits a crime that strips over $1 billion from investors and he serves less than three years for his trouble, as compared with the inflexible justice handed out to other people for stealing crayons or bread, we have a problem. For Mr Bond, that is about $1 million for every day he served in prison. On release, Mr Bond returns to a $70 million fortune, while those affected by mandatory sentencing head back to poverty.Do not think this problem is isolated to the Aboriginal community. As most understand, the problem is much wider and relates to the way our system treats crimes of one colour with a different weight to crimes of another colour. Senator Herron and Prime Minister Howard are now going all the way. It is called rewriting history. They may not like the truth, but for them to claim that the stolen generation did not happen just because it represents 10 per cent of a population is absurd. The act of historical vandalism by the Prime Minister and his henchmen demonstrates their real commitment to reconciliation and will be seen for exactly what it is—a cheap stunt aimed at deflecting attention from the damage of the GST.1500413:55:0015004Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Last night I had the pleasure of attending the Blue Mountains Regional Awards for Excellence in Tourism. The varied array of finalists and winners was representative of the high quality of the many tourist operators in our region. They are great ambassadors for the Blue Mountains. The value they add to the renowned natural attractions of the mountains sets the area apart as a premium tourism destination. My congratulations go to: Jenolan Caves, Lithgow Small Arms Museum, Mount Tomah Botanic Gardens, One Van Puppet Festival, Tread Lightly Eco Tours, Cox's River Escapes, the New South Wales Parks and Wildlife Service, Peppers Fairmont Resort, Fantastic Aussie Tours, Blue Mountains Explorer, Mountainlink Trolley Tours, Lithgow Visitors Centre, Blue Mountains Web, the Rooster restaurant, the Comet Inn, Woodford of Leura, Black Gold Country Cabins, Katoomba Youth Hostel Association, Melaleuca Mountain Chalets, Sidneys Retreat, Jacobs Retreat, Peartree Cottage, Eagle View Escape, Lilianfels Blue Mountains, Jodie Rayner and Bob Reid. The commitment of these operators to genuine service, to quality food and accommodation and to first-class adventure and cultural experiences enhances the pleasure of a Blue Mountains holiday. For those who have not been recently, come to the beautiful Blue Mountains. Whether you are after a weekend retreat, a relaxing longer holiday or first-class convention facilities all within easy access to Sydney, the Blue Mountains is exactly what you are looking for. (Time expired)1500513:57:0015005Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—Last week was one of the most enjoyable and positive times of my term as the member for Capricornia. I spent most of the week travelling through the Central West with Rick Williams and Geoff Clarke from the Parliamentary Education Office and joined in with students from several western schools as they learnt about the parliamentary system and how they could get involved in the decisions that affect them. At each school, the students participated in a role play and debated a bill through the second reading stage in the House of Representatives. The students and their teachers had selected the topics for each debate and certainly did not shy away from confronting difficult and complex issues.At Our Lady's College in Longreach, the grade 6 and 7 students debated a bill dealing with disaster relief arrangements—a topic close to home for the students, who have just finished cleaning up after Longreach's recent floods. The Longreach State School grade 6 and 7 students decided to tackle mandatory sentencing and, after a very interesting debate that had the two Independent members on the edge of their seats, they passed a bill to abolish mandatory sentencing for juveniles.In Barcaldine, the primary students from Barcy State School joined forces with their friends from St Joseph's School to find a way through the controversial issue of tree clearing guidelines. The high school students at Winton State School were very keen to pass a bill that would allow young people to ride their motorbikes on private property as long as they had first completed a safety course. Riding motorbikes is a very popular activity for students in Winton, so the debate was pretty heartfelt and passionate from all sides. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the students who took part in the activities. The students were enthusiastic and showed a great ability to think about issues and come up with solutions. (Time expired)1500513:58:0015005Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Overnight Australia's largest tropical city, Townsville, was hit by Cyclone Tessi. In the past 15 hours, over a foot of rain has fallen on the city. Hundreds and hundreds of trees have fallen across the city. I am pleased to advise the parliament that there has been little structural damage, but 70 per cent of the city is without power. Ergon Energy have a crew of 80 people coming in from all around the local area to try to restore power, with hospital, sewerage and water supplies the first to be restored. The rain is stopping the restoration, though. It is still pouring at home as we speak. The particular rain depression which Tessi now is is stationary, but of course the city is concerned that there is now another low about 1,500 kilometres east of Cooktown which the weather bureau are certainly strongly monitoring. My thanks to the councils, the local authorities, the State Emergency Service, the utilities and the weather bureau, who have swung into action to look after the people of Townsville and Thuringowa. Our city will be fine. It will be back to normal by this time tomorrow. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A the time for members' statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice150051500514:00:0015005Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you now ensure that the House will have adequate time this session to debate and vote upon the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999?15005Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I think the Leader of the House will deal with all these matters as he always does in an appropriate way.1500514:00:0015005Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer provide the House with an update on the number of applications for Australian business numbers that have been received by the Australian Taxation Office? Is this in line with the expectations of the Commissioner for Taxation?15006Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Over the last three weeks, the number of applications for Australian business numbers has increased dramatically. In the last three weeks, 391,515 applications were received. As of today, there are over one million applications and 858,000 Australian business numbers have been issued, including 106,285 Australian business numbers which were processed over the weekend. There has also been a dramatic rise in electronic lodgments, with electronic lodgments running at about 47 per cent of total applications. This proportion is rising. Of the total applications, over 75 per cent have been processed within four weeks and, for electronic applications, over 70 per cent have been processed and have had an ABN issued within two weeks. Of the one million applications, there are now only 1.7 per cent that are more than 28 days old. So there is a dramatic increase in the applications and in the issue of Australian business numbers.I would recommend to those businesses that can do it through electronic lodgment, with their tax accounts and like, that they do so. They can be turned around extremely quickly—indeed, even turned around out of hours, as we saw with 106,000 being turned around over the weekend. I also remind businesses that intend to register that they are guaranteed an Australian business number if they apply by 31 May. It is very important to apply by 31 May. If they leave it until after 31 May, they are not guaranteed their Australian business number by 1 July, which they will want to have in order to claim back their input tax credits. This dramatic increase which is now taking place shows that business is now improving dramatically in applying for its Australian business numbers and getting to grips with the system. We would encourage those remaining businesses that have not yet applied to do so, preferably this month, and to remember that it cannot be done later than 31 May with a guaranteed number by 1 July.1500614:03:0015006Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that the Premier of Western Australia said yesterday:I believe there is (a stolen generation). It is an issue where we have to be very sympathetic ... There is no dispute that there were practices in the past where families were split, people were taken away from families.Is he also aware of two of his backbenchers, the members for Cook and Sturt, supporting this view this morning? Are Premier Court and these members wrong? Why can't you deal honestly with this issue as some of your Liberal colleagues are?15006Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of the statements that have been made by the Premier of Western Australia and by a number of my colleagues, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I believe some of the reactions that have followed the publication of the submission made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the Senate committee have been unreasonable. For the benefit of the House, I think it would be desirable if all members of the House actually read the submission. They would gain from the reading of that submission a number of fundamental facts. The first is that the government does not for a moment deny that there were practices carried out in relation to the indigenous population of this country which are in today's standards quite unacceptable. There has never been any attempt by the government to deny that. There has never been any attempt by the government to deny the proposition that the removal of children and the separation of children from their families inflicted a large amount of trauma and suffering on those people at the time and that the consequences of that suffering and trauma endure in their descendants to this day and certainly in relation to those who were removed who are alive today.That is not at issue, and the government does not argue that. The submission was not designed, in the words of one daily newspaper on Saturday, to categorise the debate about the stolen generation as being a `myth'. It was not designed to do that. It was designed in an honest way, and I reject the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition. It was designed in an honest way to put some facts on the record. If we are to have intelligent debate about these issues, we ought to be willing to place facts on the record, and we ought also to acknowledge that it is not an issue in which exaggerated claims should be made on either side of the debate. That puts an obligation on the government, it puts an obligation on the opposition and it also puts an obligation on those who write and otherwise comment on political affairs in this country.Mr Speaker, it is undeniable that people were removed forcibly and in circumstances which Australians today would regard as quite unacceptable. It is also undeniable that some of those removed years ago—and, I repeat, some of them—would be removed under the operation of existing laws today, and that applies in relation to both the indigenous and non-indigenous section of the Australian population. Might I also say that the figure of 10 per cent that was used in the submission, and has formed the basis of a lot of the comment that has followed the publication of this submission, I am advised was originally drawn from a survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and released in 1994. As I understand it, and as I am advised, it is not a figure that was generated for a particular political purpose by the minister or by the government. I repeat for the benefit of the House that it was a figure taken from a document released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1994.These are difficult issues. They are not resolved by sloganeering on either side. They are not resolved by using exaggerated claims on either side of the debate. At no stage has this government denied that certain practices were carried out which we would all find quite unacceptable and quite distasteful, and in relation to which I think there is a significant level of sorrow and regret within the Australian community. It is equally the case, if we are to have an intelligent understanding of what occurred, that all of the relevant facts should be available to the Australian community. It was not the government's initiation that this submission be put forward; it was in response to a request from a Senate inquiry. The minister put the submission forward in good faith and I think he has argued the context of that submission with his commendable decency and candour.1500714:09:0015007Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the Minister inform the House of developments in west Timor and how the government is continuing to assist the people of East Timor? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to the issue of East Timor?15007Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—First of all, I thank the honourable member for Aston for his question and his enduring interest and concern for the people of East Timor. Let me begin by saying that we welcome the Indonesian government's very recent decision at the end of last week to extend by three months the time for the East Timorese who are in camps in west Timor to make up their minds as to whether they wish to return to East Timor or whether they wish to remain in Indonesia. I also welcome the fact that the Indonesians are extending humanitarian assistance for a further three months to people in the camps in west Timor. We have made it perfectly clear that we think the refugees should be allowed to make a decision on their own future free from intimidation and fear. I remind the House that we are continuing to cooperate with the international community in providing assistance to refugees. So far we have provided around $12 million to assist the people in the camps and to facilitate their return to East Timor. This demonstrates yet again the practical support that this government is giving to the East Timorese people, which has been a constant of this government's time in office. The honourable member for Aston asked whether there are alternative approaches. I noticed that during the weekend the former leader of the Labor Party—although from his appearances on television recently I have begun to wonder whether he isn't still the Leader of the Labor Party—Mr Paul Keating, much admired by you—Opposition members interjecting—4G4Mr DOWNER—We will get back to that. I notice that Mr Keating was on television once more claiming to be an expert on issues Indonesian and on matters pertaining to Asia. I want to make two points about that. First of all, Mr Keating is not an expert on Asia or Indonesia. He is not an expert on Indonesia, and if you think he is, it shows how you have been sucked in by your leader, or should I say your former leader.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the minister to defer from references to `you'.4G4Mr DOWNER—I think I am right in saying that Mr Keating never visited Indonesia in all the time he was a member of parliament up until he became the Prime Minister. So, for 21 or 22 years it was a place you flew over and looked down on from 35,000 feet on the way to Europe.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Paris.4G4Mr DOWNER—On your way to Paris, and then suddenly he became the Prime Minister and it was the epicentre of our universe. Mr Speaker, I will tell you what was not at the epicentre of his universe, or the Labor Party's universe, and that was East Timor.UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson!4G4Mr DOWNER—Paul Keating made it perfectly clear at the weekend that if Paul Keating had remained as the Prime Minister of this country after the 1996 election—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—There wouldn't have been a massacre.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson!4G4Mr DOWNER—the people of East Timor would not be free today. That is the difference between this man and his predecessor. What is extraordinary, Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—4G4Mr DOWNER—I know it hurts the Labor Party to hear about human rights because you never did anything about it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I have on two occasions asked the member for Paterson—although he did not hear me, I believe, in deference to him—to watch his interjections. I just indicate to him that he may not have heard me say that.4G4Mr DOWNER—As I was saying, Mr Speaker, there are alternative approaches. There is the alternative approach of the former leader of the Labor Party Mr Keating. What was interesting—and this is the last point I will make about the alternative approach of Mr Keating, you will be pleased to hear—was that, despite all the comments that Mr Keating made about how Australia should not have stood up for the people of East Timor, who was silent? Who had nothing to say? Who refused to repudiate him? The current Leader of the Opposition. I was at an agricultural show on Saturday and somebody came up to me and said, `Mr Downer, is Mr Keating still the leader of the Labor Party?' I said, `You can believe he is, because the present leader of the Labor Party is too weak to repudiate him.'1500814:15:0015008Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you believe there was a stolen generation or not?15008Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The views on this matter of mine and the views of the government have been encapsulated on numerous occasions. It is clear that large numbers of children were taken away from their parents in circumstances that could only be described as forcible removal. It is also clear that the numbers that were taken away cannot be established after this lapse of time with total precision. It is also clear that many of them—7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—So why argue on the numbers?5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis—Why argue on them?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect and the member for Canberra, the Prime Minister has the call. ZD4Mr HOWARD—Many were taken in circumstances where under today's laws they would be regarded as being properly and lawfully taken from their families in the interests of their own protection. I would clearly have in mind the operation of child protection laws in many parts of the country. As to the use of a particular term to collectively describe the practice, different people have different terms. I content myself with the submission that was made on behalf of the government. I content myself with the response that was made. People have talked a lot about being semantic with statistics. I could equally say that the Leader of the Opposition is being semantic with words. The reality is that large numbers of children were taken in circumstances where they should not have been taken. Those practices, as I have often acknowledged in the past, represent the most blemished chapter in the history of this country. I have never walked away from that. The government has never walked away from that. But, equally, those people who are genuinely concerned about the process of reconciliation in our nation will not decry attempts to have a sensible, reasoned and as far as possible free of rhetorical flourish debate about this issue. We do not achieve anything on this issue by arguing the toss about a particular expression on either side. We do achieve a great deal by acknowledging facts and showing to the Australian community a willingness to debate facts. That is what the minister was doing. Those who deny him the right or impugn his motives for doing that I think are downgrading the debate and they are certainly not serving the interests of the indigenous people of Australia.1500914:18:0015009Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is working with state and local governments to assist rural and regional communities to reach their full potential, particularly those in the electorate of Mallee? 15009Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question and I know of his real interest in this matter. Having been through his electorate a couple of times recently, I can report that there is a great deal of real interest and benefit happening in terms of development in that very interesting part of Victoria. I committed myself to calling together the state ministers responsible for regional development and services and also representatives of local government at last year's summit to talk about a real concern that came up repeatedly through the working groups and so forth about a lack of coordination and cooperation within and between the three tiers of government on the delivery of the things that we try to do to benefit rural and regional Australia. I can report that it was in fact a very successful meeting, which I think is good news for regional Australia. All of those who attended were deeply seized of the need to get it right—all states and all territories and local government as well.I note that we issued a communique afterwards. It said, `All ministers register their deep concern that in the face of growing challenge and change, regional and rural Australia needs the sustained support of all levels of government in helping create opportunity and prosperity.' There was a real belief there that opportunity and prosperity can be identified and secured but that we need to work together to overcome the challenges that undoubtedly for some areas—not all, but some—remain in the way. So ministers agreed to work together to establish a clear framework for cooperation between all levels of government in the area of regional development. We also established a fixed-term task force—it will last for just three months—to work through opportunities for improved collaboration and cooperation, including in the areas of shopfront service delivery, regional leadership development, one-stop shops and so forth. That task force's work will be considered at a meeting of relevant ministers and local government authorities around the middle of the year. I do have to report my disappointment that, in contrast to all other state and territory governments, the ALP government in Victoria, despite their much touted concern for and commitment to regional Australia, could not see fit to send their responsible minister or an alternative minister. I also have to record my other disappointment—that is, that the shadow minister in this place, far from making a constructive contribution to the debate, claimed that local government was left out of it. I just seek to place on record that the President of the Australian Local Government Association, John Ross, wrote to me on 30 March saying, `I can assure you that local government has a genuine and long-term commitment to regional development and we appreciate being recognised as a partner in a whole of government approach that is dedicated to finding long-term solutions to a better future for the people we jointly represent.' 1501014:22:0015010Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it a fact that even if it were the case—and that is not conceded—that only 10 per cent of Aboriginal children were removed, that would equate to around 500,000 children being removed from today's Australian families had that policy been practised across Australian society? Don't these figures illustrate that removing even 10 per cent of children from the community would have a devastating effect on the whole generation?15010Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The question is hypothetical, but I will nonetheless endeavour to answer it. With the greatest of respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I do not believe that this line of questioning, while he may think it is politically advantageous to the Labor Party, is promoting the cause of a more rational debate or discussion on this issue. The minister has put forward on behalf of the government a submission. This submission is in response to a request from the Senate committee. It is an attempt—and it can be criticised, as it has been by some, unreasonably in my view and overemotionally in my view—to put on the table an honest assessment of some of the facts. It is interesting in all of the debate that has gone on since the publication of this report—and I think Saturday's Daily Telegraph was the most prominent report and one that I think quite mischievously and erroneously used the word `myth'; there is no word `myth' in this report, that was the invention of the headline writer of the newspaper—that there has been no serious attempt made by the Leader of the Opposition, or indeed by anybody else, to dispute on a factual basis what is contained in this report.Let me say on behalf of the government that if there are factual errors in this report or if there are propositions that are advanced on grounds that are insubstantial, unreasonable or unfair, then the government will examine them. This is meant to be nothing more than what was asked of the government: to respond to an inquiry by the Senate committee. It does not represent an exhaustive statement of policy on indigenous affairs by the government. I think the submission is a contribution to the analysis, but it does not deserve to be put at any higher level than that, not that the government in any way retreats from what is contained in the submission. So those who are interested should read the report. If they can find something in it that is wrong, let them point that out to the minister. I repeat: this document does not deny in any way that practices were engaged in that are totally unacceptable according to the standards of today. They were the practices that this parliament unanimously had in contemplation when it passed its motion last year acknowledging that the treatment of the indigenous people of this country represents the most blemished chapter in the nation's history and when we recorded our regret and sorrow at the injustices that were meted out to indigenous people within the Australian community. There is nothing in this document that in any way walks away from that statement of attitude both by the government and by the opposition. All of us in this parliament understand the sensitivity of these issues. There is goodwill, I believe, in the minds and hearts of people on both sides of the parliament on this issue. And what this document is designed to do is to contribute in an unemotional way to this debate; it is not designed to create the sorts of outcomes that have been attributed to it by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition was out in front of the parliament saying that this document had been put forward by the government as a diversion from debate on Telstra and the goods and services tax. The Leader of the Opposition was beside himself saying that it was a diversion; it was nothing of the kind. This document was a response. Who has asked all the questions about it? The Leader of the Opposition. He is running around saying it is a diversion but I have had the first four questions on the issue. The Leader of the Opposition can question me as often as he likes, but perhaps in the remaining six questions he has he could point out to me some of the factual errors in the document so that we can then set about remedying them if the basis of the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition is correct. 1501114:27:0015011Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware of developments in Victoria which threaten business investment? Minister, what is the impact on business investment of the demands being made? 15011Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for his question. What we are seeing in Victoria is exactly what we would see if ever we had a federal Labor government. It is quite obvious what is happening in Victoria. As David Buckingham of the Business Council said, confidence in Victoria in the business community is `taking a battering'. We have already had projects deferred or cancelled in Victoria because of the control that the unions have over the state Labor government. As recently as last Friday, the Australian Financial Review reported yet another project—this one a $50 million project—dumped. Dumped why? Because, as is always the case with weak Labor leaders, they do what the unions tell them and the cost of that is a loss of investment and a loss of jobs. Not only are the unions in Victoria running riot with the state Labor government compliant, putty in their hands, but they are in Victoria doing to the state Labor government what they do to the federal Labor opposition—and that is they tell you what your policies will be. So on the weekend we saw announced the latest set of policies from the Victorian Trades Hall Council. What do they want? They want a new industrial relations system so they can put their mates into jobs in the establishment of a $24 million commission to be paid for by taxpayers. They want to widen unfair dismissal laws, which will mean fewer jobs, not more jobs. They say that there is no place for the making of an individual agreement. So if you as the employee want to have an agreement with your employer, because the union bosses are not involved you are not allowed to. They also have a requirement that there will be collective bargaining only on the basis that their unions are a party to the bargain.In the private sector in Australia 80 per cent of people are not in unions, but if you in your workplace want to sit down with your mates and do a deal with your boss which is good for the business and good for the employees these union bosses, telling the Labor Party what to do, say that you are not even allowed to have an agreement unless the union secretary, who has no members in that workplace, first agrees.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPWI4Mr REITH—Half the frontbench are former trade union leaders; this is where you get your policy from. Lastly, instead of having enterprise bargaining, which was the Labor Party's policy when it was in government, now the unions are saying, `We have to have industry-wide bargaining.' So you could be working in a business and everybody is happy in that business, but because the unions tell you to go on strike, even though it is against your interest, you will be required under these laws to take industrial action. That is a recipe for the high levels of industrial action that we had when Labor was last in office. It should be noted that, when Labor was in office, the average level of days lost per 1,000 employees was 190; under us it is about 80. Under Labor, that would mean a massive increase in the level of strikes and the consequent loss of jobs. Arch Bevis, the shadow minister, said it all when, in the Financial Review of 20 March, he said: ... there's no question of the commitment of Labor here in Canberra. There is no doubt at all that our industrial relations policy will be predicated on restoring the traditional rights of unions and their members. In other words, they are more interested in looking after their union mates and their union bosses, and the people who suffer are the rank and file who lose job opportunities as a result.1501114:31:0015011Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that on 3 February 1997 the government received advice from a Queen's Counsel, consistent with previous advice from both the Solicitor-General and your department, that proposed amendments to the Native Title Act were contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act? Isn't it also a fact that in July 1997 Chief General Counsel Henry Burmester advised the government that its proposed amendments involved inconsistency with both the Racial Discrimination Act and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination? Given that the government's decision to ignore this advice and proceed with discriminatory amendments has exposed Australia to criticism, why is the government blaming the messenger for telling all Australians something the government has known all along?15012Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I was asked a somewhat similar question about two years ago. If you think back to the time that the opinions that you are referring to relate to, they were several months prior to the legislation being finalised in the Senate. As I explained about two years ago, we got advice on a continuous basis. We were quite satisfied at the time the Senate settled the legislation that our obligations were complied with and we were not in breach of any international obligations. The legislation was a fair compromise of contentious political interests. We are not in the business of providing legal advice at the drop of a hat or at the request of individuals even in this parliament. It is the ongoing practice of successive governments not to provide legal advice or even at times to mention that they have sought it.The member for Banks suggests that the amendments to the Native Title Act are, in the view of some, in breach of international obligations. If you are referring to the CERD committee, which has recently reported, you would be well aware that in March and August last year we rejected the report of the CERD committee. It reiterated last week those same opinions, and again we reject the conclusion. There are no reasons offered. It is just simply adopting a political point of view in a report.1501214:34:0015012Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the government's success in expanding new apprenticeship opportunities for young people in regional Australia? Also, is the minister aware of any alternative proposals and what is their significance for the training of young Australians?15012Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Groom for his question. I know how committed he is to making sure that young people in his electorate get high quality training opportunities. He will undoubtedly be aware that the policies of this government have significantly increased education and training opportunities in regional and rural Australia. Indeed, in December last year, there were 87,320 new apprentices in training in regional Australia—that is twice as many as in the last year of the Labor government. In other words, this government has doubled quality training for apprentices and apprenticeship type opportunities in regional Australia. This year, we expect an additional 50,000 young people to commence a new apprenticeship.This is a proud record, and it contrasts dramatically with the record of the Leader of the Opposition, who was the last responsible Labor minister, when some 20,000 traditional trade apprenticeships disappeared in one year. Contrary to the policies of the Labor Party, this government has made available a wide range of training opportunities. These new apprenticeships are available across a range of Australian industries, and they give young people the chance to get a nationally recognised qualification. We have been able to achieve this because, unlike the Labor Party, we have not elevated the Labor Party's union mates to a controlling role in the apprenticeship system. When the Labor Party was in office, the unions were given authority to walk into workplaces whenever an employer wanted to take on a trainee or an apprentice.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPBT4Dr KEMP—The Leader of the Opposition makes fun of this. He asks if they were wearing red suits and did they have a horn and a tail. Believe me, many employers who had union-free workplaces were very concerned about the nature of those who might come through the door and try to represent a political agenda instead of a job creating training agenda.I was asked whether I was aware of any alternative policies. The Leader of the Opposition of course has no credibility in this area. There has been no advance in his thinking on training since he was the responsible minister. Indeed, what the Australian of 24 June 1992 wrote about his alternative policies remains true today. It said:What is crystal clear, however, is that Mr Beazley ... is having trouble pulling it off this time around. He has been unable to control the training agenda, failing to impose his own mark and thus stave off interference. ... His failure to run hard on TAFE and training and kids and jobs has allowed the erosion of his position. The Leader of the Opposition had no policies then. There are no alternative training policies now, and it is this government which is providing quality training opportunities to young Australians in regional and rural Australia.1501314:38:0015013Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall saying on election night 1998 that you wanted:... to commit myself very genuinely to the cause of true reconciliation with the Aboriginal people of Australia by the Centenary of Federation.Isn't it a fact that in the last five weeks you have abandoned this goal? You have refused to act on mandatory sentencing, with which you say you do not agree, and now you deny the existence of the stolen generation. Why are you reneging on the very first promise you made in this term and dividing the Australian community for your own political purposes?RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Member for Denison! Before I recognise the Prime Minister, the latter part of the question did seek to advance an argument. I do not know that it need be responded to, but I invite the Prime Minister to respond to the first part of the question.15013Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I want to start with the end part of the question because it goes to motive. Despite the language in which it was clad, the purpose of the Leader of the Opposition's question was to maintain differences of opinion over indigenous affairs as a divisive political issue in the Australian community. The Leader of the Opposition comes into this parliament this question time as the man outraged about the behaviour of the government, yet in reality he is the person who seeks to use this issue to divide the Australian community. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that on 26 August last year the members of the Labor Party joined the government in unanimously supporting a resolution dealing with the issue of reconciliation, which amongst other things said that the House:... acknowledges that the mistreatment of many indigenous Australians over a significant period represents the most blemished chapter in our history.Those are the words that were put forward by the government. Those words were supported by those who sit opposite, and those words are designed, amongst other things, to have contemplation of the events relating to the forced removal in earlier years of indigenous children. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that particular paragraph encapsulates the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the Australian community. We might differ and argue about other approaches to reconciliation, but recognising that the treatment of indigenous people does represent the most blemished chapter in our national history is something that I think most Australians agree upon.The Leader of the Opposition implies in his question that the government has abandoned the quest for reconciliation. Let me tell him that the government has not abandoned the quest for reconciliation. The government believes very strongly that the goals of reconciliation are very important national goals that this government will continue to pursue. It is not easy to achieve reconciliation. I am not expressing my own words on this. I think I am expressing the words of many reasonable indigenous leaders who have said that the process of reconciliation will in fact take years. That is the view of the Chairman of the Reconciliation Council, it is the view of the Chairman of ATSIC, it is the view of many commentators on indigenous affairs and it is certainly the view of the government.Last week I had the opportunity to launch an indigenous program dealing with literacy and numeracy, commiting $27 million for a program to address one of the proven and admitted causes of indigenous disadvantage in the Australian community: the fact that indigenous Australians' levels of literacy and numeracy are even worse than those of other Australians. This is something I describe as practical reconciliation. That was criticised by some—not many—within the indigenous leadership, but the great bulk of them saw it for what it was: a practical gesture on the part of the government towards the goal of reconciliation. We remain committed to those sorts of things, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that we are committed to those things. The Leader of the Opposition knows that we are putting unprecedented levels of resources into attacking the health problems of indigenous Australians. The Leader of the Opposition knows that there are not racial motives in the policies of this government. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the government is not endeavouring to divide the Australian community on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is not the intention of the government on these issues to create division within the Australian community. We have an honest difference of opinion on the issue of a formal apology. It remains the view of this government that a formal national apology is not appropriate. It remains the view of this government that the motion of sorrow and regret contained in the resolution to which I referred a moment ago is the appropriate response of this national parliament to that issue.That is our view, honestly held. I accept that there are other views in the Australian community that are different, but ours is not a view based on any kind of racial prejudice, it is not a view based on an assumed superior reading of Australian history; it is an honest view as to what the appropriate response is. These are difficult issues. I think all Australians regret many of the things that occurred in the past. There is an overwhelming desire on the part of the Australian community to work to address the root causes of Aboriginal disadvantage: the lack of appropriate standards of education, of health, of employment opportunities, and of housing. They have been the priorities of the government I lead over the last four years, and it is a continued application of those priorities that will give to the indigenous people of Australia a greater opportunity in life and the opportunity to participate fully within the mainstream of the Australian community. I do not think it contributes to the appropriate level of debate in this community for the Leader of the Opposition to seek, as he has done, to impute improper motives to the government. By all means, let the Leader of the Opposition tell me what is wrong in this document. Let the Leader of the Opposition tell me what is wrong with us providing, this year, $2.2 billion, a record amount, to address Aboriginal disadvantage. Let the Leader of the Opposition tell us what was wrong with the literacy and numeracy program that was brought down last week. The Leader of the Opposition talks about division, but the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow minister want to reopen one of the most divisive debates in recent Australian memory, and that is the debate on native title.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition wants to reopen the debate on native title. We believe the debate on native title was resolved by this parliament elected by the Australian people. One of the reasons we rejected the findings of the United Nations committee last week was that, amongst other things, that United Nations committee called for a reopening of the native title issue. I cannot think of anything more divisive than to reopen that issue. All of us knew that it was a potentially explosive issue within the Australian community. All of us knew that when the government reached an understanding with Senator Harradine—no thanks to the Australian Labor Party—we had avoided the consequences of that. The Leader of the Opposition on this occasion has sought to make miserable political capital out of this issue. He ought to be condemned for doing so.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned.1501514:47:0015015McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Would the minister advise the House of the benefits to accrue from the signing of the West Victorian and Gippsland regional forest agreements last Friday? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to the RFA process?15015Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Last Friday the Prime Minister and the premiers of Victoria and New South Wales signed three additional regional forest agreements covering actually four of the final RFA areas, leaving just one, the southern region, to be completed. That brings to 10 the number of regional forest agreements that this government has concluded since it came to office. That stands in stark contrast with the activities of the previous government, which brought down the national forest policy statement in 1992 but on their defeat in 1996 had not concluded one regional forest agreement.Two of those agreements were signed for the Victoria RFA regions of Gippsland and Victoria west, and I would like to thank the members of parliament from Gippsland, Corangamite, Ballarat, McEwen and Wannon for their assistance in achieving five RFAs now concluded in Victoria. Time and time again those people have been coming to my office promoting the issues relating to both sides of those matters—the green issues and the workers' issues—and they have shown a great dedication to their own electorates in that regard.There have been very substantial additions made in the process of concluding these last two RFAs, because the agency in Victoria discovered that it had been overestimating sustainable yields. We had some suspicion of that. This government decided to conduct an audit and, before that audit was completed, the local state agency had reduced its sustainable yield calculations. That is good conservation policy. But that has created problems in terms of available wood supply, where there has been a reduction of 37,000 cubic metres in the western region and 12,000 in the Gippsland region. The government's response to that was to provide an additional $5 million which, when added to our previous offer of $13.8 million and with state government contribution, had made available $42.6 million—not to kick people out of their jobs, as was proposed in 1992 by the previous Labor government, but to give them the opportunity to better use the remaining resources and to add value to them so there will be no net job losses. I can tell you that every one of those members I named made that a non-negotiable condition to me. They are the ones that did it.I am asked whether alternative proposals have been put to me. I have brought to the attention of the House before the lack of suggestions and of support—in fact, the complete vacuum of policy—coming from the opposition ranks. With one exception, the member for Burke, I am still awaiting my first piece of correspondence. I was thinking that maybe one day the member for Bass would want to put some argument on behalf of the workers who used to pay her wages. It is pretty interesting. I do not even know her Christian name or surname, because I have never seen it on the bottom of a letter. I have got a few memory joggers like that: botanically, you can think of petal, petulance, the member for Dickson—you have all these sorts of things you can do—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—but I do not even know her name. The whole point is that there are no proposals coming from the opposition benches. The CFMEU has applauded our attempts to keep their people in employment; but not one word, not one request.Finally, it is interesting to note the response to our decisions and our ability to get on with this job, when we see people like Senator Brown and Christine Milne of the Greens saying what a dreadful situation is arising with these RFAs and indicating that the forest is being devastated. But then I pick up the Geelong Advertiser and find the letter from Democrat Senator Lyn Allison, complaining that the regrowth of harvested forest in the Ottways is so vigorous that it is reducing water supplies flowing down the hills into dam catchments for Geelong. Why do they do that? There is a concern about water catchment in Geelong, and any argument will do. But you cannot have it both ways. Our policies are producing good production forests and good reserve forests. What is more, on the word of Democrat Senator Allison, the fact of life is that, where forests have been harvested, they are growing back so quickly and so vigorously that they are slowing down water run-off—her words, notwithstanding the truth of them.1501614:54:0015016Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Ms Jane Bennett, a panel member of the government's Telstra inquiry, currently features in paid government television advertisements promoting the goods and services tax? Prime Minister, given Ms Bennett's clear public links with the government, how can anyone believe your fatally compromised inquiry can be independent?15016Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will examine the factual allegation contained in the question. I will analyse the assumption made about conflict of interest, and let me make it very clear to the parliament that I do not necessarily accept the analysis of the member for Perth.1501614:55:0015016Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House of the government's recent initiatives to protect Australians from vaccine preventable illnesses?15016Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. There are three initiatives currently under way in the area of vaccines, all of which should be very positive in terms of protecting Australians from the effects of vaccine preventable illness. The first relates to an announcement we made in April 1998, nearly two years ago, that child-care assistance would be linked to a child's immunisation status. Parents were given plenty of warning of this. It is a serious threat, but we are going to carry through with it, and children who are not fully immunised or whose parents have not signed a conscientious objection form will lose access to child-care assistance.Parents have the right to make the choice of whether to immunise their children or not to immunise their children, but they do not have the right to do nothing. A letter was sent to parents in early February alerting them to this. There were some 65,000 families who had registered for child-care assistance but who had not, on the immunisation register, fully immunised their children. This may overstate the number, because some parents would have registered for child-care assistance but not actually be receiving it. I am pleased to say that since that first letter some 32,000 parents have contacted the childhood immunisation register and have immunised their children. A second letter was sent out in early March. We were to make the cut-off today but we have decided to extend it for one month and send a final registered letter to every one of these 30,000 families, so there will be absolutely no excuse for any parent who does lose child-care assistance for doing absolutely nothing.It is disappointing to see that the opposition, through their shadow minister for family services and the aged, Senator Evans, putting out a press release last week calling on the government to delay its threat to stop child-care benefits for up to 30,000 children who allegedly have not been immunised. A significant point is that this was sent out on the Leader of the Opposition's fax machine six hours after I made the announcement that we were going to do just that. Here is the opposition, with no policies on immunisation at all but prepared just to tag along and, after we make an announcement, six hours later put out a press release calling on us to do exactly what we have done. Secondly, this press release says, `Labor agrees on the desirability of encouraging immunisation in children but that the introduction of this penalty has been rushed.' Given that it was announced in April 1998, two years can hardly be said to be `rushed'. This is just mindless, petty nitpicking on an area that is exceedingly important.The second area of initiative in immunisation is that last week I announced that hepatitis B would be added to the immunisation schedule. Hepatitis B is involved in liver disease, particularly chronic liver failure in carriers, and liver cancer. We have decided to give children an injection at birth and then add it to the immunisation schedule at two months, four months and six months. This is a very positive development, flowing on from the National Health and Medical Research Council's recommendations.But again, I get the same petty nitpicking from the Labor Party, this time from the member for Bruce, saying that children may not get full immunisation as a result of confusion arising from the introduction of the new combination vaccines. This sort of scaring of parents can only contribute to the sort of confusion that we had prior to this government coming in, when 53 per cent of children were fully immunised.The fact is that, while there may be differences between one state and the other, any doctor can access the childhood immunisation register on the web site or they can make a telephone call and get immediate information, or a parent can write and get the information sent to them in the mail. Your intervention in this is disgusting, outrageous and hypocritical, coming from a member of a government that failed to protect children against the most basic of diseases—a complete abrogation of leadership, a complete abrogation of public health.With winter approaching, we have influenza A likely to hit Australia. It hit Europe over the Christmas-New Year period; 20,000 people over 65 years of age died in Europe as the result of influenza A. The third initiative is that this year, for the second time in a row, the government is offering free influenza A vaccine to anyone over 65 years of age or, in recognition of the poor health status of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, anyone over 50 years of age. These vaccinations will help to very substantially moderate the epidemic expected in Australia, and I would very much encourage those people who are eligible to have them.1501715:01:0015017Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, what advice have you received about the four types of tax avoidance schemes allegedly supported by Mr Petroulias's rulings? Will you table that advice? And what is the estimate of the amount of revenue at risk from these schemes?15017Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I think members of the House would be aware that somebody who worked for the Taxation Office some time ago, Mr Petroulias, has been charged and is awaiting trial, I believe in Melbourne. Under the Australian law, of course, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and it will be a matter for the prosecutors to put the evidence in the court. Comment on the case should be very careful because, again under Australian law, it can often be said that comments, if they are made and are prejudicial, can prejudice a fair trial and not lead to such proceedings.I can advise the House that I have been advised by the Commissioner of Taxation himself that when he became aware of various matters he called in the law enforcement authorities. The law enforcement authorities have conducted a full investigation which has led to the laying of charges, and the matter should now be decided in the courts, as it will be.1501715:00:0015017Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, would you inform the House how the transition to Job Network 2 has been received by local communities, particularly in my electorate of Eden-Monaro? Minister, what steps have been taken to improve Job Network service coverage in regional and remote areas, and how does this compare with other approaches taken?15017Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—There was nothing inherently easy about the Job Network 2 transition. Some areas have had a high turnover of Job Network members, some former Job Network members have lost contracts, and some continuing Job Network members have had very significant restructurings to manage in just three months. The fact that it has all gone so smoothly is a credit to everyone involved in the delivery of employment services right around the country.The good news is that the transition has been extremely well received, particularly, I am pleased to say, in the electorate of Eden-Monaro. Job Network 2 has been greeted by headlines such as `Locals help locals' in the Cooma-Monaro Express, and `New Job Network services' in that well-known publication the Eden-Imlay Magnet. The enthusiasm of the people of Eden-Monaro is not so surprising because in the old days there were just four CES offices in Eden-Monaro. There were 18 Job Network 1 sites, and there are now 36 Job Network 2 sites. Towns such as Jindabyne, Eden, Pambula and Narooma now have separate, individual employment service sites for the first time. Job Network 2 has been generally well received right around the country. For instance, I am sure my friend the member for Greenway was pleased to see in the Blacktown Sun the headline `Network adds six'. Today the government announced further enhancements to Job Network through fee-for-service arrangements at sites such as Nhulunbuy, Thursday Island, Menindee and Wilcannia. All this shows what can be achieved under competitive tendering arrangements. The Leader of the Opposition understands this. He said in his Garran Memorial Lecture in 1994:Today government can also be about purchasing services on behalf of its clients and it will look increasingly to buy from the most efficient supplier, whether from within the public sector or externally.I have been asked about other approaches. The only other approach is coming from the Labor Party's employment spokesman, the member for Dickson, who wants one government owned organisation to be given the `driving role in the delivery of employment services'. So the question is: why should any organisation—Employment National or any other organisation—be given a head start in any competition to provide these services? Job Network members such as the Salvation Army, Mission Employment and Centacare are entitled to know why the Labor Party thinks Employment National should get the inside running in any future Job Network tender. They are entitled to ask that question, and the member for Dickson should provide an answer very quickly.1501815:06:0015018Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, and follows all the questions asked last year about MRI and the scan scam. Is the minister aware that two senior nuclear medicine physicians have resigned in succession as the chair of a committee of doctors negotiating with the government over Medicare rebates for the new technology of positron emission tomography—commonly known as PET scanners—which is used to detect cancerous cells? Is it the case that these resignations were sparked by potential conflicts these doctors had because they also sat on government committees involved in the assessment of PET technology? Has the minister established whether any of the people he has a close working relationship with are in a position of conflict of interest in relation to the negotiation of Medicare rebates for PET scanners?15018Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The government has made no decision on PET scanning at all. We have sent it to the Health Technology Advisory Committee, I think. And, while it was recommended by my department that I should fund it, I have asked that the Health Technology Advisory Committee run its course. As for the resignation of individual members, I am not aware of that. I do not have anything to do with the day to day running of these consultative committees. While I am the responsible minister, I do not involve myself with it.15018NaN:07:003Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of recent developments in the massive $3.1 billion Pacific Highway upgrading program?15018Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I note his interest in it and the interest of others, such as the member for Cowper, of course, who has endlessly campaigned for this road. It really ought to be called the `Garry Nehl Highway'.Last week work commenced on replacing the deadliest stretch on the entire Pacific Highway with a four-lane $348 million freeway. It is a 29-kilometre stretch, from Yelgun to Chinderah. It is a deviation which will bypass the notorious Burringbar Range section. It will certainly make a very big difference in terms of safety for motorists. But it will be more than that: it will be an upgrade which will improve transport linkages very significantly, especially for the burgeoning North Coast, ably represented, of course, by the members for Page and for Richmond. And, of course, the member for Richmond, Larry Anthony, was on site to officially launch the project just last week.This is actually the largest single project in the $3.1 billion Pacific Highway upgrading program. It delivers a priority election commitment for this government. This is the road that the coalition built, that the ALP had no capacity to fund. This is the road that was left out in the cold because in 1991 the now Leader of the Opposition decided that the Commonwealth ought to get out of important regional roads of this sort. They would not touch it. That does not stop, of course, the member for Paterson—out there every day proclaiming the value of the road that the coalition is building. He is out there every day saying it is wonderful. I simply ask him to do the decent thing and point out that if his team were still in power the road would simply never have been funded.1501915:10:0015019Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister explain the circumstances of his selection of Dr Rick McLean for the position of Chair of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council, which attracts remuneration of $25,000 for a part-time commitment? How did the minister come into contact with Dr McLean, and in what capacity has the minister worked with Dr McLean? Did the minister establish whether Dr McLean was in a position of commercial conflict of interest because he acts as a lobbyist for private sector nuclear medicine and is closely involved with Clinical Associates of Australia, which has interests in both MRI and PET scanners? Is Dr McLean amongst those—3K6Cameron, Ross, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta! The member for Jagajaga has the call and will come to the conclusion of her question.PG6Ms MACKLIN—Is Dr McLean amongst those radiologists who have been referred to the DPP as part of the MRI scan scam?15019Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I have known Dr McLean for some time. He is a highly talented person. A nuclear medicine physician is a highly appropriate person to be heading the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA. He is doing an excellent job. Given what someone in private practice earns, $25,000 per annum for the chair of this is a tiny amount of money. I would also say that nuclear medicine is quite different—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—Is there a conflict of interest?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Is there a conflict of interest? I do not believe so. I do not see what ARPANSA really has to do with PET scanning, other than it produces isotopes. The two are quite separate.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Well, ARPANSA is what he is chairman of. Finally, you asked me: was he one of the radiologists involved in MRI? Nuclear medicine physicians have got nothing to do with radiology. They are separately trained. One are physicians; one are radiologists. You obviously do not know the difference, and you are a complete dope!1501915:13:0015019Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Will the minister outline for the House what the Howard government is doing to assist young job seekers to find work through access to new information technology services? Minister, are you aware of any alternative policies in this area?15020Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Dawson for her question and for the keen interest that she takes in the delivery of ever improved employment services to her electorate. A few years back, any job seeker entering the CES had access to, at most, a few hundred jobs listed on cards on notice boards. It was, I am afraid, despite the best will in the world of CES staff, the `Jurassic Park'of job seeking. These days, Australian Job Search, the government's national jobs database, has become a national electronic notice board available through more than 3,000 touch screens around the country and also through the Internet. I am pleased to say that every day Australian Job Search receives nearly 400,000 hits on the Internet, making it by far the most visited employment site in Australia.In the past 12 months Australian Job Search has been very significantly upgraded so that it now amounts to a virtual labour exchange. First, there was the lodge-a-job facility enabling employers to automatically lodge their own jobs through the Net. Then we had the lodge-a-resume facility allowing job seekers to put their resumes, without any middleman or intermediary, on the Net. Next we had a resume search facility enabling employers to search the database for suitable potential employees themselves. This is world-class technology and it has been acknowledged as such by honourable mention from the Smithsonian Institute, as well as by more than three special awards here in Australia. Three weeks ago the government announced a very significant new Internet based service called Job Outlook, which will enable job seekers, with one click on the Internet, to access updated information about employment growth and job prospects in nearly 400 separate occupations.I have been asked about alternative policies. A couple of weeks before the latest announcement, the member for Dickson launched a pamphlet called Workplace 2010. This was not a policy; it was in fact a forecast, she said, of where jobs might be. The only policy the member for Dickson had was to demand that the government post this printed document to all schools. I am pleased to say that the government have done a lot better than that. We have made more extensive, more refined and much more immediate information available to everyone through the Internet. Even on the member for Dickson's own interpretation of these events, it took us two weeks to deliver something which apparently the Labor Party had been working on since March last year. The government are delivering not only their own policies but even Labor's policies—where they are any good. The member for Dickson had better go back to the drawing board and come up with something original.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice PaperMiscellaneous1502015:17:0015020Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I wonder if, before the House proceeds, I might mention for the information of honourable members that we received information this morning that the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Obuchi, has suffered a severe stroke and is currently in intensive care. I have sent a message to him on behalf of the government and, I know, on behalf of all of the Australian people. He is a good friend of this country and I wish him well. Our thoughts are very much with him and his family at this difficult time.15:18:0015020Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I want to associate myself with those words of the Prime Minister. Mr Obuchi is indeed a good friend of this country and he has been a very good Prime Minister of Japan. We can only hope that he will have a full recovery from the circumstances in which he finds himself.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Miscellaneous150201502015:18:0015020Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving that government business order of the day No. 28, the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999, from the Senate be brought on forthwith.There is considerable urgency in this matter because—Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member be not further heard.15:23:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 77Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.67Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.*Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.*Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Hawker, D.P.M.Wilton, G.S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?15:27:0015022Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I second the motion. Deceit and division—that is what you will be remembered for. That is the hallmark of your prime ministership.Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member be not further heard.15:29:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 77Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.67Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.*Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.*Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Hawker, D.P.M.Wilton, G.S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmativeOriginal question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.15:31:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 67Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.*Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.*Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.77Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Wilton, G.S.Hawker, D.P.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Censure Motion150241502415:35:0015024Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—by leave—I move:That this House censures the Prime Minister for:(1) his betrayal of his 1996 pledge to govern “for all of us”, as well as his 1998 promise to commit himself “very genuinely to the cause of true reconciliation”; and(2) his attempts to divide the Australian community, including on issues on indigenous affairs, for base political motives and to divert attention from the messes his Government has made of the GST and its implementation, nursing home standards and the future of Telstra.It is not possible to comprehend the Prime Minister's reneging of his 1998 statement that this term of his office would be about true reconciliation for the centenary of Federation, his preparedness to accept that mandatory sentencing is wrong but to refuse to act on it after he himself has been party to actions both against the Northern Territory government legislation on one matter and in regard to legislation affecting the whole Commonwealth on another matter, and the leaking of this statement of the government and the content of this government's statement. It is impossible to comprehend why these things are out there in the public, this apparently hypocritical stance in relation to statements that he has made previously—and which he himself allegedly still believes, in the case of mandatory sentencing—unless you consider the political context of the times. The political context of the times is this. The government is facing a botching of a very unpopular tax where business in this country cannot get answers, where charity cannot get answers and where many in the community cannot get answers to the responsibilities that they face in regard to the reporting of this tax.It is impossible to understand it unless you understand the fact that we have a mess in many areas of aged care policy that the public has tumbled to and the media is focusing on. It is not possible to understand it unless you comprehend how deeply divided and how extraordinarily difficult now the government is finding handling its Telstra privatisation agenda, so unpopular now in regional Australia now they have tumbled to it. Until you comprehend that political context, you cannot see the classic Textor wedge politics diversionary tactic which is being pursued now against the jobless, against the disabled, against supporting parents and against indigenous Australians. The problem is that in each one of those public policy areas there are serious matters of public policy to consider and for them to be made, instead of the object of great deliberation and great sensitivity, merely the argy-bargy of politics—which is the intention of this government—demeans this nation and is demeaning this nation internationally through no fault of ordinary Australians.The Prime Minister is failing in his charter to uphold the dignity of ordinary Australians and to ensure that the reputation of this nation is whole in the international community and to ensure domestically that all Australians feel they are part of this nation, including the 250,000 long-term unemployed, including the one million disabled pensioners and supporting parents, including the 300,000 Aboriginals in this country and including the 40,000 or 50,000 in nursing homes. They are part of us, they are part of all of us, and because they are the most vulnerable they deserve the special attention of all of us.The Prime Minister—in his best Uriah Heep mode—in the course of question time went through the process of, `I am all innocence; the opposition all evil on this. Take a look at this proposition and argue it in detail; say where you think that these things in our submission are factually wrong. Ignore the timing of the leak—ignore all these sorts of issues. Take at face value our redefinition of true reconciliation as practical reconciliation.' In other words, our pilot literacy programs amongst the Aboriginal community are enough to deal with the things of the spirit in Aboriginal hearts that are there as a result of that report—which has not been properly addressed by this government—and are there as a result of the belief that they are treated very unfairly in the legal system, and there are plenty of reports to demonstrate the consequences of that.The Prime Minister invited us to make this report the answer to that deeply moving, highly detailed, highly factual report. Merely because a report moves the emotions and merely because a report strikes at the heart of our self-image and strikes at the deepest of our concerns does not mean it is not factually based. The case studies have names attached to them, Prime Minister. The batterings, the rapes and the appalling problems that were confronted with the collapse of identity, forcible removal from families and subsequent maltreatment all, in that report, have names attached to them, Prime Minister. There are statistics there and there are names. There is evidence. There is not, Prime Minister, evidence in your document. You chose to take an ABS statistic of 1994. I have news for you, Prime Minister: the statistics in the stolen generation report that you ignore postdate those. That particular set of ABS statistics dealt with the low end of the human rights committee's report on how many were actually affected. That low end is 10 per cent, but up to one-third in particular generations—because we are not in fact talking about one generation—went through that process of forcible removal.Prime Minister, for your information, so that you may take this away and consider it, I will tell you what the Aboriginals most object to in your response to that highly detailed, evidence based report as opposed to the submission that your government has issued under your instructions and the personal supervision of your office. The propositions that they most object to are these. Firstly:The proportion of separated Aboriginal children was no more than 10 per cent, including those who were not forcibly separated and those who were forcibly separated for good reason, as occurs under child welfare policies today. There was never a generation of stolen children.Your Western Australian Liberal Premier—who can by no means be described as on the left of Aboriginal debate in this country—tells you your report is a nonsense, as he knows from his own studies. That is one that the Aboriginal population deeply object to. Let me go to another that they most deeply object to—and they object to the whole lot of this nonsense but these are the things that really hurt. I have gone through one of them. Another is:The Commonwealth does not seek to defend or justify past policies and practices, but it does assert that the nature and intent of those events have been misrepresented and that the treatment of separated Aboriginal children was essentially lawful and benign in intent, and also reflected wider values applying to children of that era, as recorded in other recent official reports concerning illegitimacy, adoption, child welfare and institutional practices.How could a report purportedly dealing with Aboriginal affairs of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s possibly arrive at the conclusion that it was simply an extension of other child welfare mechanisms that existed at that time? How could they possibly come to that conclusion?There was a 1937 conference in which the various so-called protectors of the Aboriginals got together and said, `Our policy must be to remove'—what were described as, and I use their term—'half-caste Aboriginals from their parents to integrate them into the white community,' to ensure that they came up with white values and forgot their Aboriginality and, through time, would be blended out of the Aboriginal community. Ignoring the fact that the Aboriginal community does not make distinctions on racial grounds at all, they could confidently expect that over time the full-blooded Aboriginal community would die out.That was reiterated in 1951 at various gatherings, and the policy fundamentally continued. Where else in the Australian community was there such a policy that a group of Australians should be bled out of their culture and some other set of human beings created as a result? Where else was there a section of the Australian community deliberately targeted because of their race? How could you, Prime Minister, say that you are in favour of true reconciliation when your office, which is responsible for overseeing the drafting of this response, could include those two paragraphs which have mortified and deeply offended Aboriginals who have been your interlocutors? Remember the comments, because you got up there talking about extremists. Lowitja O'Donoghue sat in your office and tried to cobble together with you what she would regard as an acceptable preamble. Aden Ridgeway did the same. The scales have fallen from their eyes. Why would two people who have extended such goodwill to you feel so utterly betrayed by you now? They approached you. They take you at face value. They take your protestations to their hearts. They believed you when they thought you were a man of reconciliation. They accepted your word and they, as have all Australians on so many other issues, have been fundamentally betrayed by you.Just as all Australians have been betrayed with the never ever promise, just as all Australians were betrayed when told in the 1996 election that one-third privatisation of Telstra would do, just as all Australians were betrayed when told that you had an aged care policy that would guarantee there would be spot checks to ensure that ordinary Australians who found themselves in aged care accommodation were being fully and properly looked after—just as each one of them has been betrayed by you and your undertakings—so has the Aboriginal community on this matter.Then we go to your position, Prime Minister, on mandatory sentencing and why the Aboriginal community is so worried about that issue. Let me just go through a couple of cases because in many ways the consequences of all this are happening all over again—now and in this generation. Let me just go through a couple of cases that have occurred with your complete indifference. A young Wurramarrba boy was sentenced to 28 days in prison. Locked up far away from home, he was found hanged in Darwin's Don Dale detention centre on 9 February 2000, only a couple of days before he was due to be released. His mother died when he was a baby, and his father died in a car accident a few years ago. The 15-year-old boy stole pens, pencils and liquid paper from the local community council offices in Groote Eylandt. Their value was less than $50. Another case from Darwin illustrates how absolutely unjust and inflexible those laws are. Matthew Bradley, a 17-year-old boy from Darwin, left prison on 15 July 1997 after serving 14 days imprisonment for stealing yoyos and computer games valued at $579 from a toyshop. The Darwin Magistrates' Court was told that Matthew was an above-average student at St John's College and a first offender who had paid full restitution for the thefts and damage. He had also apologised to the manager of the toyshop. In fact, Matthew had confessed to his father, who had taken him and the stolen objects to the police station. So Matthew did the right thing, showed genuine remorse, confessed to a crime that the police had no idea he had perpetrated—and society dealt with him for doing this by sending him to prison for 14 days. How many would tolerate that sort of treatment of our own sons?But, because principally it is the Aboriginal community who is affected by it, there is no action. It was good enough to act to deal with the issue of euthanasia in the Northern Territory, it was good enough to act to support the position of the homosexual community in Tasmania—they were fully supported by the Prime Minister—but it is not good enough for this Prime Minister to act when it deals with the problem of those youngsters I have referred to. The Prime Minister wanted examples. I could give him examples a yard long, but I think those two will suffice to make the point. Those kids will go through the same process in their own minds—as so many did in that stolen generation before. It is the case that the issues we deal with in that stolen generation report do not deal with contemporary politics. That is the case. They do, however, deal with events in the lifetime of contemporary politicians—the Prime Minister and me—and, more important than that, our response to that report determines whether our fingerprints as a country are still on that document or whether they are wiped clean. That is the issue, Prime Minister, which is why that report requires more of a response than you have given it.You are prepared to tolerate, Prime Minister, in this report a process whereby those who have been traumatised, those who have used the normal psychological effects that come with a suppressed memory, have teased out those memories and relived their trauma. They have done that through the process that you have chosen in your report by pointing them in the direction of actions in the courts to recover where they can demonstrate the sort of abuse that you deny effectively took place—or which you sought to paper over. You have challenged them to go out and do it. You think there is a risk to the taxpayer of some $4 billion, a considerable augmentation on your budget papers of $700 million. Why can't we in this country deal with this like the Canadians dealt with it? They had, I must say, a much worse problem than we did. Bad as our figures are, their figures were worse. They scooped up just about all of the native Americans living in Canada in their school system and created enormous trauma for them. Nobody debated in Canada whether or not there should be an apology. Once the royal commission revealed it, the apology was issued. Nobody debated in Canada whether or not there should be compensation. They did not send those native American kids, now very adult, through the court process; they arranged for an amount in compensation which they could access without legalities. They actually settled it quite modestly, not the multimillion dollar settlements that we see in damage cases in this country and elsewhere—the $100,000 settlements. They settled quite modestly in the same way as the Aboriginal community would settle here. They just want to be presented with some understanding and some degree of material recompense for what they have gone through. This, Prime Minister, is a major opportunity for you which you have spurned. This, Prime Minister, is a major opportunity for this nation which you have spurned. This would give a practical demonstration to the rest of the world that we are a mature enough society to handle these sorts of issues and to deal with them effectively. The Swiss government apologised to Romany victims of child removals. The Canadian government, as I said, apologised for the detention during World War II of Japanese Canadians. In 1993, the US Congress, in a joint House and Senate resolution, apologised to native Hawaiians on behalf of the US for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii 100 years earlier. The Norwegian King apologised for the injustices committed in the past against the Sami people by the Norwegian state through harsh policies of Norwegianisation. And I have already indicated what the Canadian government did for their indigenous communities. There is the opportunity here to deal with this problem and settle it once and for all. You will not settle it, Prime Minister, despite the fact that you seem to have got the language right when you talked about reconciliation, because you deny yourself an opportunity for wedge politics—wedge politics as far as our most vulnerable people, the most vulnerable element in our community, are concerned. It is important that the education needs of the Aboriginal community are met. I have to say that I do not believe $27 million over four years is going to do the job. It is important that their health issues are met. I would offer praise for any effort made in the health concerns of Aboriginals and their being met is a matter for the attention of government. But it is the things of the spirit, Prime Minister, which determine your dignity; it is the things of the spirit which give you a sense of confidence and that you have an equal share in the opportunities presented by this nation; and it is the things of the spirit that you deny this community, despite your promises to do otherwise with them. It is for those reasons, Prime Minister, that you should be censured by this House on this matter. This neglect by you is the reason why you should be censured by this House on this matter. This opportunism of yours is the reason why you should be censured by this House on this matter. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded? 4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 15:55:0015027Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I, in a sense, thank the Leader of the Opposition. It is not normal that you thank the Leader of the Opposition for moving a motion of censure, but it does give me an opportunity in the course of the next quarter of an hour to expand on some of the things that I said at question time and to deal very sincerely with a difficult issue. The Leader of the Opposition said that things of the spirit mattered a great deal in our community. I agree with him. I agree with him that things of the spirit do matter a great deal. One of the things of the spirit is to have enough generosity to accept that you, no matter how strongly you might hold the view, do not have a monopoly of morality or a monopoly of decency when it comes to your approach to the less advantaged in our community. The thing that I think angers people on my side of the parliament more than anything else is not so much a disagreement on an issue, not so much that you might argue that there should be a formal national apology and we do not, not so much that you argue that there should be amendments to the native title legislation beyond what we have agreed and not so much that you should have a different view on whether we should override the state of Western Australia or the Northern Territory in relation to mandatory sentencing. They are legitimate areas of difference and debate. I have sat in this parliament for 25 years, and I have seen people on both sides of the parliament over the course of that 25 years, for good and proper reason, take different positions on different issues even though you may think those positions are inconsistent. My former leader Malcolm Fraser took a very strong position on the use of the external affairs power when it came to the construction of the Gordon below Franklin Dam in 1983. He stood on the principle of non-interference in a state matter, even though I know he personally was very sympathetic to the point of view being advanced by the environmental movement at that time. Of course, as the Leader of the Opposition points out, I supported, as he and many on both sides did in a free vote, the overturning of the Northern Territory euthanasia legislation. I would distinguish that from just about every single issue that has come before—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Why? ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I will tell you why I would distinguish it. Because if it had been carried it would have established a new moral paradigm in this country. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—And this doesn't? ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Just a moment.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence and exactly the same courtesy will be extended to the Prime Minister.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I listened carefully to what your bloke had to say. If you want to stay here, give me the same courtesy, because this is a serious issue and it ought to be debated. I supported the overruling on that occasion, and I did it for the very simple reason that if we had not done that we would have established a new moral paradigm in Australia, a law that could have been taken advantage of by every citizen in the country. I took the view that if in an area like that we were going to establish a new moral paradigm then that ought to be something that was resolved by the representatives of all of the Australian people, not the representatives of 140,000 Australian people. These are issues on which we can passionately hold different points of view. But may I say with the greatest of respect to the Leader of the Opposition, who I know feels deeply about many issues, as do I, that the thing we on this side of the House find completely unacceptable is the moral unction with which the Labor Party approach so many of these issues, the idea that the Australian Labor Party would argue that they alone have a monopoly of compassion on these issues.The Leader of the Opposition berated me during the last few minutes of his speech about our handling of the whole question of compensation for indigenous people. Does he remember that, in 1995 when the then Keating government was contesting the claim of Kruger in the High Court of Australia, the Keating government, through the Attorney-General, put a submission to the High Court of Australia which said, inter alia:In the event that the Commonwealth is found to have been in breach of any of the constitutional rights, guarantees, immunities, freedoms or provisions of the Constitution as alleged by the Plaintiffs, the Commonwealth denies that any such breach gives rise to a personal right of action for damages in the Plaintiffs independent of any common law action.In other words, he was inviting by using the words `independent of any common law action' those plaintiffs to do the very thing you are now condemning me for doing. That is what you were doing when you were in government, just as the Leader of the Opposition had one view on Telstra when he was in government and a different view now that he is opposition.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—So it is that he had one view when he was a member of the Keating government in 1995 and a completely opposite view now that he is in opposition. Some may call it by a word starting with `h'. I wonder what that is. That characteristic does not of course stop there. He ignores the fact that the New South Wales government led by the most successful Labor politician in Australia at the present time fiercely contested a claim for liability by somebody who was forcibly removed from her family before the courts of New South Wales in exactly the same attitude. The exact same attitude was being taken. That person—I think her name was Joy Williams—was put to strict proof of everything. I do not remember the Leader of the Opposition getting up, getting on the phone and saying, `Bob, this is your moment of destiny. You can cure all of this by settling up.' Of course he did not do that. Once again, the Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated a degree of—how shall we put it?—walking both sides of the street, on this occasion, at a different time.This censure motion moved by Leader of the Opposition is driven by the publicity that followed the publication in the press on Saturday morning of the submission presented by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs to a Senate committee. I remind the House and the Leader of the Opposition that we did not seek to orchestrate the presentation of this document. As far as I am concerned, the Senate committee requested the submission. The submission was prepared in the ordinary course of events through the department. It was cleared through the minister's office and other appropriate offices and presented to the Senate. The idea that we set out on some divisive expedition in order to win for ourselves all the newspaper headlines that I saw this morning defies imagination. I love those headlines—they are fantastic. You have somebody in the Daily Telegraph saying `Howard denies stolen generation'. It says that it is all a black myth. You have other headlines saying that Howard does not understand it. I am meant to enjoy all of this; I am meant to invite all of this. What an absurd proposition. No party leader and no Prime Minister in his right mind would set out to get that kind of reaction.Of course I regard this as a difficult, sensitive and potentially divisive issue in the Australian community. I care as much about the happiness of indigenous Australians as I do about any other Australian. The idea that you over there, because you sit behind the leader of the Australian Labor Party, have some kind of monopoly on concern, love and compassion absolutely fails any test of reasonableness and commonsense. Do you imagine that when I read the Bringing them home report I was not moved by those stories? Of course I was moved by those stories. Do you think I am not moved by stories of young people being sent into incarceration and imprisonment? Of course I am moved by those stories. May I remind you that I am also moved by the stories of elderly, lonely men and women in their 80s and 90s who are terrorised by thugs. I am moved by those stories.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—What's that got to do with it?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—It has a lot to do with it because it helps to explain the fact that there are many people within the Australian community who genuinely in their hearts, Daryl, believe that they are entitled to the protection of the law against people who wantonly invade their homes. That is what I am talking about. The Leader of the Opposition reminded me that I pledged when I was elected Prime Minister to govern for all of us. That elderly lady is one of us, just as much as any other person is one of us. That elderly person is entitled to understanding and to some kind of sympathy.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Does that go for Riverside?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Oh, Riverside—now called Gladesville. One of your colleagues, having sat mute for weeks while Jenny Macklin demanded the place be shut down, was on television on Sunday wanting it reopened. He wanted it reopened. He said that, as soon as he got back to parliament, he was going to call for its reopening—another example of the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition.Let me return to the censure motion of the Leader of the Opposition. That censure motion is based upon the totally false proposition coming from the Australian Labor Party that we have walked away from our commitment to reconciliation. We have not done anything of the kind. I repeat the words of the censure motion. It reads as follows: His betrayal of the 1996 pledge to govern for all of us as well as his 1998 promise to commit himself `very genuinely to the cause of true reconciliation'.Let me say for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, for the benefit of all of those who sit in this place today and for the benefit of all of the Australian people: we remain committed to that cause. We do not pretend that it is a journey that will easily be completed. You should have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge from your own experience in government that the indigenous portfolio was one of the most difficult and turbulent that you had any experience with. When I heard perhaps the best known identity in indigenous politics giving me a bit of a character reference on the Today show this morning, it reminded me very much of some of the arguments that went on when he was the head of the then Department of Aboriginal Affairs, when Gerry Hand was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It was not easy then, and I do not remember the Labor Party going out of office getting universal plaudits from every section of the Aboriginal community. We are committed to the cause of reconciliation. We may have a different way of achieving it from the Labor Party, we may differ as to our methodology and we may argue about some of the facts—and by all means let us do that—but let us not have any of this moral drivel that the only people who care about the indigenous in Australia are those who sit behind the leader of the Australian Labor Party.I can go back through the long history of my party and I can think of the compassionate contribution to the cause of indigenous affairs by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I can think of the member for Aston, who has a very deep and abiding interest in indigenous affairs and who sat for a number of years on the council for reconciliation. I can go through a very large number, but time does not permit it. We are committed to reconciliation. We did not set out with this submission to the Senate committee, as the Leader of the Opposition so falsely and indecently alleges, to create a wedge in Australian politics. It does not benefit the body politic, Labor or Liberal, to have a divisive debate about indigenous affairs any more than it benefits the body politic, Labor or Liberal, to reopen the Native Title Act. I cannot think of anything more calculated to cause division with the Australian community.The cause of reconciliation is a decent and noble one. We will differ along the path, but let us not be so uncharitable as to pretend that either of us has a monopoly of moral commitment to that long-term cause which is based on one fundamental proposition: that all of us are together Australians. We have a common identity as Australians, we have a common ownership of this great country and, if we can work decently and productively together, we can have a common future. That ought to be the goal of every last one of us.16:10:0015030Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The Australian people deserve better. They want more of their Prime Minister. This Prime Minister had an opportunity during question time, and during the 15 minutes in answering the censure motion, to come out and clearly disown the following offensive and insulting paragraph in this Senate submission by his Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs:There was never a generation of stolen children.That is the input of the submission to the Senate committee by the minister for Aboriginal affairs and his Prime Minister. It is the first time in three years that this argument of statistics has been used. Is it any wonder that the community is outraged? This Prime Minister uses dog-whistle politics on these issues. He came into government on the basis that he would govern for all of us, and that we would be comfortable and relaxed. We now know that that is qualified. At every opportunity there have been olive branches. He mentioned getting a bit of a bake from a character on Channel 9 this morning. That was Charlie Perkins. Where was he in 1996? He was part of John Howard's distinguished persons group. He gave John Howard the tick in the lead-up to the 1996 election, and he has since walked away from him.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—He was also part of Hewson's kitchen cabinet.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—As the member for the Northern Territory rightly said, he was also part of Hewson's kitchen cabinet. What is disturbing is that this government was given another opportunity, particularly by the Senate, for a dignified response to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report. Let us not forget that, before this report came out, the government went out and put the drip on the authors, Sir Ronald Wilson and Mick Dodson, and it was in denial mode. This government was asked to submit to the Senate committee a submission in relation to an inquiry that is looking, other than through the court system and through the legal system, to finish off these cases—to finish off this sad chapter in our history. And what is the government's submission? No retreat, no surrender, no admissions.He talked about Joy Williams in New South Wales. I will tell you what Bob Carr and his government did, Mr Speaker. They did not force her to go into the witness box. She did not give evidence in person—an affidavit was tendered. The New South Wales government actually allowed affidavit evidence in that case. It did not go to strict proof. It compressed the nature of the case, and it did not require the trauma of evidence in the witness box. That is what Bob Carr and his government did. What did this mean-spirited Prime Minister do? He sent up a QC to the Northern Territory to cross-examine, up hill and down dale, people who are victims. The bill now is more than $10 million, a fraction of which it would have cost to settle the case. What is the underlying basis of this grubby submission to the Senate? It says:There already exists at common law an avenue for the consideration of legitimate compensation claims and it is unlikely that a statutory scheme would be more effective or efficient, unless the bulk of claims were to be accepted at face value, with consequent financial implications as indicated. Such a scheme would also be divisive and humiliating for the unsuccessful claimants.So it is all about money. It is the government that is obsessed with compensation. The submission then says:The cost of a proper judicial assessment of such claims is not inconsiderable—reflecting the complexity of researching, reconstructing and adjudicating distant events—but that cost is insignificant compared with the potential compensation costs of a less rigorous process.It is the government that is obsessed with compensation. When the human rights commission report on the stolen generation talks about reparation, it talks about counselling and about bringing families back together—adopting the Canadian approach. We have a precedent: the Canadians. It is not as if we are in isolation. They had a royal commission. What was the response of their government? An apology, an unqualified apology, a statement of reconciliation given on 7 January 1998. Their commissioners crossed the country, collecting five volumes—3,500 pages—of evidence and 440 recommendations. And what did they do? Give an unreserved apology. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 children attended the schools that were investigated in Canada. That is what we judge this Prime Minister on: on what the Canadians did. They spent $350 million in support of a community based healing strategy to address the healing needs of individuals, families and communities arising from the legacy of physical and sexual abuse at residential schools. That is the Canadian approach—and they have moved on. What happened in relation to the question of litigation? This is the Canadian government approach:With respect to civil suits which allege physical and sexual abuse, the Government of Canada's preference is to pursue resolution of these lawsuits in a non-confrontational manner outside the court system. As much as possible, this protects the privacy of individuals and avoids the stress of a courtroom setting. It also means that the Government is ready to accept its responsibility in those cases where allegations are substantiated and the relative liabilities of all parties (e.g. religious organisations and the federal government) are clear. With these cases we are moving to settle out of court if all parties can reach agreement.The attitude of this government is knock down, drag down court cases further exacerbating the problem. But do you have a minister—and this is why there is outrage in the community—who is in there on their side, who is listening and responding to them? Not the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. He is out there insulting them—using statistics that are an insult. That is why there is current outrage. It was not my commitment but the Prime Minister's who, on re-election night, wanted to genuinely commit himself to the cause of reconciliation. With respect to accuracy, Budget Paper No. 1 on statement of risks at 4.31 talks about 2,200 claims for damages and, if they are successful, compensation in the order of hundred of millions of dollars. On page 51, the figure is now up to $3.9 billion. Where does this come from? How accurate is that?The Prime Minister spoke today about the resolution last year in relation to the stolen generation. Again, he is selective about what happened in this parliament. The Labor Party did not support that motion. We moved an amendment and, when that failed, we remained silent, because that is what the stolen generation asked us to do. We remained silent as our protest, because we were given two hours and we were ambushed because of the backroom deal with the Democrats. Generosity of spirit! That is why the Prime Minister deserves to be condemned. It is he who offered this. This was his promise. And what is happening now? It is always `shoot the messenger'. The UN committee are copping a serve now. We will not see the government release their legal advice; the Attorney-General again hides from it. When an independent expert committee examined our 1993 act, the act was given a tick because it conformed with the convention. This government were on notice. The fact of the matter is that the Native Title Act does have problems in relation to international conventions, and the government have been pinged on it. In terms of mandatory sentencing, statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics last week showed that in the Northern Territory 67 per cent of all prisoners are indigenous. Imprisonment rates for indigenous people in Western Australia are 21 times the non-indigenous rate. There is a crisis in our jails. People are being sent to jail, not for serious criminal offences but because the judiciary have had the discretion taken away from them. What do we have? A Pontius Pilate approach. What will it take for this government to act or for members of the government to cross the floor? Another death in custody. We had a $40 million royal commission. It said, `Imprisonment is a last resort. Look at alternatives.' This is not a law and order debate. Judges and magistrates in the Northern Territory have been given no discretion. But what does the Prime Minister do? He says, `I don't like mandatory sentencing, but I don't want to act.' Why? He is driven by low-grade politics, the politics of the conservative Northern Territory constituency that he does not want to upset and Richard Court, on mandatory sentencing. But give Richard Court his due. We have our differences on native title but, on this one, not even he can cop the minister for Aboriginal affairs's submission or the Prime Minister saying there was no stolen generation. That is the key to it. Richard Court is not one of ours. He is not one of the Labor Party's.The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister is the emperor without clothes. He blames us for asking questions in question time. How did it get on the agenda? Because his Aboriginal affairs minister and his advisers leaked the report to the press, and you have got headlines in the Adelaide Advertiser: `Sorry, you didn't exist'. And we are being blamed. This government is inciting, provoking indigenous Australians. This Prime Minister also, when he did his exclusive interview with the Australian, abandoned his pledge to reconciliation. Why? What was his defence? Expectations were being raised for the May event—unreal expectations.No-one expects him to apologise—but to go out on the basis of polling! And what does this submission contain? Opinion polling as the basis for defending why there is no apology from the government. Paddy McGuinness—I get on reasonably well with Paddy, but he has lost his way—is cited as a justification for questioning the statistics. It is not as if the human rights commission did not question. It said at page 36 it was not possible to state with any precision how many children were forcibly removed, even if that inquiry is confined to those removed officially. Here is the nub of why they could not do it: because this government did not cooperate with them. The Attorney-General took a submission to cabinet and it was pulled because it did not suit the Prime Minister and his advisers. So a modified submission went after the event to the human rights commission—that is the story—in October 1996 after the deadline, and it did not provide them with any facts. That is the real story. The government did not cooperate with them. Three years after the event, we have this invention that a stolen generation is not a generation unless all the kids were taken. So the generation that suffered through World War I was not really a generation that suffered, because all our kids were not killed on the battlefields of World War I! What a nonsense. That is why this Prime Minister deserves to be censured. We expect better. He offered better. His covenant with the Australian electorate, if he was to be elected, was a covenant of trust. He was supposed to raise hopes and expectations and grow in office, not diminish in office and diminish the nation. It is no accident that since the 1967 referendum we had a great history in international forums that spanned Labor and Liberal governments. Malcolm Fraser led the charge against apartheid and even he says we should say sorry. This generation can say sorry, and it will not cost a cent, because we did not do it: it is empathy.But the Prime Minister cannot empathise because he has not got it in him. Low-grade politics drives this Prime Minister. The time for action has well and truly passed. There is no doubt now; it is beyond doubt. There is no reasonable doubt when it comes to this Prime Minister. On every issue in relation to minorities and the disadvantaged he goes after them, he divides them and he uses them for political gain. He does not protect them. That is the job of the Prime Minister, especially in a free market economy, to protect people and not to use them as political fodder. (Time expired)16:22:0015033Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—This motion is about division. If the opposition were not about exploiting division on this question and on like questions, they would not be promoting the sorts of divisive debates that we have heard today. To use, as the Leader of the Opposition has used, the Prime Minister's statement of wanting to govern for all of us, as well as his promise to commit himself very genuinely to the cause of true reconciliation, in the context of betrayal, leaves open only one view; that is, that the opposition want to exploit the views of the Prime Minister in a way which can achieve political advantage for themselves. Of course, then to go on and accuse us of division in indigenous affairs, of a failure to apologise in relation to claims for compensation, in relation to a failure to administer effective programs for the benefit of Aboriginals, indicates what the opposition want to do with these particular questions.In my comments today it is important to make clear that this division by the opposition will not in any way deflect the government from its objectives in relation to ensuring that we have better and more effective relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the rest of the Australian community. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he supports the reconciliation process but he sees it as one that will continue beyond the year 2000 when the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation ceases its work. The fact is that the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has been working, in accordance with the requirement of an act of parliament, to have ready for tabling in the parliament a report on reconciliation. That report will set out a means of giving effect to proposals that were contained in a document of reconciliation which was submitted in draft form but which, when finalised, is to be launched on 27 May at the Sydney Opera House. The council will also spend time in the remaining six months of its term seeking commitments to that document from a range of stakeholders. The government has indicated its support for the reconciliation process. It has indicated its support for consultation in relation to the document of reconciliation. All of that commitment was greeted, when we had resolutions in this parliament, by the opposition saying, `Yes, we accept the generality of your support for these matters but, in relation to specific areas, we do not think you have gone far enough.' In other words, what the opposition was seeking to do was to distinguish itself by setting out areas of difference. In other words, it was seeking to divide. Of course, the Prime Minister saw it as being important to indicate, in line with advice that he had been receiving from the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—a council that the member for Banks is a member of, and where he would know that there had been caution expressed time and time again about whether reconciliation could be achieved, and where there had been caution expressed in relation to a number of issues in which it was considered that it was not possible to set down, at this point in time, definitive views that would necessarily achieve a broad consensus within the Australian community—the council itself was setting out that these matters were `unfinished business'.In that context, when the Prime Minister was informed that there are issues where the council itself does not believe that it will be able to produce a final document which will be definitive on all issues, which will achieve `reconciliation of all Australians', the Prime Minister was condemned for simply putting on the public record his recognition that reconciliation will not be magically achieved by a particular document put down on a particular date. We remain committed to working for reconciliation. But when reconciliation has to be about a meeting of minds of the whole Australian community, if you are going to bring all the Australian people on board you need to do so in a way which is unifying and which recognises some of the difficulties that you are going to have in bringing on board all the Australian people.But the government does support the aims of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. We acknowledge and respect our indigenous people and the way in which they have worked constructively in relation to these issues, and we are appreciative of all the others who take a genuine interest in these matters and want to work positively to see a resolution of them. We are committed to working in partnerships with other government organisations, with business, with peak organisations and with community organisations to achieve a genuine outcome from this process of reconciliation. The Prime Minister has indicated to the council that we will look at ways and means of supporting an ongoing process which the council itself believes will be necessary after it has completed its document of reconciliation.I want also, in the context of this debate today, to draw attention to the double standards in the way in which the Labor Party has handled the issues relating to separated children. The fact is that the issues that we are dealing with are not new issues; they are issues that were very much alive when the Labor Party was in office. They are issues the Labor Party in office would have been able to deal with by way of any statement of apology that it wanted to make at that time and by dealing with the litigation that the Prime Minister referred to that came to the High Court—Kruger and Bray v. the Commonwealth. The fact is that the issue of compensation was very much alive. It could have been dealt with by the Labor Party in office. But, as the member for Denison made clear in his own comments, the Labor Party dealt with it by giving it to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to have it off the agenda until after the election that was due had passed. That is what it was really all about. The same opposition has been playing a duplicitous game on this question of compensation. It knows that, within the Australian community, if you were dealing with very large numbers of claims from people who were saying they were separated—whether it was justifiable or unjustifiable—the amount of money would be very large indeed.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—British child migrants—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison!0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—The Labor Party in office ran away from that issue. They allowed the litigation to run. They held out, and continued for a time to hold out, the view that the issue here is the issue of an apology. They even had the audacity from time to time to say that, if an apology were made in the form they wanted it, litigation was likely to stop and compensation as an issue would disappear. That is what they were holding out.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—That is right.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—But now we see a much clearer picture emerging—and it is one that the Labor Party will have to think through very clearly, particularly in the run-up to any future election—that is, what are they actually proposing now? I notice the words that the Leader of the Opposition was using today in relation to this issue are what the Aboriginal communities now want: `material recompense'. That is not about words; that is about money—that is about financial compensation. The member for Banks has today been arguing that the Commonwealth should settle the current litigation because it would be cheaper than arguing all the claims in court.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—It would be.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison has twice drawn my attention in question time and now twice in this debate. I will not be as generous again.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—The case, if it yielded an outcome which involved compensation, may open the possibility for other suits, but the case disposed of in relation to culpability will close the issue off.4T4Melham, Daryl, MP0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Yes, it will. The case would close the issue off, if this is the best case to be argued by all the organisations that have hunted up hill and down dale to find people on which to launch a test case—and that is what the organisations funded by the Commonwealth, generously, to assist in relation to Aboriginals have been doing over a period. I would be reasonably satisfied that it would be unlikely that you would find cases which would present a range of circumstances more auspicious than those that are presently before the court upon which others might be able to be predicated. But, if the opposition are arguing that these matters ought to be taken out of the hands of the court and settled by a general offer of compensation, then that is what they need to be prepared to spell out in policy. It was not what they were prepared to do in government, and that is the basis upon which they ought to be judged. I have been fascinated over time in relation to this issue of apology about which the opposition appears unwilling to recognise the generosity of the Prime Minister's personal comments by way of apology—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—You're joking!0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—in relation to separated children. Of course, I am sorely disappointed that the opposition see fit to disparage the resolution of this parliament, which was a resolution of sincere and deep regret for the events that have occurred in the past. But when I listened today to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition about where apologies have been given, I was very interested in the experience in relation to the `apology' that was given in Canada, because I recall well the criticism that was offered from those who said it did not go far enough. And I can well recall the situation where in South Africa the Truth and Reconciliation Commission—R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Grayndler!0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—headed by Bishop Tutu, brought down its report and found it roundly condemned by the National Party and by the ANC—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Howard opposed sanctions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—because each of them was unwilling to recognise that there were comments that reflected upon their involvement in the recent past. If you look at the experience of the Pope in relation to the apology offered by the Catholic Church now, you find exactly the same: a situation in which an apology—well meant, well conceived, well constructed—is still seen by some as not enough. It would not have mattered whether the Prime Minister had used the word `sorry'; there would have been people in the Labor Party arguing that he had not expressed sincere and deep regret for the events of the past. There has been a confected anger over these issues, and the confected anger comes from those who seek to make an issue of these matters for the purposes of division, and that is where the Labor Party stand on these matters. (Time expired)Question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.16:45:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 66Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.77Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.Hoare, K.J.Hawker, D.P.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Questions to the Speaker150371503716:50:0015037Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—You would be aware, Mr Speaker, that the federal Privacy Commissioner has issued guidelines on workplace email, web browsing and privacy. Can you assure honourable members that Parliament House is currently complying?15037SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I would like the opportunity to review the guidelines before giving the member for Chifley the assurance he seeks. That is not because I am not aware whether Parliament House is currently complying but because I want to be certain that I can guarantee that that is the case. I will come back to him with a comprehensive answer to that question.Personal Explanations1503716:51:0015037Mr ZAHRA,MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?84HMr ZAHRA,MPMr ZAHRA—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.84HMr ZAHRA,MPMr ZAHRA—In question time today the Minister for Forestry and Conservation said that no members of parliament from our side of politics had made representations to him on the Gippsland RFA on behalf of local timber workers. I seek leave to table letters on this issue that I sent to the minister on 1 June and on 21 September last year and also to table his response to both of those letters, thus confirming that in fact I did make those representations on behalf of the timber workers in Gippsland.Leave not granted.150371The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:15037547WF6DanbyTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We, the undersigned, wish to draw the attention of the House to the inadequate investigations to date, regarding the activities of alleged Nazi war criminal, Konrad Kalejs during World War II.Your petitioners ask that the House ensures that the Australian Federal Police investigate to full extent all available evidence pertaining to Konrad Kalejs' war time activities. And that, the Australian Government fully explains to the Latvian authorities Australia's new laws on extradition.Further, that if the Latvian Government fails to apply to extradite Kalejs that the Parliament of Australia legislate to extend changes to the Citizenship Act facilitating a civil process to enable Kalejs' deportation.547Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 547 citizens).15037435K6EllisTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned, as members and friends of Canberra Baptist Church, wish to draw to the attention of the House the issues confronting the Australian nation with respect to mandatory sentencing. We believe that the Federal Government has a legal and moral obligation to exercise its constitutional power to pass uniform Federal legislation banning mandatory laws in this country.Mandatory sentencing breaches international human rights standards, is inconsistent with the doctrine of separation of powers, is leading to manifestly unjust results, is not cost effective, is not contributing to the prevention of crime and is impacting with disproportionate and devastating results on Aboriginal people and children. Both the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child advocate detention as a measure of last resort.We respectfully urge the House of Representatives to accept responsibility for ending this human rights abuse in our country and to pass uniform Federal legislation which bans mandatory sentencing laws.43Ms Ellis5K6Ms Ellis (from 43 citizens).150387HM5GeorgiouTo the Speaker and the 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 Presbyterian Church, Canterbury, Victoria, 3126, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.7Mr GeorgiouHM5Mr Georgiou (from seven citizens).150381583YHoareTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain electors of the Division of Charlton draws to the attention of the House their concern about the affect the proposed Goods and Services Tax will have on site fees paid by residents of mobile homes and caravan parks. Most residents of such parks are pensioners on fixed incomes whose limited resources will be strained by the imposition of this tax.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to give consideration to exempting site fees from the GST or to making concessions that will alleviate the impact of any increases.15Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare (from 15 citizens).15038645K6EllisTo 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 the inequitable treatment of long-term mobile home and caravan park residents under the GST.We believe it is unfair that the government single out long-term residents of mobile homes and caravan parks by imposing the GST on behalf of the residents site fees while ordinary residential rents are not subject to GST.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House condemn the government for its actions and amend the GST legislation so mobile home and caravan park residents are treated in the same way as ordinary residential renters.64Ms Ellis5K6Ms Ellis (from 64 citizens).1503841283NHallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of Parliament of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government make all residential rentals GST free including rental on sites paid by residents of relocatable, manufactured home villages or parks and residential parks.The GST on site fees unfairly discriminates against residents living in relocatable, manufactured home villas or parks and residential parks. The Government promised that no-one would pay GST on rent and this is an anomaly which allows village/park residential park owners to charge GST on site fees.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to make rental on sites GST free.412Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 412 citizens).15038608783CMcFarlaneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that approximately 8,000 bears are being kept in cages in China for the purpose of extracting bile for medical purposes and that the cages are so small the bears cannot move, which results in some of them going mad. It is further brought to the attention of the House that the Chinese plan to increase the number of bears, for these purposes, to 40,000.Your petitioners therefore respectfully ask the House of Representatives to object most strongly to this horrendous and tragic practice and ask that steps be taken to stop it immediately.6087Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 6,087 citizens).1503934483CMcFarlaneTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Stirling 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.344Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 344 citizens).1503962294I4McLeayTo the Honourable 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 that;Sydney needs a new metro-wide FM radio station which is an outlet for new and emerging cultural expression. Sydney needs a radio station that broadcasts at least 50% contemporary Australian music and has a commitment to putting young people on the air. Apart from Sydney, each mainland state's capital city has an existing community radio station that has a role dedicated to development of the local music and cultural industries, promoting and enriching the social fabric of the local community. The Australian Broadcasting Authority's Local Area Planning process for the allocation of unused frequencies may put the licensing of new FM stations for Sydney as late as mid-1998. Sydney needs this new station now.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the House to; urge the Minister for Communications and the Arts to ask the Australian Broadcasting Authority to use the open narrowcast provisions under section 34 of the Broadcasting Services Act to immediately drop through a high power FM frequency in Sydney for a station that broadcasts at least 50% Australian music, has a commitment to putting young people on air, is dedicated to emerging cultural expression and is an outlet for local talent.6229Mr McLeay4I4Mr McLeay (from 6,229 citizens).150391049KV5NevilleTo 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 (GP's) 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).1049Mr NevilleKV5Mr Neville (from 1,049 citizens).150394583QSchultzTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.From the Citizens of New South Wales and in particular all members of the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of NSW Inc and all older citizens.We point out to the House that it is imperative that all labelling of Genetically-modified food should state the products used in the manufacturing process. It is requested that no manufacturer be granted any exemption. The members of CPSA and all older citizens are alarmed by the reaction these genetically-modified ingredients could have on their medication. This petition therefore requests the House to take the necessary action to ensure that any product used in genetically-modified food is clearly stated on the label.45Mr Schultz83QMr Schultz (from 45 citizens).15039216J4SciaccaTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The Petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House that, under the Aged Care Act 1997, basic Commonwealth subsidies for providing high level care to residents of Residential Aged Care Facilities are paid at a different daily rate according to the State in which care is provided. The rate of funding for the highest level of care varies from a high of $111.17 per day in Tasmania to a low of $91.47 per day in Queensland. The Government's own agency, the Productivity Commission, has stated that this situation particularly disadvantages Queensland.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:Immediately act to remove the inequities between the States and introduce national rates of funding.Adopt the recommendations of The Productivity Commission and immediately provide additional funding for high level care in Queensland Residential Aged Care Facilities.21Mr Sciacca6J4Mr Sciacca (from 21 citizens).15040406J4SciaccaTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Considering that many people in Australia suffer chronic skin disorders which require them to outlay large amounts each week to treat or relieve conditions such as eczema or psoriasis;Considering further that the entire range of products used to treat these conditions have been exempt from Sales Tax but that, with a GST, some only will be GST-free;Therefore, your petitioners request that the Parliament request the Minister for Health to determine, pursuant to section 37-48 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 that all goods registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods as safe and efficacious for the treatment of dermatological conditions be GST-free.40Mr Sciacca6J4Mr Sciacca (from 40 citizens).150408286J4SciaccaTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the residents of Australia call upon the Commonwealth Parliament, without further delay, to direct the Department of Defence to convene a full public Open Board of Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Senior Cadet Under Officer Clare Frances Stokes at Bulimba Station in far north Queensland on the morning of 20th June 1997.Furthermore, we call upon the Commonwealth Parliament to guarantee this inquiry is fully resourced and supported by the Department of Defence and is free from political interference.We also call upon the Commonwealth Parliament to take whatsoever steps are necessary—including amendment of the Defence Act and other legislation—both to bring all bodies responsible for and/or incorporating cadets within Australia directly under the Department of Defence and to establish clearly the place of cadets within the operational chain of command.Your petitioners humbly pray that the House, with all urgency, will beseech the appropriate authorities of the Commonwealth Parliament to act in accordance with these requests.828Mr Sciacca6J4Mr Sciacca (from 828 citizens).15040101YT4ScottTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain electors of the Division of Maranoa draws to the attention of the House the lack of quality radio in this area.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House may provide the ABC with sufficient funding for the extension of ABC Classic FM into the western Maranoa.101Mr ScottYT4Mr Scott (from 101 citizens).15040631SU5VaileTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Lyne draws to the attention of the House that the Australian Broadcasting Authority did not grant a permanent broadcasting licence to Manning Great Lakes Christian Broadcasting Inc.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will intervene on our behalf to have a permanent licence granted to Manning Great Lakes Christian Broadcasting Inc. 79% of the local population are Christians and the station has been on air with a temporary licence for over two years with the last 22 months being 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. This temporary licence ceased at midnight on Tuesday, 30th November, 1999.631Mr VaileSU5Mr Vaile (from 631 citizens).Petitions received.Private Members' Business150401504016:55:0015040Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I move:That this House:(1) notes the increase in deaths caused by heroin and the increase in the number of first-time users under 25;(2) notes the positive results in the use of Naltrexone in the treatment of heroin dependence for some addicts; and(3) regrets the recent decision by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to exclude Naltrexone from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme other than for the treatment of alcohol dependence.Despite the Howard government's Tough on Drugs strategy, heroin is used by an estimated 300,000 Australians, and the number is rising. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre says that heroin is now one of the leading killers of young Australians. There has been a 120 per cent increase in heroin related deaths in south-western Sydney between 1992 and 1995. The number of Australian teenagers who have tried heroin has jumped almost threefold in the past three years. In Cabramatta, in my electorate, residents and business proprietors are understandably unsympathetic. Nationally, an average of 48 property offences are reported to police every hour, and the Australian Institute of Criminology blames 90 per cent of household break-ins on heroin addicts. This is from a letter I received last week:Unless the illegal drug trade in Cabramatta is completely cleaned up by 30 June 2000 the concerned citizens of Cabramatta will contact the international news media and warn them that overseas visitors will be in grave danger of being bashed and robbed by desperate drug addicts heading to Cabramatta to buy their drugs.Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see the frustration we are facing with this situation, and people are much more candid when you talk to them in the street. Let me read you another letter, actually to the Prime Minister, written by a patient at a naltrexone detox clinic just up the road from my electorate office. It says:I am writing to you in the hope that I can help you understand the benefits of treating heroin and methadone addicts with rapid detox using naltrexone. Last January—That was January last year—I was able to pay for my treatment. It was the beginning of life for me.This 41-year-old mother of two had been on methadone for the last 10 years. She says to the Prime Minister:I have a real understanding of the drug problem in Australia as I used for twenty-three years in Sydney, Melbourne, Queensland and South-East Asia. I have been charged for trafficking in Melbourne, using and possession in Sydney and the Gold Coast. I understand how it feels to be treated like society's refuse. I have changed from a useless junkie into a caring responsible productive citizen ... Naltrexone is really a miracle drug. I am here alive today because of it. Please—she says to the Prime Minister—don't let any more Australians dependent on heroin or methadone endure one more day. Please give them back their freedom. My father fought in World War Two for this country so we could be free. Please don't let drugs take that freedom from us.The rapid detox centre in Speed Street, Liverpool, which incidentally assists a limited number of people who cannot afford to pay, has hundreds of letters of gratitude. A common phrase is, `My life has been saved.' The Westmead Hospital naltrexone trial made riveting TV. That is how open and transparent it was. About two-thirds of the patients are drug free after six months, and that is a good success rate.Dr Jon Currie, who led the trial, believes naltrexone can help some, not all, heroin addicts. He says that it should be on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. He says that it is a tragic thing that it is not. Dr George O'Neil over in Perth, another genuine front-line, hard-nosed medico who has treated well over 1,000 people, says the same thing. Dr Siva at the Liverpool detox centre says the same thing. These people are close to the problem, close to the families and closer to the realities than most of us would like to get. I put it to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee that naltrexone, which they recognise as being effective for alcohol addiction and have approved for inclusion in the PBS, is also effective for treating heroin addiction.It will work for less than a fifth of alcoholics. The people it will help overcome alcohol dependence will have to be carefully screened and naltrexone prescribed under authority. It should be the same with heroin addicts. We know it gets people drug free for a sufficient interval for some life changing to be done. Naltrexone is not a cure for any addiction, but rehabilitation best starts free of physical addiction. And that is where the real story begins. The psychosocial reasons for addiction are complex, and we are only just beginning to develop psychological approaches to maintain drug-free lives. It is the behavioural therapy, not naltrexone, which counts most.The evidence that was used in rejecting naltrexone just was not appropriate. In fact, because the reasons behind every person's addiction are different and complex, there is no perfect measure. This is not a headache, and naltrexone is not aspirin. Heroin addiction might be an epidemic, but there is no single medication for it. You cannot stamp out heroin use. You have to stop the reasons behind it, and that is going to be different for each and every addict. That is the reason naltrexone should be available as one of a number of treatment options.We as a society, as well as those whose addiction most alienates them from society, need every tool available to deal with this dragon. Naltrexone has been around for more than a decade. The popular perception is on the instant cure side, the magic wand, the silver bullet. That is completely wrong. So too is the rapid detox side of naltrexone. It is very useful for detoxification, but it does not matter how someone with a drug dependency gets detoxed. What is so useful about naltrexone is its blocking ability and its safety. It does two important things. It takes away the urge to use, and it blocks a high. If you have a drug dependent person who has real motivation and the support of family and friends, naltrexone is a godsend. Without motivation, it is of no value.That is where the PBAC decision is so cruel. Naltrexone is only suitable for those with the spirit to break the cycle. Their despair is greater having seen naltrexone based programs almost come within reach. They are left with counselling—and a lot of good work is done there—and they are left with methadone. Counselling accepts a high relapse rate, and methadone provides a substitute addiction which you can feed up with continued heroin use. Naltrexone works on methadone addiction too. Naltrexone offers a next stage to methadone—which, incidentally, can be a lifetime's supply. Naltrexone, for what it is worth, offers a cheaper treatment option.I am not against methadone. The numbers, around 23,000, on methadone are growing at about 15 per cent a year. It is estimated that every dollar we spend on methadone saves the community $4 to $5 in reduced health costs and crime. Those are the minister's figures. Naltrexone could be in the same league. Heroin is down to about $20 a cap in Cabramatta. You cannot stop it. About 80 to 90 per cent of women in Mulawa have a drug problem. Narcotics are coming into our jails, and if we cannot keep them out of there we cannot stop them coming into the community and bringing increasing grief for families. Naltrexone, used properly, can save lives. It can be cost effective. In the right professionally run program with prescriptions under authority, it can be rigorously monitored. We can see what we are getting. Let me read a letter from `Amber' to show the kind of happiness we or the PBAC could bring to a troubled world:Dear Dr Siva and StaffI won't ever be able to thank you enough for your treatment and support. You saved my life!Since being rapidly de-toxed at your Liverpool clinic I have been able to go on and lead a happy and normal life.My family still cannot believe that they have their daughter back and my younger sister has all of a sudden got an older sister!When I wake up in the morning instead of thinking of heroin I think what a precious gift life really is. I'm now six months clean and at the end of my treatment. I cannot explain the pleasure I get from the simplest things in life.So many doors have opened for me since being detoxed.Can we deny this to so many who cannot afford the medication? Aren't our young people worth giving at least a second chance? That chance is naltrexone based treatment. I beg the PBAC to reconsider its decision and to give a chance to some of the 300,000 Australians trapped in dependency.10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Is the motion seconded?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.17:05:0015043Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—In speaking today on the issue of naltrexone treatment, at the outset I would like to applaud the Prime Minister on the government's Tough on Drugs strategy. It was a strategy that was long overdue. I will speak on the facts surrounding the use of naltrexone, and those facts may be for the benefit of those who are desperately in need. The figures of the former Department of Health and Community Services show that the prevalence of heroin consumption in Australia has remained at a relatively low level between 1988 and 1995, with one per cent of the population over 14 years reporting that they had used heroin and less than 0.5 per cent of the population reporting that they had used heroin in the 12 months before 1995. Consumption was concentrated in persons aged less than 30 years. While prevalence rates are low in comparison with other illicit drugs, the trend in more recent times for younger age groups appears to be towards more, rather than fewer, persons using heroin.These figures are supported by the Australian Institute of Criminology data, which reveal that the number of deaths from heroin overdose or dependence has been increasing steadily since 1992. A recent study by the Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre in Melbourne has found that the increase in the total number of deaths is primarily due to the high incidence of deaths among males. However, the number of teenagers and women using heroin is increasing, with many naming heroin as the first drug they injected. This research, based on information from ambulance officers, has given a disturbing picture of heroin overdoses and the changing patterns of the use of the drug. While noting the increased use of heroin among young people and women, the study's preliminary findings also show that overdose victims in Melbourne are most likely to be male and aged about 27. It appears that the falling price of heroin and increased availability was fuelling a growing street scene, allowing our children easy access to this scourge on our society.Naltrexone has been touted as a possible non-addictive alternative to methadone for the treatment of heroin addicts. Naltrexone operates by blocking the human body's receptors for heroin and other opiates such as morphine, so the `high' that an addict gets is not present when the drug is administered. Several pioneering clinical studies have been performed using naltrexone. These studies were successful in confirming the pharmacological effectiveness of the drug and demonstrate that naltrexone is a viable alternative treatment for heroin dependence. A study conducted by the Australian Medical Procedures Research Foundation in 1999 validates that naltrexone, when used in association with a rapid detoxification program, can be effective in increasing the recruitment of young heroin addicts into the program at an early stage of their addiction.Similarly, a trial conducted at Westmead Hospital in Sydney, and backed by the New South Wales government, found that 60 per cent of former heroin users were not drug dependent after one year. The Westmead trial noted that, despite 90 per cent of users being treated with naltrexone not having heroin cravings, long-term maintenance is required to effectively keep former users from relapsing. With only methadone being available for 20 years in Australia, the opportunity to give the patients treatment at an early stage of their addiction has been lost as so many of the younger addicts reject the use of methadone when their addiction has been present for only a short time.Naltrexone is available by prescription from GPs. However, the financial status of many users preclude them from gaining the benefits associated with the treatment. The clinical study conducted by the Australian Medical Procedures Research Foundation importantly identified that many patients, especially young mothers, found the daily cost for naltrexone tablets too high and dropped out of the treatment. Cost for naltrexone tablets in clinical trials are quoted at $7 to $10 per day, or $250 to $350 per month. The clinical data highlights that a 12-month detoxification program is required for most people. This equates up to $3,600 per year.Figures provided by the Department of Health and Aged Care demonstrate that methadone has a cost per public patient of $2,100 per annum. With methadone's reduced costs compared to naltrexone, it is plain to see which treatment low income users are most likely to adopt—the addictive opiate, methadone. If naltrexone were to be listed through the subsidised Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, prices would be likely to drop by half. Before a medicine can be subsidised via the PBS, it must be assessed by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The member for Fowler should take note that the PBAC is a totally independent body, not a government committee.In view of the importance of heroin addiction, consideration of naltrexone for PBS listing was fast-tracked and a special meeting was held in July 1999 by this totally independent committee. Unfortunately, naltrexone was unsuccessful in gaining listing on the PBS at this meeting. The reasoning behind the unsuccessful bid was quoted as being due to naltrexone's modest clinical efficacy in outcome measures of relapse and retention rates. There was also concern raised about the drug's toxicity and about the difficulty in treating patients who require strong analgesics in an emergency situation whilst on naltrexone.The PBAC also quote that naltrexone showed no evidence of significant medical effectiveness. Coupled with the price of the medicine, the resulting cost effectiveness could not justify PBS listing. It would be my belief that it is the heroin that has the toxicity, not the naltrexone. It is the heroin that kills. Naltrexone can prevent the death. People who die after using naltrexone usually die because they have returned to their habit, not through using naltrexone. The company which produces naltrexone took legal action against the PBAC in an effort to have its product listed. The PBAC subsequently reviewed naltrexone and, in its December 1999 meeting, approved its listing on PBS purely for alcohol dependence. It remains unavailable on the PBS list for opiate addiction.Naltrexone is a non-addictive alternative to methadone that has demonstrated in clinical trials that it is effective in the treatment of heroin addiction and has few demonstrable side effects. General practitioners have been prescribing naltrexone for a period of time specifically for the treatment of opiate addiction. The United States has had naltrexone approved for many years for the treatment of opiate dependence. The total number of clients in methadone treatment programs in Australia as at June 1998 was 24,657 people. Of that, 12,107 were from New South Wales. That is half of the total. There is a definite need for an expansion of treatment options. In the media release of the Australian National Council on Drugs on 29 May 1998, the chair of ANCD, Major Brian Watters, said:... the Council agreed that there is substantial body of research evidence that supports the WHO and the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy's endorsement of drug substitutions like methadone and buprenorphine, as legitimate treatment options for the management of heroin addiction.“However, the Council believes that there is need for an expansion of treatment options that are grounded in evidence of effectiveness, that are adequately resourced and reflect the range of consumer preferences,”...I admit the effectiveness of naltrexone programs depends on the social and psychological support system available to the addict. For naltrexone to be successful, it requires patients to have very competent carers and appropriately staffed detoxification centres and rehab units. I am a strong advocate of increasing the availability of rehab centres and am currently supporting the establishment of a rehab centre within the Riverina. My electorate has been clearly identified as an area of high need.I conclude by saying that naltrexone is not a radical drug, and I believe that, by adding it to the PBS list, addicts will have the choice to join a detoxification program that can offer far more rapid results than existing programs without their having to endure financial hardship or resort to illegal activities to fund their treatment. I support Dr Jon Currie, Director of Alcohol and Drug Services at Westmead Hospital, in saying that I hope too that, when results of these trials are available, there will be sufficient evidence to support a re-application for PBS listing. It is vital that we have options for heroin and other opiate users who are aiming at a drug-free life that are not prohibitively expensive. (Time expired)17:15:0015045Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Firstly, it is nice to support the motion proposed by the member for Fowler, which regrets the decision made by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee about naltrexone. Indeed, it is nice to follow a government member who is, in a bipartisan way, very supportive of the thrust of the honourable member for Fowler.I think it is every parent's worst nightmare to discover that their son or daughter is addicted to drugs. It is not something that one can blame parents for. You cannot develop relationships with your children that can absolutely guarantee they will not become drug dependent. Of all the drugs that our children might become dependent upon, heroin is perhaps the most deadly. Most frightening is the fact that in 1999 heroin addiction increased 22 per cent from the financial year 1997-98. That is a terrifying statistic. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has produced statistics which state that Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT seem to have a particular problem because, whilst the national average is 12.3 per cent of drug offenders being addicted to heroin, in New South Wales it is 15.8 per cent and in Victoria it is 34.3 per cent. Nationally, it is 12.3 per cent. These are rather horrifying statistics.No-one can stand up in this parliament and say that we have the perfect treatment for a drug addict, but what we should do as a society is give people choices about how best to tackle their addiction. I might say that I was very pleased late last year to open a clinic in the Minchinbury Private Hospital which provides naltrexone. I welcomed the opening of that clinic, but what really disappoints me is that most of my constituents are not going to be able to afford to attend it. So there is great irony in the fact that I have no fewer addicts than anywhere else but the people who will utilise the facility in my electorate will not come from my electorate. The up-front costs of the naltrexone treatment are quite great—not because the stay in hospital is extended; it is something like 24 hours. I agree with the honourable member for Riverina that what is critical is the family support and the professional care during the period after detoxification. That largely determines the success or failure of the treatment, and that costs money. Even where a family may be able to afford the up-front costs of the treatment, there is the ongoing cost of the daily naltrexone tablet. It is bitterly disappointing that, in a nation that is really concerned about our drug problem, we have a situation where people are being priced out of the treatment and priced out of the ongoing taking of the tablets.I accept the fact that the committee that made the decision is an independent committee, but sometimes I think we ought to take a few risks, particularly in areas like this, rather than wait for every bit of empirical evidence to come in. After all, the minister's answer given on 30 March to a question I placed on the Notice Paper said:Australia approved the use of naltrexone ... in January 1999. Twenty-eight other countries have also approved naltrexone for these indications of addiction, including the U.S.A., France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Italy, Israel, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Oman, Austria, Pakistan, Brazil, Bahrain, Finland, Canada, Egypt, Colombia, Peru, Kuwait, Taiwan, Argentina, Bolivia, Eire, Hungary, Korea, Lithuania and Thailand.In the United States, it has been going on since 1984. We are hardly being radical and revolutionary in pursuing this as a policy. The last thing I would like to say is that drug offenders addicted to heroin spend 96 per cent of the proceeds of burglaries on their drug habit. (Time expired)17:20:0015045Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I commend the member for Fowler for her longstanding interest in and commitment to doing everything—and I mean everything—we can possibly do to reduce drug uptake in our community and to support measures to ameliorate its impacts. Having said that, I do not, because of the lack of scientific veracity behind it, currently support the listing of naltrexone on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The second point that ought to be made is that the average heroin addict in Sydney who has a fairly serious habit will spend about $3,000 a month maintaining their addiction, whereas what we are looking at here is potentially a cost of between $250 to $300 a month for naltrexone. Despite the public frenzy that followed the 1997 tabloid headline `I woke up cured of heroin addiction', naltrexone is neither new nor the cure for heroin addiction, which the member for Fowler recognised. Although naltrexone blocks the impact of heroin and other opiates on the brain, it is not a cure for heroin because getting off the drugs is not about the drugs and the chemicals; it is about choices—and they are damned hard ones at that. To suggest you can wake up cured avoids the ambivalence and the motivational issues, which are of course central to drug dependence. As Mark Twain once said, `Giving up smoking is easy. I've done it a hundred times.'What is new for a drug that has been available since 1972 is combining a general anaesthetic with its intravenous administration, a climate of sophisticated marketing of the treatment to government after a media blitzkrieg and personal testimonials. For some people—and if you understand the people in whom the addiction is occurring and their families—it represents a kind of symbolic exorcism, and that is why ultra rapid opiate detoxification is so important to them. You can also go trainspotting. You can lock yourself up in a room with a can of tomato soup and a blanket, and you can argue that that is considerably less expensive and it is certainly safer.Since July 1997 the Australian media has uncritically reported therapeutic claims that naltrexone can be used to cure heroin dependence when what naltrexone is about is adding to that important smorgasbord of treatments that we might have available to us and having a treatment which is appropriate to the individual in which the addiction is occurring. Naltrexone has been studied, as I say, for over 25 years. The things we do know about it is that induction is difficult, and that is why the concept of giving it under a general anaesthesia has been introduced, that compliance is poor, that the therapeutic retention rates are disappointing at best and that abstinence is in fact an uncommon outcome. It has a limited role in street users, but it is certainly best for parolees and for professional people who are drug dependent. Perhaps one of the best studies done in Australia to date until next year when the result of the national evaluation of pharmacotherapies for opiate dependence is available is that done by James Bell and his colleagues, published in the Medical Journal of Australia in July last year. They studied naltrexone accelerated withdrawal under light sedation, followed then by naltrexone maintenance, in 30 patients. They were followed up for three months and, at the end of three months, seven were still abstinent from heroin but only two were still taking naltrexone, one had died from a heroin overdose—in fact the mortality rate for heroin addicts who undergo naltrexone treatment approaches that of those who do not have any treatment at all—18 had returned to heroin or methadone and, of the six still taking naltrexone, four were engaged in the very risky practice of using heroin after briefly interrupting their naltrexone treatment. Those treated in the media highlighted ultra rapid opiate detoxification tend to have shorter careers of heroin dependence, and they have stronger family and social supports. The role of not only naltrexone but other drugs used to assist opiate withdrawal will be better understood next year when controlled trials of the combined procedure with and without anaesthesia will be available as part of the national evaluation of pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence. The fact remains at the moment that we cannot yet say that naltrexone is in a cost-effective way a suitable treatment that ought to be added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, although in time that may be proven to be the case. 10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. 1504617:25:0015046Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I move:That the House:(1) recognises the debt we owe to those entrepreneurial publishers who have built Australia's thriving, free and independent press which is the envy of the world;(2) upholds, to the greatest extent consistent with the laws of decency and libel, the unfettered right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion upon which our vigorous democracy is built;(3) recognises, nonetheless, that the high concentration of media ownership, and the diversity of commercial interests among the few media players, creates potential for conflicts of interest in reporting of news, opinion and current affairs;(4) notes, in the interests of transparency, the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Authority to require current affairs radio programs to disclose the previously unnamed commercial sponsors of the broadcaster; and(5) resolves to find simple, enforceable means by which print journalists, radio broadcasters and television news and current affairs reporters, can declare their personal financial interests, and those of their employers, in the issues about which they provide media comment.The little known standing order 28A requires the Committee of Members' Interests `to consider what classes of persons (if any) other than members ought to be required to register and declare their interests'. It is referring to the fact that we, as members, are required to disclose commercial interests that have the potential to create a conflict or the perception of conflict between our duty and our interest. This section has received consideration by that committee over the years. I want to go back, in the first instance, to 1985. Mick Young, then Special Minister of State, reported to the House:Finally, I should like to comment on the Committee's suggestion that a similar scheme might also be applied to journalists working in the Parliament. As the Committee pointed out, members of the parliamentary press gallery are uniquely placed to exert considerable influence in the decision-making process. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) advised the House in September 1983 that the Government would consider inviting both the Australian Journalists Association and the parliamentary Press Gallery to develop a similar system to the one that we will be adopting to register their members' interests. We stick by that view. After we finalise our registration scheme I will be writing to the AJA and the gallery drawing their attention to our arrangements and inviting them to formulate and introduce similar requirements for their members. That was never actually acted upon, but it was taken up the following year by Dr Klugman in October 1986 when he referred to what had taken place in the House of Commons. He said:Under paragraph (v) of standing order 28a, the Committee is required to consider what classes of person, if any, other than members ought to be required to register and disclose their interests. The Committee has noted that on 17 December 1985 the United Kingdom House of Commons adopted resolutions requiring in part:(1) Those holding permanent passes as lobby journalists, as journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting to register not only the employment for which they had received their pass, but also any other paid occupation or employment where their privileged access to Parliament is relevant ... The issue of disclosure and transparency has received a fair bit of attention in recent times, deriving largely from an inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which was actually five separate inquiries into radio broadcasting. That series of inquiries found that the voluntary codes of conduct which govern the radio broadcasting industry are being observed much more in the breach than in any other way. I think it is fair to say that as those inquiries have drawn to a conclusion in each state where they were considered and in the case of each radio station and indeed each broadcaster we saw very substantial breaches of the code. Either that means the code is out of touch with reality and should be changed or it means that its enforcement has got to be substantially beefed up by voluntary means or it means that we need to introduce the element of compulsion. I note that at the conclusion of those inquiries on 13 March the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, actually called for the scrapping of the voluntary codes of practice and argued that they should be replaced with compulsory codes of conduct. The radio broadcast area has already received and continues to receive a lot of attention, and it is not my principal purpose to focus on that part of the fourth estate today.I want to turn to the question of disclosure of interest by the press: our newspaper reporters and commentators. The Press Council actually has a voluntary code of conduct, a statement of principles, which says:A publication is justified in strongly advocating its own views on controversial topics provided that it treats its readers fairly bymaking fact and opinion clearly distinguishable;not misrepresenting or suppressing relevant facts;not distorting the facts in text, headlines, pictures, billboards or posters;disclosing any commercial or other interest which might be construed as influencing the publication's presentation of news or opinion.In the whole realm of press disclosure, there is only one area where it is actually required, and that is under Corporations Law as it relates to financial journalists who are required, under sections 879 to 887 inclusive, to disclose their interests and securities in a register that is maintained by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I asked the chief executive of the commission, Alan Cameron, last week what level of scrutiny takes place in the management of the register, and he indicated that, with the pressure on resources and the view of the commission about priorities, it was virtually nil. In fact, when I called the commission today and asked them if the powers of compulsory disclosure under sections 885, 886 and 887 of the register's contents had ever been used, I was informed that, in the entire life of the commission and since the existence of the provision, the disclosure requirements had never in fact been used. I also asked a journo in the gallery who had spent 12 months as a financial journalist if he were aware of the register, if he had anything to declare and if he had declared it. He indicated quite frankly—he is now reporting more generally, not exclusively on financial matters—that he did have shares and interests that would be reportable and he had heard something about the existence of the register but no-one in the industry took it very seriously and he had not ever bothered to register his interests.The reason why I am concentrating on the press is that we have this convergence of circumstances where radio and television are regulated by the Broadcasting Services Act by a licensing system under which if licensees are in breach their licences can be terminated. No such arrangement operates in the area of licensing of newspaper proprietors. At the same time, we have a situation where one major player in the Australian context controls a very substantial proportion of the print media in this country. News Ltd controls 49 per cent of all regional newspapers, 67 per cent of all national and metropolitan dailies and 76 per cent of all Sunday papers. That is an extraordinary chunk of ownership. At the same time you have this one organisation valued at $110 billion—the largest stock on the Australian stock market—representing 20 per cent of the total value of the Australian stock market. The potential for conflicts of interest in reporting between the news instruments—the newspapers—and the commercial interests of the wider parent company are very substantial. Frankly, this to me is the main game. While I am interested in pursuing this question of greater personal disclosure by journalists either in a register but actually, more importantly, in the actual articles they write, I am more interested in this wider question of the potential for conflict of interest in the reporting of News's commercial activities by News publications.I want to refer to a number of areas where that sort of conflict can come into play, and I think it has come into play. For example, if you take the issue of Olympic sponsorship, Matthew Moore in the Sydney Morning Herald recently provided a critique of an article by Glenda Korporaal, the news reporter, which showed that News was, in effect, threatening SOCOG with adverse consequences in their coverage of news items if they were not given a particular commercial benefit in relation to photography of the torch relay. More recently, we have seen coverage of the creation of Super League. In my city of Sydney, particularly, there has been coverage of the Super League ARL contest in the Daily Telegraph. Most of my constituents in a rugby league city like Parramatta were frankly astonished by the one-sided coverage of that contest. I am not saying that in the long run it might not be good for rugby league, but the interest of the organisation ought to be disclosed. Another example is digital television. The Australian journos here in the gallery are usually quite good about disclosing the interests of News in the digital campaign. I note that that is not the case with all News publications. For example, it is not the universal practice of News organs, such as the Adelaide Advertiser, to declare the fact that News Ltd, which owns the paper, has an interest in the debate which is the subject of the report. In the long run, I believe it is in the interests of the gallery and of the masthead to retain public confidence. That can be done by greater emphasis on disclosure both by, preferably, voluntary but also, if necessary, involuntary means. (Time expired)17:35:0015049Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—We are indeed fortunate in this country that we generally enjoy good quality print and electronic media. We have news and current affairs services that reflect a comfortable Australian acceptance for free speech and a relatively unfettered reportage of a vast array of subjects. It is something journalists and consumers in other countries have never experienced and would very much desire to share. Our news generally expresses a range of opinions. Our broadsheets are usually, as I described, quality, although some recent front page news, particularly in the Fairfax press, would have brought that reputation into question.As a tolerant and democratically motivated public, we as members of this parliament respect the rights of freedom of speech within the realms of decency, as the member for Parramatta's motion states. While the notion of free speech is pivotal to this debate, I would like to introduce another plainer and, I think, less passionate notion that should operate at the same time, and that is the notion of responsibility and of responsible journalism. The member for Parramatta rightly refers to decency in his motion, but I think responsibility is a more appropriate term to employ when we are debating the roles and obligations of media professionals in their duty as conveyers of information and opinion makers.I will return to the notion of responsibility and obligation later, but firstly I will briefly comment on media ownership, control and power. Those who own and control our media outlets are indeed powerful. We in this place know this, and I think the world has known since that famous film Citizen Kane that a media profile can make or break an individual. I have spoken in this place previously on damaging media reporting that ignores what should be an overriding concern with producing a balanced view of an issue, and that gives in to the salacious urge to produce a story skewed towards sensationalism at the expense of what is sometimes mundane and not particularly appealing to a mass audience. This practice in my view is deceitful and indeed against professional standards because it is also lazy. It highlights that people and their prejudices—their blind sides and personal belief systems—control our news and media organisations.Commonsense should prevail in advocating that a diversity of control and input is maintained. It is this criterion that should be foremost in our minds when critiquing our news organisations from any perspective, whether it be from an ownership point of view or from a standpoint of regulating to ensure that commercial sponsorship arrangements are declared. The member for Parramatta's motion asks that:... print journalists, radio broadcasters and television news and current affairs reporters, can declare their personal financial interests, and those of their employers, in the issues about which they provide media comment.Indeed he cites a number of people from my party who in the past in this place have argued for that, but it is not the only issue that I think is relevant. The issue of ownership of the media and the limited number of outlets we have in Australia is certainly something that is of increasing public concern. Perhaps one of the major hopes that the Internet provides is that it will open up the ability of people to obtain news from different sources of information.A major obstacle that has not been addressed, yet is crucial to the maintenance of quality reporting, is the mechanism by which some determination can be made of what is and what is not news. For example, is the cross-promotion of commercial networks through their news services appropriate? More importantly, is it news or is it thinly veiled advertising? That situation has come about in the ARL, as the previous speaker mentioned; and it is a developing situation in Melbourne with our much loved `religion' of Aussie rules and some of the television networks' relationships with certain teams and certain stadiums. Is an expose of a private citizen's extramarital affair news, soap or merely voyeurism? What is the motivating force which lies beneath its inclusion? Do those responsible really believe that there is a public interest to broadcast and publish this material? Simply requiring, via regulatory measures, that journalists and broadcasters declare their financial interests is not an adequate measure to safeguard the quality and integrity of publishing and programming.I note some of the self-regulatory regimes that operate in newspapers. A Melbourne broadsheet recently published under the by-line of a journalist writing about Telstra that that journalist owned Telstra shares. Some would say that, similarly with the program Media Watch, it is appropriate that Mr Barry announces that he is employed by the Fairfax organisation and indeed—according to Mr Ash Long's Internet publication—that he earns $100,000 from working for Fairfax at the same time as running the ABC's Media Watch program.There are more issues than just declaring whether you are sponsored by a bank, or that you once belonged to a political party, or that you have shares in a company that is the focus of a lead story. Rather, it is the responsibility and obligation of our fourth estate to contribute to and to provide balanced and relatively unbiased news and information—something that even newspaper chairmen dismiss as an expensive bit of nostalgia. Recently one such chairman was quoted as saying:A newspaper (is) basically a media for distributing advertising and the news was wrapped around it to make it attractive.I do not think that is the kind of media world that the member for Parramatta or I advocate, and I do not think it helps the gatekeepers of information to the public and their employers to announce such attitudes. If that attitude were to become prevalent, what would it do for the quality of our news? Not much, I suspect.The member for Parramatta has talked about the recent ABA hearing into payola in commercial radio. I think that inquiry came to obvious conclusions which finally achieved some public benefit, with the said broadcasters being requested or forced to announce their sponsorships before their programs. This is a good development, but I suggest that it is not the beginning of the end of the road in these problems in radio. Just recently in Melbourne, prior to the Frankston East by-election, radio 3MP was involved in a four-hour unannounced commercial for the Liberal Party. These kinds of things are continuing, and members of this parliament should continue to draw the public's attention to them. I suggest that the ABA ought to be very strong when looking into these kinds of problems.I noticed recently that one of the major networks, under the funding regulations that have to be disclosed by political parties, donated to one side of national politics. I am not sure that this biases network reporters working for that network in Canberra, but I know people sitting here in the chamber today who have been the victims of political partisanship by individuals associated with that particular network. I am sure it is not due to the fact that they have shares in that particular company, and that that particular company donates to one side of politics, but we should be clear about these things and they should be transparent.The ABC's Chris Masters, who is one of the best journalists in Australia and who is owed great credit for some of the programs he has put to air on Four Corners, said:The best journalists, like the best politicians and the best plumbers, are people who care about their jobs. If we have a sense of working for the wider community and not just ourselves, then the cheques—`cheques', in the money sense of the word —and balances in our work are more likely to fall into place.I believe the issue of disclosure and transparency has helped to raise the standard of parliamentary performance. It is time for the press gallery, the major media networks, radio commentators and television commentators to think about applying the same standards to themselves that we here in this House are asked to apply in the public interest.17:45:0015051Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—An independent and vigorous press is an essential element in any healthy democracy. The press provides the information which allows citizens to be full participants in society. The community relies on the press to scrutinise and honestly report on the actions of government, business and other organisations. It is through this reporting that citizens form their picture of the society they live in.Australians assume they receive the news in its totality. In fact, the Australian Journalists Association code of ethics calls on journalists to `report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.' However, Steve Meacham of the Sydney Morning Herald has shown this to be a faint hope. He points out that, although the Daily Telegraph classes itself as an official rugby league newspaper, there was no mention in their news pages of a huge rally last year by 20,000 disgruntled supporters of South Sydney Rugby League Club protesting against the axing of the club from the National Rugby League competition. Why would that be, when the march featuring Andrew Denton and Ray Martin was important enough to be the lead on Channel 9's Sunday night news bulletin and featured as the main picture on page 1 of the Sydney Morning Herald? We can only assume the reason was the marchers were protesting against News Ltd's involvement in rugby league and the Murdoch papers did not want their readers to know about it. In a 1999 research study conducted by Dianne Powell on how News Corporation reports itself, Ms Powell reports that News Corporation reports news events related to its business activities more favourably than other newspapers.Omission is not the only problem with the Murdoch press. Steve Meacham reminds us that on 11 November 1999 the Daily Telegraph printed three promotions and one news story with colour photographs about the impending opening of Fox Studios Australia. Was the opening of Fox Studios really that newsworthy? Or was it a reflection of the fact that Fox Studios is also owned by Murdoch? Does it matter? Surely, if someone owns a newspaper or any other media outlet they can use that outlet to promote the issues they want promoted. Some of our great papers and magazines of the past have achieved status by the very nature of their bias.But yes, it does matter. And it matters because in Australia media ownership is concentrated to such an extent that two companies own the vast majority of the press. News Ltd controls 67.8 per cent of the total circulation of Australian capital city newspapers. It has 76 per cent of circulation of Australian capital city Sunday newspapers and 47 per cent of total circulation of Australian suburban newspapers. South Australia's only daily, the Advertiser, and the 11 weekly suburban newspapers with a circulation of half a million are all owned by News Ltd, giving it a 100 per cent ownership of Adelaide's city and suburban newspapers. With the Australian being the most popular choice after the Advertiser, News Ltd's influence in Adelaide in the print media is pretty well complete. With penetration by the Financial Review at a minimum and the Adelaide Review being a great read but not really purporting to carry the news, competing print voices are sadly lacking.The problem is that the greatest diversity of news and views can best be achieved by diversity of ownership. In Australia we do not have that diversity. My hope is that in the future the Internet will overcome this problem and it will be second nature for all households to collect their news from a wide range of sources on the Internet. But until that happens in Australia we need a mechanism whereby readers can at least be alert to self-interest or bias of the organisation that owns the media outlet or the journalist who writes or presents the story.I have concentrated on News Ltd and their corporate interests. Just as easily, I could have focused on the Packer organisation or the journalists themselves and why it is important that their connections with companies and/or political parties should be specified. Perhaps we can address that on another day. However, what is important is that we learn from the recent cash for comment experience that we cannot be too vigilant. The restrictions that have been put on radio announcers requiring them to state their interests should also apply to newspaper owners and newspaper journalists.17:50:0015052Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The motion by the honourable member for Parramatta reflects the concern for all citizens affected by Australia's commercial mass media ownership. In his five-point motion, he wants us to believe that our current laws of decency and libel give every Australian an equal unfettered right to freedom of speech.On 7 March 2000, the member for Parramatta said in this House, amongst other things: A media magnate is just as entitled to a political opinion as any other citizen, perhaps more so.Does he mean that the rich have more rights than the poor? If so, his point of view is surely in conflict with the United Nations Bill of Rights. Albert Einstein said:I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. The example of great and pure individuals is the only thing that can lead us to noble thoughts and deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and irresistibly invites abuse. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus or Gandhi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?All research has indicated that the mass media have substantial direct influence on any one of us. We have only to read Professor Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent to conclude that media moguls specialise in reinforcing their opinions. On 28 March 2000 in the Age Vision 21 speech, the minister for communications, Senator Alston, said, `Diversity of ownership does not necessarily lead to diversity of opinion.' He also said, `Convergence is also making a nonsense of cross-media laws.' This sets alarm bells ringing for the public interest, and I am fortified by what the member for Hindmarsh had to say, and I hope she speaks to Senator Alston.The challenge is not the convergence argument but an equity argument for democracy and the Australian voter's quality of life. Everything is connected to everything else. The mass media is the engine room for monopolised capital control. It is the priesthood. If the parliament does not maintain equity and balance—that is, control—the media will devour our souls. Further concentration of media ownership in Australia is the greatest threat to our democracy.In 1989 in the USA, Peter Karl, an investigative reporter for Chicago's NBC affiliate, WMAQ-TV, prepared a story for the Today Show about the faulty nuts and bolts used in construction projects such as bridges, aeroplane engines, nuclear missile silos and in the NASA space program. Karl also cited the General Electric Corporation, which builds aeroplane engines, as a user of shoddy nuts and bolts. The story was broadcast on 30 November 1989 but was edited to delete all references to General Electric, which happens to own the NBC network. Is this not an obvious lesson for those who want deregulation of the mass media? Adam Smith was very concerned about monopolies. He said:A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, above their natural rate.Economic rationalists continually use the mass media to convince us that deregulation is necessary to free the market. But what are the consequences? Without intelligent regulation by a government, the principal forces of our media will obviously further concentrate their powers through mergers, acquisitions, strategic alliances and sweetheart deals. They will work against the public interest and over time compromise the decision making of this parliament.Australia's publicly owned media, the ABC and SBS, provide an excellent level of programming, particularly in local, national and international news. They perform in an unbiased way. Because of this and their unique independence, they are highly valued by all Australians. Before I support any changes to media laws in Australia, I want an in-depth examination of five functions of the mass media. These are: reporting the news, interpreting the news, influencing voters' opinions, setting the agenda for government actions and informing constituents about the current political ideas.The Treasurer's terms of reference in the Productivity Commission's broadcasting draft report of 1999 focus on ways to improve competition. However, I believe that more needs to be done to investigate the negative impact of media monopolies and how they affect us. I believe that this parliament must establish a more scientific inquiry to achieve this outcome. Australian voters hold dear the values of free speech and democratic government, and expect information to flow freely in both directions at all times. If the member for Parramatta wants me to support his motion towards openness and transparency in the mass media, then I must be convinced that we, as parliamentarians, have done everything possible to reach this ideal. I must be able to say to my constituents of Lowe that I believe that they are being openly and honestly served by the laws we make concerning the media. There is no valid reason for any government policy that claims the weak must suffer so the strong can become stronger. It is a vile proposition and even worse when it comes from an Australian parliament. I will have no part of it.10000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)— Order! The time allocated for private members business has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 104A. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Grievance Debate15053Question proposed:That grievances be noted.1505317:55:0015053Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I would like to submit my third contribution in this place to the continuing debate surrounding the Riverside Nursing Home in Patterson Lakes within Isaacs—a timely addition to the debate, given that the time is indeed fast approaching for the former residents of Riverside currently located at St Vincent's Hospital to be once again uprooted and sped across town to yet another new location.Not once did the Minister for Aged Care or her department talk over with the residents or their relatives the real possibility that the nursing home would be closed, during the furore which erupted over the unfortunate kerosene baths incident. Not once did the minister or the delegate recognise a strong desire amongst the overwhelming majority of residents and their relatives to remain at home—that is, their home at the Riverside Nursing Home. That would be, of course, following a major injection of capital, a significant upgrade and a renaming of that maligned facility.Not once was the commitment of the nursing staff to the aged residents acknowledged. Instead, the staff were utterly demoralised and were made, by and large, to feel as if they did not care about the residents when, overall, nothing could have been further from the truth. The nursing staff at Riverside—and I know them well—loved those residents as if they were all part of a large family and had always worked tirelessly with the interests of the residents at heart. The overwhelming consensus amongst the relatives and friends that I have met and spoken with is that the staff were loving, bright, caring and attentive. Now that their time is almost up at St Vincent's, the former Riverside residents are to be moved yet again—not back to Riverside but to a place called Ripplebrook Village, about 10 kilometres from Riverside as the crow flies. I have been to Ripplebrook Village and I have seen the facilities. I and the residents, relatives and friends simply cannot understand how a decision to relocate these 30 frail aged and elderly residents to this location could have been reasonably reached. I cannot believe that the minister, had she visited the place, would have made the decision to place people requiring a high level of care in a facility like Ripplebrook, which is, at this stage of its development, not capable of sustaining that higher level of care that the Riverside residents need. On the face of it, Ripplebrook is fine. It is brand new and is newly fitted out with facilities and new carpet. However, it is unfortunately pretty remote and inaccessible and poorly serviced by public transport in regard to those relatives and friends who would attempt to get there by that means. More importantly, it is purely a purpose built hostel and not a nursing home. Therein lies the crux of the matter. The carpeting throughout would necessarily impede wheelchair access and, of course, carpeting is inappropriate for the incontinent, a matter which you would think would be one of the highest priorities in attending to the needs of frail aged, immobile residents. In addition, the rooms have windows which look out onto courtyards but which do not reach the floor. It is fine if you at least can move around and look out the window over the windowsill; but, if you are confined to a bed, then it is impossible to look out onto a courtyard from your window that does not extend to floor level. These are the sorts of things that the minister really needs to see in person in order to consider the needs of the frail and the aged at this particular venue, which may meet required specifications on paper but certainly does not in reality.Well might we ask: what happens to the 30 places to be absorbed by the former residents of Riverside? These 30 places were allocated to Ripplebrook Village due to a perceived future demographic need for 30 hostel places in the Carrum Downs and surrounding areas. My guess is that by and large as a result of this decision 30 people in the area requiring hostel level care, and currently on a waiting list for places eagerly anticipating the opening of Ripplebrook, will now be displaced further down the queue for an indefinite period until a further 30 hostel places are made available for them. Furthermore, what about the remaining 27 former residents of Riverside who cannot go to Ripplebrook because only 30 can? And how can the minister remedy the shortfall of 60 beds created by the closure of Riverside? In short, the answer to those questions is: by considering, without any form of bias, the logic and merits of the submission which was put to her department by the owner of the building, Maniwest Pty Ltd, for a comprehensive refurbishment and upgrade. Other submissions may emerge which may be of equal merit and value, but I have seen Maniwest's proposal and it is a comprehensive, far-reaching set of ideas that was worthy of detailed consideration by both the minister and her delegates.Not only does the comprehensiveness of this proposal demonstrate the commitment of Maniwest's directors to the provision of quality care to the elderly and frail; it also addresses the care issues identified in the risk reports prepared by the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency. It provides for an immediate cash injection of $1 million which would see the nursing home brought up to the government's and Australia's best standards, and a further $2.5 million down the track to address future upgrading requirements. The immediate $1 million would go towards establishing—and I have got a fairly long list here—a new auto sprinkler and smoke detection system, a new reverse cycle airconditioning system, a PA and nurse paging system, new security cameras, improvements to external recreation areas and landscaping, new floor coverings, new lighting, refurbishment of the kitchen, and privacy improvements—to name just a few. What Maniwest submitted was, by and large, a detailed, comprehensive and viable proposal which addresses all the care issues identified in the risk reports. It demonstrates beyond doubt the commitment of the directors of Maniwest to the provision of quality care to the frail and elderly who would be under their care. Additionally, we have an approved provider who was both ready and willing to take on the costs of all the necessary improvements that are required. Who was going to pay for the necessary changes to upgrade the new Ripplebrook facility to meet the needs of the former Riverside residents who require constant and detailed attention? And yet it is a proposal that was deemed not worthy of detailed consideration by the minister's delegate.This lack of consideration demonstrates the minister's inability to deliver on her so-called commitment to the frail and elderly. Until such time as she considers the proposal—and any others that might emerge—seriously and on its merits, until she visits Riverside to see first-hand the facilities and the fit-out at Ripplebrook Village and realises that the care and the needs of only 30 of the 57 former residents of Riverside Nursing Home would be inadequately met, she will continue to make knee-jerk decisions from a distance and she will continue to act in a manner contrary to the best interests and needs of the frail and elderly Australians to whom she claims to maintain a strong commitment. The concerns of relatives and friends about the effects that the compounding stress of the temporary move to St Vincent's, followed by a second move to another location, would have on the health of these frail and elderly residents have largely gone ignored or at least unheard. So too has their overwhelming desire to see a renamed, refurbished Riverside reopened under a new management structure. Perhaps by the time the move actually takes place the minister and her department will finally have come to realise the toll recent events have taken on the residents, and perhaps that will not be ignored. It could even prompt the government to finally start treating these frail and elderly Australians with the respect, the care and the dignity that is theirs by right.1505506:05:0015055Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I was delighted last week to launch the Destroy a Minefield Campaign in Adelaide because it has been such an ongoing issue of importance to me personally ever since, as a member of the opposition, I helped launch a photographic exhibition here in Parliament House depicting horrific sights of Cambodian children maimed by exploding mines. I am reminded by the sight of the shadow minister at the table, the member for Dickson, that when she was the Leader of the Australian Democrats she was also involved with that launch. I would like to pay tribute to Sister Patricia Pak Poy of Adelaide, who has worked tirelessly over quite a number of years to draw public attention to this issue. Destroy a Minefield is an Australian government initiative to clear minefields in Cambodia, and I congratulate the government for its prompt action which has seen Australia take a leading role internationally. On 15 April 1996, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, announced the government's support for a total world ban on the production, stockpiling, use and transfer of landmines. Australia was, of course, one of the first countries to sign the Ottawa landmines ban treaty.I have become a patron of Destroy a Minefield, and invite all other Australians as individuals, through their schools, their community groups and their businesses, to contribute to this campaign. I congratulate two schools in my electorate, Goodwood Primary School and St Aloysius College, for taking part last week in the first national hopscotch-a-thon to raise funds for the Destroy a Minefield Campaign. I would also like to acknowledge the generosity of the constituents of my Adelaide electorate who have brought donations to my Adelaide office.The government is contributing $1 for every $2 raised by the public.In addition, I would like to acknowledge another South Australian connection. Minelab Electronics is playing an important role by using leading-edge technology to develop and produce detectors that can identify mines with very low metal content in a variety of environments. Minelab exports its mine detector to over 20 mine-affected countries. In November 1998 Minelab won the National Telstra Australia Excellence Award for Small Business.I would also like to place on the record the good use that South Australia has made of the $18 million provided through the Rail Reform Transition package for the creation of long-term sustainable jobs following the sale of Australian National. One company which has benefited is Gropep, which received $490,000 for the creation of the equivalent of 66 full-time employment positions. In its early stage 28 positions have already been created. Gropep has also received START grants in support of the company's research and development program. Last week I was delighted to speak at the opening of Gropep's new headquarters at Thebarton in my electorate. Gropep, a private company established in 1988, is involved in the development of products for the biotechnology industry, which is a rapidly growing global industry.Gropep is specifically aimed at the discovery of new growth factor products used in research laboratories and veterinary industries. Gropep currently has 12 worldwide patent families in force, with products sent to laboratories in more than 50 countries as well as throughout Australia. Gropep is also involved in research on products to assist wound and tendon repair, gut disease, certain diabetic conditions and osteoporosis. I take personal satisfaction in seeing a company supported to conduct such important research and work. This is not just about exports, jobs or wealth, because we all benefit when medical advances are made. Commonwealth expenditure on biotechnology research and development was over $250 million a year in 1998-99 and set to rise, and the private sector spending by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies is estimated to be of a similar order.Last week I was pleased to launch the report of the Speakout forum of the Multicultural Youth Network of South Australia, for which the Commonwealth government provided funding. This is an area of particular importance to me, as 25 per cent of the constituents in my electorate were born overseas. The government believes that young people should be given a voice in the democratic processes so that young Australians know that Australia's future is one that they have helped shape and not one imposed upon them. The government encourages young Australians to help identify their problems and possible solutions.The Speakout report is a particularly valuable contribution to these processes. It provides the Commonwealth and state governments with access to the views of culturally and linguistically diverse young South Australians. I will ensure a copy of the Speakout report is provided to the members of this year's National Youth Roundtable as well as to my parliamentary colleagues. Key issues of concern in the report included drugs and alcohol, education, training and employment, family support, health, racism and recreation. One of the comments in the Speakout report was concern that not enough teachers are trained to educate students about drug issues. This comment echoes a government concern which was the reason for a recent satellite broadcast to principals, teachers and doctors about drugs and drug related issues involving school-age students.The broadcast was funded by the government as part of the Tough on Drugs strategy, which includes the National School Drug Education Strategy. The telecast featured a panel of experts who provided valuable and up-to-date information about this issue. Professor Wayne Hall, Executive Director of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre and member of the Australian National Council on Drugs; Ms Karyn Hart, chair of the National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education; Ms Bernadette Murphy, member of the National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education; Associate Professor Graham Martin, Executive Director of the Southern Child Adolescent Mental Health Service, Flinders Medical Centre; and Dr Leanne Rowe, 1997 recipient of the AMA Best Individual Contribution to Health Care in Australia award, were all panel membersI personally thought the broadcast was very good and would like to acknowledge the efforts and commitment of the panel and extend my sincere thanks to them. The broadcast was shown at over 500 sites around the country, in metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas. The broadcast received numerous positive comments, and a video of the broadcast will form the basis of further professional development. Don Zoellner, principal of the Alice Springs High School and chairperson of the Australian Principals Association's Professional Development Council, wrote:As a practising principal, the issues raised by the panel and the questions from the broadcast audience closely aligned with the reality facing students and schools. I believe the broadcast and subsequent video will be a valuable resource to assist school communities across Australia in developing a response to drug education.Scott Wilson, Director of the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council of South Australia, added:It was quite an eye opener for me to attend the satellite broadcast, recently held in Sydney which brought together a range of people with expertise across different fields and with different ways of looking at ways they could work more collaboratively in the future. I found it informative, highly interesting and educative. I believe yourself and members of the steering committee should be congratulated for undertaking this innovative initiative approach to informing people in rural and remote areas of Australia. The use of case studies was excellent in that I found them to depict real life situations confronting school councils, teachers, doctors and both parents and children in today's society.There are many wonderful young people in my electorate, and today I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate a few of them. Wilderness school student Chloe Ey of Walkerville was the South Australian winner of the 1999 Simpson Prize essay competition, which is sponsored by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. As part of her prize Chloe will be a member of the Australian group visiting Gallipoli from 19 to 27 April. I would also like to congratulate five students from my electorate who received a special certificate to recognise their outstanding academic achievement in the final and most demanding years of secondary education. Award recipients were: Sarah and Alex Chubb, Jodi Ainsworth, Sarah Hoban and Therese Quinn.In conclusion, while time allows me, I want to say what a great benefit the new tax system will be for the people of Australia, and not just those in my own electorate. I cannot understand why the Labor Party would choose to oppose a fairer system. PAYE taxpayers have paid too much while others have avoided paying their fair share. A small business person in Adelaide has asked me to tell the Treasurer about `funny money in the till'. And I am reminded of an article in today's Australian by Robert Gottliebsen, who wrote that some restaurant owners have deep problems because they have been running two books, the tax book and `the real thing'. `The real thing' includes cash takings, sometimes boosted by credit cards, that can be traded between 40 and 50 per cent of the total revenue. I would like to make the point that come 1 July all restaurants will have to disclose their full revenue to the Australian Taxation Office. This is just one example of how the tax burden in future will be more fairly spread. (Time expired)1505718:15:0015057Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—In January I had the opportunity to visit the Middle East, Palestine, Egypt and Jordan as part of a bipartisan delegation. Throughout the world today there are many millions of Palestinians. They are committed to the struggle for national self-determination and the right to national identity. The largest concentration of Palestinians, up to 50 per cent, continue to reside in historical Palestine. These people have been displaced and deprived of their homeland.We also visited the Jabalaya refugee camp in Gaza where 87,000 Palestinians live. We were informed that 131,000 refugees reside in the area of one square kilometre which comprises the camp and the majority of them have come from the south of Palestine. They hope and pray for peace, a just peace and a lasting peace, so they can return to their homes and lands. This particular camp is served by one medical clinic only and the school is now run in three shifts with over 55 children per class. They are still waiting for Australia to honour its commitment to build a technical school. I understand that we are still studying the proposal, and that we have been doing so since 1998. We have as a nation given so much to help refugees in all parts of the world and yet we seem to baulk at doing anything for the thousands of people who remain homeless in the Middle East. The building of this school would, I believe, be a step in the right direction.In Hebron we found a city divided under occupation—Israeli settlements are located inside the city itself. Hebron is the largest city in the West Bank and I understand that some 400 Israeli settlers have created settlements right within the city. The road in the heart of the city divides the people. No society can control its own destiny if it has no control over its economic environment. Through the numerous meetings we were informed that the Arab population of the West Bank has not even got control over its water allocation. The Australian nation's aid budget to the Palestinian Authority in 1996-97 totalled $3 million.A total of 125 countries now recognise Palestine as an independent state. The Israelis and the Palestinians have agreed to 13 September 2000 as the date when a permanent status agreement should come into force granting statehood to Palestine. Now is the time for Australia to convey the view that we should recognise such a state and that the peace process needs to be comprehensive and just. Let us for once lead and not follow. Many positive and important meetings are taking place and the people of the region have hopes that from these meetings between the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr Ehud Barak, and the Palestinian leader, Mr Yasser Arafat, Palestine will be recognised with full statehood. I personally believe the leaders have the courage and the vision to move forward. The question of settlements remains a very serious issue, as does the destiny of Jerusalem. This city is holy to three of the world's great faiths. We also found during the visit that the problem of the Palestinian refugees is going to be very difficult to solve—but solved it must be.We had the opportunity while in the region to meet the members of the Palestine Legislative Council. On 20 January 1996 the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip went to the ballot box and voted for the first time in history, in free democratic and direct elections, to select the President of the Palestinian National Authority and the members of the Palestinian Legislative Council. These elections took place as a result of the Declaration of Principles and the purpose was to arrange the interim government of the Self-Rule Authority in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which was the Oslo I agreement initiated on 19 August 1993. The details of the election process and the structure of the Legislative Council, its roles and jurisdiction, were included in the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which was the Oslo II agreement signed in Washington on 28 September 1995.The election process was under international sponsorship and supervision of and international monitoring by more than 2,000 observers, including hundreds of journalists, from over 40 nations, 10 international organisations and more than 40 non-government organisations, all of which gave positive reports on the election. The voter participation was very high, with a voter turnout of 79.9 per cent of eligible voters choosing the 88 representatives out of the 672 candidates. Sixteen political parties and movements participated in the elections, in addition to a number of independent candidates. Four political parties are represented in the Legislative Council, and a number of independent candidates and five of the 88 seats are occupied by women.These elections, the widespread acceptance of candidates and the large voter turnout represented a public referendum for the political approach chosen by the Palestinian political leadership and an endorsement of its choice of peace. Participation in these elections represented a public trend for the Palestinians to exercise their legitimate right to candidacy and to vote. This is, I believe, a clear illustration of one of the practices of the right to sovereignty and self-determination and an essential part of effective public participation in the creation of a state composed of national and democratic institutions. Through these elections the Palestinian people assisted the creation of the foundation of a democratic Palestinian civil society based on the principles of a separation of the three authorities: legislative, executive and judicial. On 7 March each year they elect their Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. The peace process is the main issue dominating the business of the council. In 1947 Australia was the first country to vote for Israel becoming an independent state. Surely now, in the year 2000, the beginning of the new millennium, it is time for Australia to recognise the Palestinian state.During the visit we also had the opportunity as a delegation to visit the Knesset, where we had a number of meetings with members of the Knesset and other officials. I found the meeting with Shimon Peres, when he stated that `everybody is for peace but they do not want to pay the price of peace', particularly interesting. I was also very impressed when he said that `if you democratise a people you demilitarise an army'—that was very interesting indeed. He also commented, `We must move forward—we will not move backwards—and we will not have more settlements.' I reiterate: he said, `we will not have more settlements'.When he said that, I decided to do some further investigation and found that Israel's 1999 budget allocates at least $400 million in settlement related spending without Jerusalem, including $28 million for new roads, $50 million for compensation to landowners at Har Homa, $45 million for the minister of agriculture to `encourage new settlements' as well as $95 million in tax benefits and subsidies for residents in those new settlements. The 2000 budget allocates $216 million for the confiscation of Palestinian lands. I also had information from the Palestinian Authority, where something like 4112 new settlements were approved between July 1999 to November 1999, ranging in areas from Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Jericho to Tulkarem. As well, it does not include the other settlements taking place in Jerusalem or the 132 housing units that are being built in Ras Al Amud in Jerusalem, which means that there are new settlements still being built.I believe a particular publication from the Palestine Information Office entitled Profile of a People sums up the cases why Palestine should be an independent state and why we as a nation should recognise that state. It says, `The present situation of the Palestinian people then is fundamentally and seriously anomalous. The Palestinians have all the attributes of nationhood: a common history, a language, a set of traditions, a national culture, national institutions—as proven by the election of their parliament in 1996—a national representative and a common framework of aspirations and values, but they do not control Palestine, the natural site of their projected independent state.'I would like to put on the record my appreciation to Ali Kazak, who is the head of the general Palestine delegation to Australia and ambassador of Palestine to Vanuatu. Of course, because we do not recognise Palestine as a state, we do not recognise him, except as the head of the Palestine delegation in Australia. I would like to say through this grievance debate here today that we should not only move forward for a change and recognise Palestine as a state but also express our views to Israel and to the United Nations. I believe that at one stage the United States was hesitant of going ahead and giving what should be full recognition. I feel sure that for once we should not be waiting in the background, saying, `If the United States move, then we will follow.' I think it is about time Australia stood up and said, `We believe it's right, and we're going to join the other 125 nations around the world who have already recognised the fact that Palestine is to them of statehood rights.'I say to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the media releases he has put out recently dealing with the Middle East are few and far between. One was on 6 September 1999 looking at the Middle East process, and one was on 12 June 1998, when we were talking about the $3 million we now give through AusAID. I think it is about time our Minister for Foreign Affairs, along with the Prime Minister and this government, put out a press release congratulating both the Prime Minister of Israel and President Arafat and saying to them, `We support you in what you are doing. We believe that Palestine should become a separate state. We believe it is time now for the peace process to come to fruition, but more importantly we believe for a nation to go ahead they must be able to govern in their own right and they must have their statehood recognised.' I call on the government during this debate to at least take action and to implement that proposal. (Time expired)1505918:25:0015059Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—Tragically, the electorate of Mitchell will next year break a record. It is a record that nobody in Mitchell wants to see broken, but it is one that will be broken. It will be blessed with the worst and most congested road in the whole of New South Wales—that is, Windsor Road.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—It is not in Queensland, though; it is outside my office!EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPSD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I know the member for Dickson knows something about that road, and so does the minister at the table. The fact of the matter is that Windsor Road is the main artery that runs from Parramatta out to the Hawkesbury district, passing through the suburbs of North Parramatta, North Rocks, Northmead, Baulkham Hills, Kellyville—Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am sure you know quite well what I am talking about—and on through Rouse Hill. It is the main artery serving the north-west of Sydney. For most of its length, it is a single lane each way. Next year it is going to become the most congested road in New South Wales. I understand from recent counts that in the period between 5 a.m. and 9 a.m., 5,000 vehicles travelled southbound along Windsor Road. Forty per cent of the vehicles using the road were commercial. But in the period between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m., 60 per cent of the vehicles were commercial vehicles. It is a most important route.In addition to the fact that it is a main artery, members will be aware that in 1984 the then Minister for Planning and the Environment, the Hon. Bob Carr, announced that there would be a new suburb, a new north-west development area. That suburb is going to hold approximately 250,000 people in 80,000 homes, and it is well on the way to being constructed. It is going to be a suburb almost the size of Canberra reliant solely on a single-lane highway. That highway is choked now. It is little wonder that with the coming of the new development it will come to a standstill, hit gridlock, choke and in that way break a terrible record, a record that nobody in my district wants to break.The way in which the development outlined in 1984 by the Hon. Bob Carr has gone ahead is a very interesting process of using the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board as part of a private enterprise consortium. That allowed the consortium to use all the powers of the water board to acquire land, to ignore planning codes and to basically move ahead as they wished in disregard of the local residents. However, that was the process chosen by the then minister for planning. It was obvious right from day one that no provision had been made in the new suburbs for employment opportunities and transport. The attention given to transport was minimal. There were no plans for major roads or the upgrading of major roads. There was no provision for rail transport or major public transport systems. Identified at the very first public meetings by local residents time and again was the problem of employment and transport. Because there are no employment opportunities in the north-west development, people have to travel outside of the area; because they travel outside, they need good transport systems. This new development, this new area the size of Canberra, provides neither for employment opportunities nor for decent transport.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—There are a number of reasons why Windsor Road in my electorate is going to break the record for the most congested road in New South Wales. That will happen in the year 2001. Currently, I am told by the NRMA, it is the third most congested road in New South Wales. Next year it will be the most congested. Part of the reason for that is the huge development of the north-west sector. To give the House some idea of the rapidity of that change, the first stage of the Rouse Hill development commenced in 1992. By 1998, in a matter of just six years, 4,436 lots had been developed. In June 1998 the first release area had a total of 19,456 residential lots, of which 10,950 were expected to be developed within five years. So there will be a massive growth in demand on an already choked road. The only road to service an area the size of Canberra, which will eventually have a population similar to that of Canberra, is just a single-lane road—one lane either way.The New South Wales government has said that it is going to upgrade its priorities in relation to Windsor Road. The idea of upgrading the road, according to Mr Scully, is to spend $200 million on Windsor Road over the next 10 years. Some $200 million sounds like a lot of money, but that will change one-third of the road from a single lane to two lanes. So there are going to be bottlenecks, constrictions. There will be a whole series of choke points along Windsor Road, so the traffic will be stop-start for the whole distance of the road. There is no concept of forward planning in my home state, particularly with regard to Windsor Road. I am extremely disappointed that, despite protests and rallies, delegations by the three local governments concerned, great activity by the local members in the area—Mr Wayne Merton, Mr Michael Richardson and Mr Kevin Rozzoli—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—All Liberals?SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—Yes, they all happen to be Liberals, my friend. They have been absolutely diligent in pursuing the needs of their electors. They have taken delegations from local government. They have attended the protests. They have raised it. I have reams of the speeches they have made trying to encourage various ministers within the New South Wales government to do some forward planning. Windsor Road is the spine. It is the very conduit that allows people to travel from their area of residence to their place of work. I am told that, in a recent measurement, the count during morning peak traffic was that every hour 1,680 vehicles travelled southbound at a speed of less than 20 kilometres per hour. I understand that, by the year 2006, it is projected that the number of vehicles on Windsor Road will approach 4,000 per hour. It is impossible for the road in its current condition to handle that number of vehicles. Indeed, the locals expect there will be complete gridlock and stoppage. Side streets will be used.I find the process of planning this area of development, planned from 1984 by the current Premier, absolutely incomprehensible. There has been plenty of time to make allowances for the needs of traffic. It was absolutely predictable. There is no public transport in the area—and public transport will not solve the problem, because there is so much commercial use made of Windsor Road. It feeds out into the hinterland of New South Wales, across the Blue Mountains and out into the districts of Bathurst, Dubbo and beyond. It is an important arterial road from a state perspective. I am grieving here in the House of Representatives for the people of my district, for their poor transportation systems and for the frustration and delays they suffer day after day as they seek to earn a decent, honest income. (Time expired)1506120:05:0015061McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—In a sense I feel it is a shame that I find reason to rise to my feet to take part in today's grievance debate. I do not want to be in a position to have a grievance; it would be nice to report that all was fine for the people of my electorate of Stirling in Western Australia. But today I must again raise the issue of banks and customer service. It is not the first time I have had cause to raise this issue in the House. Every time I go into the community and say the word `bank', it opens a whole can of worms.As the House knows, I recently held a forum in the suburb of Tuart Hill to discuss issues such as bank service, community banking, electronic banking and safety. At the forum were several of my colleagues who, as part of the ALP's social policy and community development caucus committee, were visiting WA. Tuart Hill people are about to lose one of the two banks they have in that suburb. The Challenge Bank is to close this month, making it the second Challenge Bank in six months to close in my electorate. Attending my forum were the residents of Tuart Hill, many of whom are older Australians who remember a different era of bank service. They were angry, frustrated and upset. They felt they were being treated as though they did not matter—as though their money were of no consequence to the bank.The forum heard from my colleague the member for Grayndler, who not only has a background in economics but also sat on the recent inquiry into the banking system. He made a point which has stayed with me very clearly and one which very powerfully puts the debate into perspective: it is not that these suburban bank branches are not profitable; it is that they are not profitable enough. Deregulation was designed to enhance competition in the whole marketplace, but what we are seeing is the big four competing in only a very specific part of the marketplace—the top three per cent of income earners. The rest of us are not really profitable enough to target. Anyone who has had the letter recently about the new $20 penalty fee for overdrawn accounts or been told they have to keep a $5,000 balance in their account or face a penalty will know what it feels like to not be part of the bank's small circle of valued clients. Reluctantly, I could cop this disinterested approach because I am, as a rule, able to fight my own battles. With 25 years experience in community work advocating for people and groups I am well able to take up with my bank and its branches my concerns about service losses, fee levels and lack of staff. But I received a phone call and a fax last week that deeply upset me all over again. I heard from Sister Gilhooley from the Sisters of the Good Shepherd who does a lot of pastoral care work in the north-eastern part of my electorate, including the suburbs of Balga, Mirrabooka and Westminster. Sister Gilhooley works with people who do not have their own means of transport, have limited income and often have limited literacy and numeracy.It is her experience that in the past three years the banks have systematically withdrawn their services to the people in these suburbs. There is now no longer a single bank building in any of these three suburbs of Westminster, Balga and Mirrabooka. This is despite the fact that Mirrabooka is a major and regional shopping centre and is a central transit zone. Of course there are lots of automatic teller machines, just no human tellers for people to take their problems to, to explain statements that make no sense, to ask how they go about transferring money between accounts or to pay that fool's ransom you need to outlay to organise a bank cheque. There are only lots of holes in the wall with grubby buttons and hard to read screens that mostly work—not always—and which do not have guaranteed opening hours, unlike a branch. These three suburbs have over 20,000 people living within them. Sure they are not rich people—certainly they are not the top three per cent I have spoken of—but they are decent, honest members of the community who ask for nothing more than a fair go.Sister Gilhooley tells me that when her branch of the Commonwealth Bank closed about two years ago she was told to use the new Malaga branch—a half hour journey each way, not to mention the time spent in the queue. The other bank in the area is two suburbs away in Nollamara. It includes an ATM. But many people have told me that they prefer not to use the ATM because they do not feel safe in the area. I am not saying that it is a bad area, but people's perception of their safety is what is important here. They do not perceive themselves as safe standing on the pavement close to a busy street taking cash from the ATM. Their safety concern is one I hear often. Mothers with children worry about busy streets and unrestrained youngsters; older people worry about being vulnerable to attack while their backs are turned. Fear of personal security at ATMs is not isolated to a small group of people; it is a community issue. It is particularly a suburban issue. It is the suburbs and the regions that are losing these small local branches to the big metropolitan centres and, if they are lucky, are left with an ATM. But it is precisely these customers who are most vulnerable because they are standing on a street kerb taking out their money; they are not in the middle of a big shopping centre with security guards.When the Doubleview branch of the Challenge Bank closed, their customers went to the Innaloo shopping centre branch. After one of my staff spent 25 minutes in the huge queue at the Innaloo branch trying to bank a tax cheque she asked why Doubleview had closed. Security was one of the answers. Fair enough, except they did leave an ATM behind. So whose security is being sacrificed? I would be the last person to want to put tellers at risk. After years in community services I know how hold-ups can cause bank staff enormous and ongoing distress. I do not want that, but nor do I want the security of customers seen as a secondary and unimportant issue.So it appears to me that, if you want to use a bank and you live in the north-eastern portion of my electorate, you have to have a car because you have an across suburbs drive to get to a bank branch. But, as Sister Gilhooley so poignantly reminded me, so many of the true battlers do not have the luxury of car ownership nor do their friends or family. And if they can afford a car, they cannot always afford petrol at 90c plus a litre every time the tank needs filling. So what do you do if you do not have transport? Simple: as the helpful bank customer service people tell me when I ask, `Use B-Pay or online banking.' So that means you need a phone connected at home or a computer with Internet access—luxuries that many people living in Stirling cannot afford. For those of you who immediately thought about public phones, shame on you. Obviously you have not tried to find an unsmashed public phone box near your house lately—just another example of Telstra's appalling response to its service obligations.I will spare the House a further monologue of the depth of my despair on this issue. It hurts me because it exemplifies the core battle of the little person, the honest battler in our society being beaten into submission by the bureaucracy—in this case, the big four globally competitive, massively profitable banks. While the big four banks often treat their customers with disrespect by closing branches, letting them wait in long queues and charging them extra for face to face transactions, they are still happy to collect all the fees and charges they can off the various accounts.As we know, these banks record large profits. I hope the shareholders are very happy. I make this small plea today to precisely that group of people—the bank shareholders. I remind you that you now have a powerful voice. As a shareholder you can demand that your bank show commitment to genuine customer service to all customers. You can remind shareholder meetings, busy talking about the bottom line, that banking is a people business and it is people who make it profitable. It is time shareholders joined forces with other members of the community to tell the decision makers that they do not want increased dividends at the cost of customer service. There needs to be a balance. CEOs and boards need to be told that shareholders are sick of being used as the excuse or justification for all their decisions. In the meantime, this is my pledge. I will continue to use the parliament and other forums and my position as a parliamentarian to give people a voice on this issue. I will continue to raise the issue in the community and work with the community to seek a change of attitude within the corporate sector and society at large. I will support the residents, small business, community groups and other organisations that are now calling for the setting up of a community bank in Stirling—a call arising from people's despair at feeling abandoned by the big four banks. I will be holding a banking forum at the Balga Autumn Centre, Campberwell Road, Balga, on 2 May at 7.30 p.m. Margaret Quirk, who is a leading campaigner for the rights of the disadvantaged, will chair this forum. Invitations will be sent out to all residents in Westminster, Mirrabooka, Balga and Girrawheen—residents who have been severely affected by these bank closures. I expect it will be a long fight to restore the rights of the consumers in the banking sector, but it will be worth while.1506320:15:0015063Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—Today I want to grieve about the Murray River. Within 20 years salinity levels of the Murray River at Morgan in South Australia's riverland are predicted to exceed 800 electrical conductivity units 40 per cent of the time. This means that Adelaide's drinking water will exceed the World Health Organisation's recommended standard for drinking water salinity. It means Adelaide's water will be undrinkable. South Australia is at the end of the Murray-Darling river system, the fourth longest river system in the world, and as such South Australia is dependent on other states to look after the river which is its lifeblood. Sadly, the river has been used, misused and abused and, as a result, the river itself is sick, suffering from reduced flows, increasing salinity, blue-green algae, destruction of animal habitats and endangered native flora and fauna.It is not only South Australia that is affected. The Murray-Darling Basin takes up one-seventh of Australia and supplies three-quarters of the water used in Australia. The Australia-wide consequences of salinisation and rising saline water tables include declining river quality, loss of productive land, damage to roads and buildings, damage to conservation reserves, native vegetation and animal habitat, and increased flood risk.Although dryland salinity was first reported in 1853 in Victoria and irrigation salinity was noticed in the 1890s also in Victoria, we failed to do anything about it. By the end of the last century—that is, the 20th century—salinity was increasing by nine per cent per annum. On 4 June 1981 my predecessor, the former member for Hawker, Mr Ralph Jacobi, said in this place:After 100 years of thoughtless exploitation, the viability of the River Murray system as a resource is in jeopardy. Honourable members will recall that recently it even ceased flowing to the sea. If present trends continue, it is only a matter of years—or less if there is prolonged drought—before this river and its tributaries, which supply most of South Australia and many thousands of people in New South Wales and Victoria with domestic water, become not merely unpleasant, but quite undrinkable, and practically useless for irrigation.At the rate we are going, South Australia will soon have the undrinkable water predicted by Mr Jacobi almost 20 years ago. Yet still now, after all we have learnt, we are not looking after the river. In 1995 the Murray-Darling Ministerial Council introduced a cap on water use in the basin at the 1993-94 levels as an essential first step in ensuring the long-term health of the system. However, while both South Australia and Victoria have systems in place to increase compliance and have met their target, New South Wales and Queensland have not. They have exceeded their cap. New South Wales and Queensland have allowed a 30 per cent increase in irrigated crop area within the river system. In the Namoi River Valley, part of the Darling Basin, the amount of water extracted from underground aquifers has exceeded sustainable yields by more than 200 per cent, causing the water table to fall by as much as eight metres in some areas. Queensland and New South Wales have not met their cap, but in reality they never could because they have allowed total water entitlements in the basin to exceed the cap. It is not as if the caps themselves were set at radical limits. The cap targets are so conservative in the sense of favouring the users that, even if complied with, they will not achieve sufficient water flow for the health of the river.A review of the river in February by the Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology said that cap levels have been inadequate. I quote directly, I believe, from their report which appeared in an article in today's Australian: Current indications of continued decline in river health suggest that with current land and water management practices, the cap does not reserve enough water for the environment.The report goes on to say that a quarter of all the water diverted from the river system is lost on its way to the farm gate. In 1997-98, 2,500 gigalitres were lost basin-wide as a result of poor irrigation. It might be of interest to members from Queensland and New South Wales to know that the 2,500 gigalitres lost as a result of poor irrigation are equal to 16 years water allocation of Murray River water to the city of Adelaide. What is to be done? We are killing the river, and if we are to save it and the billions of dollars that is produced in the catchment area we must radically change the way we do business on the river. We have to spend money. Some inefficient irrigation systems can lose up to 40 per cent of their water because water is moved through open channels. The Mulwala Channel in New South Wales is a prime example. Where water is transported to areas away from rivers, it must be enclosed in pipes to stop evaporation and seepage. I know that this is an expensive option. If it is too expensive, the alternative is to stop carrying on productive activities with expensive, long distance interbasin transfers to water users and to move our productive activities to where the resource is abundant. Unless we are prepared to put in the expensive pipe infrastructure, production must move away from the water poor inland to the water-rich, tropical mid-north and tropical Queensland. More importantly, there must be implementation of full cost recovery. In this way, water being used for irrigation on properties with marginal profitability should be reallocated to higher value farming systems and the environment.It might be of interest to members to know that for every additional megalitre of water used the value of rice produced is only $60, the value of irrigated dairy farm produce is $110, cotton is $235, fruit is $450 and vegetables yield over $600. We must be asking why we are using our rare resource to grow rice, dairy products and cotton when we could be realising twice the value in other crops.One of the problems that encourages the wasteful use of water in the Murray-Darling Basin is the low price that is charged to irrigators who use 72 per cent of the water in the basin. Water should be priced like any other commodity, and there is no reason why the irrigators in the country should get water any cheaper than the consumers in the city. Water must be traded like any other commodity to achieve the most efficient usage. In Australia we are extremely wasteful in our use of water. Water is used for irrigation or in the cities it is used by consumers just once, whether it is to shower, wash their cars, water their lawns or water their vegetables. Compare this with Israel where the same bucket of water is used repeatedly. Water pumped from the underground is used first for tourist spas. Then the same water is moved into aquaculture. This enriched water is then used to grow hydroponic crops with the remainder going to drip irrigate field crops. Australia is one of the lucky countries. We are one of the few countries in the world who do not have to share their water resources with any other country. This gives us an extraordinary advantage over other countries such as those in the Middle East and Africa where 50 per cent of the people depend on water that originates in another sovereign state. We do not have to deal with other sovereign states polluting and diverting our water. But the Australian Constitution, in making water the province of the states, did this country a great disservice. The states of Queensland and New South Wales have historically and still today a de facto policy of beggar thy neighbour. The problems of the Murray-Darling River system stem not from the diversion and pollution of our rivers by another country but from what we ourselves have done to that river and from the failure of the states to work together for the benefit of the river system as a whole and the country as a whole. South Australians, dependent on the River Murray, demand that the upriver states put their house in order. (Time expired)1506520:25:0015065Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I welcome the opportunity to speak tonight in the grievance debate as it gives me the opportunity to put on the record some thoughts on the report Participation support for a more equitable society. As honourable members would know, the report was launched last week by the Minister for Family and Community Services, the Hon. Jocelyn Newman. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—It is an independent report. AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICK—The honourable member is correct. It is an independent report generated and launched by the Hon. Jocelyn Newman and someone from Mission Australia. It is right and proper that we as a nation look anew at the whole issue of government support for those who require assistance. There have been massive societal changes over the past 10 years as Australia, like all other developed countries, undergoes a real economic and social restructuring as part of the globalisation process. No government can claim to have totally addressed the needs of those who fall outside the employment circle. Some, however, show a far more compassionate approach in seeking to come up with constructive, imaginative and socially responsible solutions. In trying to understand how we might put in place a national approach to this very complex issue, we must understand a simple concept. We must focus on the needs of the individual first, his or her family needs next and then, having done this, put in place structures that will enable the person to take or resume their place as a constructive member of Australian society. Our social security system should not and must not be designing a new structure to replace the old if all we are going to do is reshape the national package, give it a glossier new look but still exclude many disadvantaged souls who fail to meet the newly drafted guidelines. Our new system must not be about what is in the legislation. Legislation in the current social security system has failed to match the changing nature of our society. Bureaucrats at all levels from the minister's office down to the ASO3 at the local Centrelink office can shelve their humanitarian responsibilities by citing legislative dogma while my staff and many others in the electorate offices of members in this place can cite example after example of individuals and their families being punished—yes, punished—for failing to meet the necessary legislative criteria. When you as a member pull rank and call directly the Centrelink head office or the minister's office to query a decision, how often do you hear the standard response, `I'm sorry but the legislation does not allow any flexibility in this case,' or `I'm afraid that the person doesn't quite fit the guidelines intended and written into the legislation'? To highlight this point, I will mention a case that came my way last week. I received a call from a Keith Jackson who previously incurred the wrath of the social security system—he was charged with a large overpayment. He had been doing the right thing and had decreased his debt considerably over quite a number of years. Keith was intent on gaining employment and, despite his rural isolation, had completed a course that now saw him being offered a job as a driver. His only problem was that in order to get the job he had to pay $100 for the certificate attesting to the fact that he had completed the course. He did not have the money—he was hard up. Phone calls by me to the local Centrelink manager, Jeremy, and the DLO in Jocelyn Newman's office elicited the same response: `Legislation decrees that we cannot assist. If you have a debt, no matter how small, you cannot be assisted in any shape or form.' My point over and over again to them was: here is a bloke with a job lined up, he is about to leave the ranks of the unemployed and Centrelink are being bloody-minded about it all. To add insult to injury, Centrelink initially would not pay for Keith to attend the course and his now employer paid $220 to enable him to complete it. Keith now has to pay his boss back weekly to compensate his generosity. Because I pestered the minister's office, Keith was finally able to receive the $100 work entry payment. To receive this payment, Keith had to borrow from a friend and then, having received his paperwork and proof of a job, Centrelink completed the deal. What a bloody waste of everyone's time and effort! What a disincentive for those struggling to put themselves on an equal footing with most ordinary Australians. Keith's parting words to me, as I spoke to him over the phone a couple of hours ago, summed it all up: `If I wasn't such a fighter, I wouldn't have a job.'Those on the other side, the government members, have an enormous responsibility to see that the final report handed down does cater for the diverse needs of all Australians. Having been in this place for over seven years, I have come to know many opposite as truly caring and understanding politicians—people with a real social conscience. Like so much that goes on in this House and outside—either in our electorates or more widely throughout Australia as we travel on House committee work—the longer we are representatives in this place, the more our experience of what is happening to people throughout this country broadens.Those of us who represent seats with a real socioeconomic spread are, in my mind, far better placed to have an understanding of what is required as we ponder the various aspects of this interim report. In this place, most of those members, I would argue, are found on my side of the House. If we are to have an honest and genuine debate which leads to a social policy framework suitable for the 21st century, then let each and every one of us cast off our ideological blinkers and work together. Let us have no more nonsense, hyperbole and blame apportioning around who did what and why, and no more, `I'm always right in government and you're always wrong in opposition.'The obvious starting point in this debate should not be based on a Treasury bottom line and a single departmental responsibility. Families who require assistance just cannot be pigeonholed into this department's or that department's fiscal budget for a particular year and expect all their problems to be solved immediately. Nor should the speed with which we tackle the issues raised by this report be based solely on Treasury fears that the number of recipients of government benefits is escalating out of control and needs to be reined in. The newspaper headlines of the last couple of days such as `Newman sets social targets', `Welfare shake-up tipped for budget' and `New bid to move jobless off welfare' really worry me as we seek to put in place a new workable and effective structure for the 21st century.This report presents five key arguments for a significant change in Australia's social support system: firstly, Australia has a strong labour market, but employment opportunities are not being shared equally; secondly, an unequal distribution of employment is resulting in a growing reliance on income support with negative consequences for many individuals, families and the system itself; thirdly, economic growth on its own will not address the problem of entrenched economic and social disadvantage for many people; fourthly, the social support system has not responded adequately to changes in our economy and society; and, lastly, it is therefore highly unlikely that these problems can be addressed effectively with a major reorientation of social support arrangements.The reference group then identifies five key features of a new proposed system, and these are the ones that interest me: firstly, individualised service delivery; secondly, a simpler income support structure that is more responsive to individual needs, circumstances and aspirations; thirdly, incentives and targeted assistance to encourage and enable participation; fourthly, social partnerships; and, fifthly, mutual obligation. In the time remaining, I would like to express some views about these points.I foresee enormous trouble with writing legislation to address the changes to the proposed system unless there is a realisation that, as stated in the key arguments for the need for significant change, there is a major reorientation of social support arrangements. The current system is like the hopscotch I used to play in the schoolyard. You all individually started at the same spot. When it came to your turn, you attempted to throw your tor into the area marked with a 1 and, if successful, you hopped up and back, retrieved the tor and started again for spot 2. It was a contest that was highly structured with obvious rules and obvious punishments and usually completed by those possessing the best hand-eye coordination skills. Those lacking these skills either languished around spot 3 or 4 and never had the satisfaction of successfully completing the game or else never took part in it at all.It is also very much like our juvenile justice system. As a teacher, I could easily identify children at risk and knew of strategies that could ameliorate or, in many cases, address the deficiencies experienced by not only the child but also their parents and other siblings. Failings by the education, housing and family services departments in adequately resourcing the school and the wider community meant invariably that these families and their children ventured into the dislocated and dysfunctional society. In many cases these children, their siblings and their parents entered into the world of intergenerational unemployment hopscotch and lost all hope and desire to escape.My electorate is like so many others in this country. Scattered across it, it has numerous examples of organisations with fantastically dedicated staff providing an exciting range of programs tackling all the issues relating to this report. I sincerely hope that, as part of this consultative process, these organisations are given the chance to make a contribution. (Time expired)1506720:35:0015067Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I rise today to give my thoughts on the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport access debate, and I must start by thanking cabinet for giving the opportunity to some regional MPs to put their points of view across at a cabinet meeting recently. I would like to record my thoughts on the matter. Before we address the issue of where people from interstate, overseas and the regions should be forced to land in Sydney, perhaps we should first of all look at why people from regional areas actually fly. Of course, it is quicker than driving and we touch down at an airport that is within about 20 or 30 minutes drive of the CBD. Further, we touch down at a site that gives us access to interstate and international flights. If airport access to Sydney for regional people is so important, why is it then that 95 per cent of people in regional areas do not in fact fly to Sydney? Who does use this service? My figures indicate that almost two-thirds of air travellers from the regions are business people and include medical practitioners and government employees or representatives.Most fair-minded people accept the need to restructure the way airports are accessed within New South Wales to cope with future loads. One of the latest proposals that seems to be doing the rounds is to relocate regional airlines to Bankstown or perhaps even Richmond. Why is it that regional people feel so strongly about being dumped off in Bankstown? Most people I speak to do not have a passionate, emotional commitment to Kingsford Smith for the sake of its name; rather it comes back to why people fly in the first place.We perceive that landing at Bankstown and travelling on by public transport or taxi to the CBD is a more expensive, more time consuming, less convenient way to conduct business. Out of the three criteria that prompt people to fly—that is, speed, getting to within 20 minutes of the CBD and access to interstate and international flights—as conditions now stand, none would be met by landing at Bankstown. Even from somewhere like Dubbo in my electorate, if you drive for 15 or 20 minutes to get to the airport, arrive 30 minutes before the flight, have a one-hour flight, collect your baggage, wait for transport to the CBD and then get a cab into town, we are talking about a trip from door to door of around 3½ hours. If you add another 30 minutes travel that realistically it would take to get from Bankstown to the CBD in the traffic, the flying option loses a lot of its gloss. And the closer the regional towns are to Sydney, the quicker and more dramatically the flying option loses its gloss.This is the real issue: if passenger numbers drop and airlines are under no obligation to suffer losses to prop up an unviable service, we would see reduced flights into and out of places like Dubbo and even Broken Hill, or perhaps even no flights at all. This would be an economic and social disaster for these cities and the areas that they serve—that is, the whole of western New South Wales. So much for selling regional areas like Dubbo as having overcome the tyranny of distance with technology and modern transport infrastructure and networks. So much for trying to lure businesses and professionals, such as doctors, to establish themselves there because `Sydney is just an hour away by plane'. This is why, even though probably 95 per cent of the population in the western area do not travel directly by plane, the impacts that would be observed on these people's towns and therefore their lives through a reduction in access for this critical five per cent of people who arrive in these towns would be a disaster.Having said that, unlike what has occurred with previous head-in-the-sand governments, there is a decision that needs to be made and the self-interest of all groups needs to be considered, though not to the exclusion of all others. There are those who want less noise at Mascot, but of course they would like to maintain the business activity that is generated by the airport—such as housing, temporary accommodation, retail businesses and food outlets. There are those who do not want noise at an alternative site. There are even some who actually recognise the benefits of establishing an airport at a site near them—those benefits, again, being the generation of housing, engineering, retailing, accommodation and the tourism opportunities that flow.Country people want to maintain access to the CBD and to further flights, though we must not ignore those who are increasingly going to do business on the North Shore or out in the Parramatta area who may actually be favourably impacted on by landing at an alternative site. As I said, I believe that country people do not have an emotional attachment, as such, to Kingsford Smith airport; but they do have an emotional attachment to fair access to where they do business and fair access to further flights.Just recently I have been approached increasingly by people in my electorate who have a background in aviation who say that there are alternatives. Before I give an example of these alternatives, I would reiterate that these are only alternatives if the three criteria that place flying over driving are met—that is, that it be quicker than driving, they get to within 20 minutes of the CBD and they have access to international and interstate flights. If the option of a full international airport, as was being considered at Badgerys Creek, would have cost in excess of $10 billion, there is an enormous amount of money that should be able to be spent on improving access to somewhere else—whether Richmond, Bankstown or elsewhere—which already has rail services of sorts and expressways, such as in Richmond, three parts of the way there. If this road and rail access can be expanded, it could meet the objective of accessing the CBD; and, if interstate and international flights are accessed by a certain number of regional slots every day, perhaps we could be offered access through another gateway.All proposals have their problems, and I understand that of course there are arguments against all of those proposals. I realise too that many options are being looked at by people with far more experience in this field than I have. But I float these comments in the knowledge that country people simply will not wear diminished access to their places of business. I must say too that, like the Telstra privatisation issue, country people will not accept a proposal that says, `We promise to do such and such if you sign off on this.' They want hard action, not guarantees. Whatever infrastructure changes need to be made to accommodate any change in government policy on regional airline access to Kingsford Smith airport, they must be delivered or, at the very least, be well down the track of development past the point of no return.Dare I say that, if the government would link these proposed changes with another transport issue that is actually nearer the hearts of the 95 per cent of country people who do not fly—that is, country petrol prices—and provide a legislated link between the cost of petrol in the city and that in the country, I believe we would be a long way down the track of putting this very tough, very emotional and very sensitive decision behind us. We could then move on to important issues, like using the change out of that $10 billion that was intended to be spent at Badgerys to provide some of the much needed infrastructure development in rural, regional and even outer metropolitan areas of Australia. This could provide the self-stimulating economic activity and its associated social benefits that we crave.I would close by again pointing out that the bottom line for this proposal or any other is that the country people of New South Wales retain air access to a site 20 minutes to half an hour from the CBD by road or public transport and direct access to interstate and international flights. They should be expected to accept nothing less than this.10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—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.Ministerial Statements1506920:44:0015069Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Following my second reading speech on the introduction of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 on 8 December 1999, I tabled the proposed amendments to the national classification code and the classification guidelines for the new NVE category that had been agreed to in principle by censorship ministers. Unfortunately, my department inadvertently provided the wrong version of the draft guidelines for tabling. The version tabled contained a proposed amended definition of `demean' to be inserted in the glossary which forms part of the current guidelines. This amended definition of `demean' has not been agreed to by censorship ministers. This error was only discovered by my department when preparing for the recent hearings on the bill conducted by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. I now table the correct version of the proposed guidelines.Bills15069Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 2000Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 2000Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 2000General Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 2000Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 2000Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 2000Superannuation Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 2000Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2000Crimes at Sea Bill 2000Bills15070R96115070Debate resumed from 8 December, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.20:45:0015070Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak on the Transport and Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. In doing so I indicate that it is the intention of the opposition to oppose the main amendments contained in this bill. The amendments contained in schedules 1 and 4 of the bill are, from our point of view, non-controversial. We will have no problems with respect to those amendments. We will seek to move some amendments in the committee stages going to the proposed deletions of schedules 2, 3 and 5 of the bill. There are also a number of minor amendments, that the opposition also supports, that correct drafting errors and remove gender-specific language. However, as I have indicated with respect to my intention to move deletion of schedules 2, 3 and 5 in the committee stage, we cannot and will not support the amendments contained in these schedules of the bill.The amendments in schedules 2 and 3, going to industrial relations provisions, endeavour to bring all workers on Christmas and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands under Western Australian industrial legislation, namely, the Western Australian industrial relations law. As these are Commonwealth territories, the opposition contends that currently the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act 1996 applies on these islands. I refer in historical terms to the fact that in 1955 and 1958 the Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas Island acts respectively realised the hand-over of the islands to Australia. The Commonwealth government then assumed legislative responsibility for the islands. However, Commonwealth acts were not to apply on the islands unless it was expressly requested that they do so. The power to make ordinances was reserved to the Governor-General. A review in 1992 of the legislative arrangements on the islands concluded that Western Australian law should be extended to the two islands, providing them with a living body of law. This recommendation was implemented in amendments to the principal acts. The Commonwealth retained the power to extend its legislation to the two islands and the Governor-General retained the power to make ordinances. A provision was also inserted in the two acts which applied Commonwealth industrial relations law where an industrial dispute arose. The interstateness, as then required by law under the act, which is otherwise to activate the relevant provisions, was removed because of the nature of the two islands. Under the new legal regime there was also provision for the Commonwealth to enter into service delivery arrangements with the Western Australian government to ensure the effective application and administration of the law in force in the territories. Agreements have since been reached with most Western Australian government agencies.At the time the new regime was introduced, the Western Australian government became concerned with the operation of Commonwealth industrial relations law on the islands, as many Western Australian public sector employees would be working on the islands under arrangements established by those service delivery agreements. They were also concerned that a dispute arising on the islands could, for example, spread back to Western Australia, fulfilling the interstateness requirement and bringing into operation the Commonwealth industrial relations act. For those reasons, the Western Australian government sought to have WA public sector employees working on the islands exempted from the operation of the Commonwealth industrial relations law. In responding to this, the Australian Council of Trade Unions—and I had some responsibility at the time in my former occupation—gave a commitment to Western Australia that neither the ACTU nor the Trades and Labour Council would seek to apply conditions of work on the island to mainland employees.However, unfortunately, the Western Australia government was not satisfied with those undertakings. It therefore sought to enter into formal negotiations with the federal government and the ACTU. Accordingly, early in 1994 it was agreed that the Christmas and Cocos islands acts would be amended to apply their industrial relations provisions in relation to WA public servants. The implementation of this agreement did not occur before the 1996 federal election, and in 1996 it became caught up with the introduction of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Unfortunately, we have not heard from the government on this issue since. The truth of the matter is that for those reasons, that is, its failure to act after the 1996 election, the issues remain unresolved—hence the current bill.The problem is that today we have before us an attempt to bring Christmas and Cocos islands under the Western Australian industrial relations scheme which, I might say, was clearly not the intent of discussions entered into by me as president and by members of the Western Australian government back in 1995. The amendments contained in this bill are not only to supply Commonwealth industrial relations law operating on the islands with regard to WA public servants; they are also, unfortunately, broad enough to cover all private sector workers as well. This goes far beyond the original agreement of the Western Australian government, the Commonwealth and the union representatives.In complete disregard for an agreement that was reached after extensive discussions, including meetings in Perth involving Commonwealth and state representatives, this government is now seeking to introduce a whole new industrial relations regime to these island communities. I argue that its contempt for democratic processes has gone further. There has unfortunately also been no consultation with employer-employee groups on the islands concerning these matters. That the government should ask anyone to support these bills for those reasons is untenable.The opposition therefore does not support the overriding of an agreement reached between all parties concerned. The opposition also does not support this government's contempt for the communities that would be affected by the proposed amendments if they were to be carried by the House. The opposition does not support an extension of WA industrial relations law to Christmas and Cocos islands and will not support the bill for those reasons.In addition to the schedules going to the industrial relations framework on Christmas and Cocos islands, there are also a number of other changes. I go to the question of parliamentary secretaries, better known as `jobs for the boys' in the Northern Territory, the friends of the coalition government. This is another matter of contention to the opposition in the bill before us today—the proposal regarding the creation of parliamentary secretaries in the Northern Territory parliament. Currently in the Northern Territory there is one parliamentary secretary. In 1998, a Secretary to the Cabinet was appointed—effectively a parliamentary secretary's position.The 1978 Northern Territory Act that set up the Northern Territory Assembly makes no reference to parliamentary secretaries. This means that the 1998 appointment does not carry a separate salary. It is not just about jobs for the boys but is also about perks for the boys in the Northern Territory. Nor can the appointee participate as a member of the Territory's Executive Council, and I understand the sensitivities about looking after mates on the other side of the House.The Howard government here today is asking the House to basically give it the opportunity to create additional positions with associated perks and salaries for friends in the Northern Territory. As one who has worked in the Northern Territory over an extended period I understand that there are more extensive problems facing the Northern Territory and other rural and regional communities at this point in time and I wonder why that is a priority. But that is what the government wants; that is the priority in the bill this evening. It is not coming to terms with some of those special challenges—including, dare I suggest, the issue of the difficulty with respect to the legislation in the Northern Territory relating to imprisonment of principally Aboriginal young people at the moment. They are more concerned about not confronting those contentious issues but, more importantly, an amendment which goes to a question of giving them a capacity to appoint people to more perks and lurks for their mates in the Northern Territory.I would have thought that they should have been more committed this evening to doing something for rural and regional communities in the Northern Territory, rather than giving the Northern Territory parliament the opportunity to merely allocate more financial resources to looking after politicians in the Northern Territory. It almost seems as though they have forgotten their priorities. Perhaps, for example, this money could be better spent on helping the victims of the devastating floods experienced recently in the Top End of the Northern Territory. No; it seems that we are not interested in those difficulties. We are more interested in trying to come to terms with how we appoint a friend to a parliamentary secretary's position in the Northern Territory rather than worrying about the devastating impact of floods or the serious concerns relating to justice in the Northern Territory.The opposition will therefore oppose the proposal by the government, as before the House today, to give the Northern Territory parliament the capacity to allocate more money for their mates in the Northern Territory. In doing so I would remind the House that the Northern Territory is the most governed of all the jurisdictions in our country. Its legislature has 25 elected members, which in essence effectively means one member for every 3,200 votes. I might say that, in my own seat of Batman, the city of Darebin in each of its nine wards would have more than 3,200 voters. Yet we are now not content with having 25 elected members and a significant number appointed as ministers: we are now also going to extend it to create additional perks and lurks for a new position of parliamentary secretary. They obviously think that 25 paid representatives for fewer than 200,000 residents is not quite enough.That is interesting because this is at a time when the Territory is facing some very serious issues. We have this government coming to this chamber and asking for money to go to the most governed of all jurisdictions. This is the very same government who brought Max the Axe into the Australian Capital Territory to hack away at the Public Service. It likes small government, or so it says. But when it comes to looking after itself, small government is all out the window. The opposition will therefore oppose the amendments going to parliamentary secretaries in the Northern Territory. We will suggest that the government sit down with its mates in the Top End to decide what it is going to do about the 15-year-old Aboriginal boys dying in jail, locked up because they have stolen some paint and a couple of texta colours. I would have thought that is a bigger priority this evening than worrying about parliamentary secretaries being appointed to the Northern Territory house of assembly.We therefore suggest that the government focus on that at the moment instead of wasting the parliament's time with an offensive request for money for their mates at a time when the Northern Territory is facing such serious issues. I suppose, when I think about it, it would have been more appropriate this evening to actually debate the issue of justice in the Northern Territory and its divisive impact on the Northern Territory community, rather than wasting the time of the House debating whether or not to have a few parliamentary secretaries in the most governed place of all constituencies in Australia at the moment.Having made those comments, I go to the issue of what we are prepared to support with respect to this bill. The remaining amendments in the bill which we are concerned with relate to the implementation of the 1991 Madrid protocol on environment protection to the Antarctic treaty, and the changed quorum requirements for the National Capital Authority, which we regard as not controversial and which will therefore be supported by the opposition. We also support the minor amendments that correct drafting errors and remove gender specific language.In conclusion, I say on behalf of the Labor opposition that we cannot and will not support the bill as it is currently framed. We believe that the bill disregards democratic processes and bypasses processes of consultation and negotiation. We contend that, from the Northern Territory's point of view, it seeks to misuse scarce taxpayers' money, money that would be better spent on rural and regional areas around Australia and money that those areas are crying out for—not hand-outs as we are going to give to the parliamentary secretaries in the Northern Territory but, more importantly, a capacity to build the infrastructure requirements of regional and rural Australia. We regard the bill as an insult to the intelligence of the Australian community. We think that it actually represents a further statement of the hollow promises of this government with respect to the serious problems that confront this nation.This government should be concentrating on those serious issues Australians living in rural and regional areas are facing at the moment. The government should be rethinking its approach to the regional issues confronting Australia, an approach that has overseen the withdrawal of vital services to these communities. The Howard government must acknowledge what it has done wrong and make a genuine commitment to a new approach on the regional front. The opposition therefore challenge the government to get on with the task of providing some real leadership and working with communities to produce better outcomes. That would be better than wasting the time of the House this evening on a proposal which is about creating additional parliamentary opportunities for a small, select group in the most governed area of Australia—the Northern Territory. The opposition therefore clearly indicate that, whilst we will oppose the bill, when we go to the consideration in detail stage we will move amendments that oppose and delete schedules 2, 3 and 5 of the bill and, in that context, support that which is contained in schedules 1 and 4 of the bill.21:00:0015073Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The Transport and Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 amends a number of acts under the Transport and Regional Services portfolio to help rectify some specific operational and technical anomalies. A further amendment contained in the bill relates to the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988, which currently requires that the full-time member, normally the chief executive, must be present at meetings of the National Capital Authority for there to be a quorum. The amendments in this bill remove the requirement for the full-time member to be present at meetings for there to be a quorum when the full-time member has disclosed a pecuniary interest. These amendments are relevant and necessary changes to be in place for a situation where a full-time chief executive of the authority or a full-time chairperson is the member who declares a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter to be considered by the authority and is therefore unable to be present at any deliberation of the authority with respect to that matter.Under these amendments, if the full-time member is the chief executive and is unable to attend a meeting because of a declared pecuniary interest, a quorum will be formed by the part-time chairperson and two other members. If the full-time member is also the chairperson and the chief executive officer and is unable to attend a meeting because of a declared pecuniary interest, a quorum will be formed by any three members. Currently, parliamentary secretaries in the Northern Territory government—as the member for Batman has alluded to in a fairly crude fashion from the other side—are not members of the Northern Territory Executive Council and therefore are not eligible for remuneration for their services. Under the amendments prescribed, parliamentary secretaries will become members of the Northern Territory Executive Council and will receive remuneration, allowances and entitlements as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.These changes follow on from a letter sent to the Prime Minister in October 1997 by the then Chief Minister for the Northern Territory pointing out that the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 made no provision for the appointment of a parliamentary secretary to the Northern Territory government. One consequence of this was that there was no means of providing remuneration to the member of the Legislative Assembly who was performing the functions of cabinet secretary. The Chief Minister asked for amendment of the self-government act to provide for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries in the Northern Territory government and to enable them to become members of the Northern Territory Executive Council and therefore be eligible for remuneration for their services. The Prime Minister agreed to that proposal and it was an intention that these amendments be included in the department's Transport and Territories Legislation Amendment (Portfolio) Bill. The Office of Legislative Drafting was unable to provide the necessary resources to draft the amendments until October this year.The bill amends the commencement provision of the Transport and Communications Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1992 to overcome a technical difficulty that prevents a proclamation being made for the commencement of the amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. In addition, the bill amends the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 for three purposes: firstly, to remove the reference to a Western Australian court which has been abolished; secondly, to remove the application of certain provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to Western Australian employees who work wholly or mainly in the Territory; and, thirdly, to remove obsolete provisions relating to prisoners and accused persons. The bill also proposes some miscellaneous amendments to acts which contain drafting errors and gender specific language.I note that the member for Batman made a few comments about rural and regional areas. It is probably timely to remind the House that it was not that long ago that the Labor Party was the government of the day and, in its enthusiasm in wishing to raise revenue in this country, it raised the excise rate from 6c or 7c a litre to 36c a litre. If there is one tax that impacts on rural and regional Australia, it is fuel excise. It is a truly regressive tax; that is, in rural and regional areas, the further you travel the more you pay. When you sit that alongside an urban transport subsidy, estimated to be about $6.5 billion in this country, you can see the sort of equity that you can expect under a Labor government.The member for Batman made some mention of vital services. Much has been said in recent years about services to regional Australia. He made no mention whatsoever of the specific nature of any loss of service, and in my experience there has been very limited loss of service—and, in most cases, no loss of service. It is more accurate to say that under this government there has been an improvement, an increase, in services. I can point to Medicare agencies. I can point to the transaction centres. I can point to the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, which has meant we have telephone services, particularly mobile telephone services, in Australia which a Labor regime would not have got within a bull's roar of.I challenge the Labor Party to put on the table what they will actually do for regional Australia. It is a cheap shot in opposition to make these sorts of accusations. But in actual fact, until we see the colour of their policies, see the colour of their money, they can only be treated according to their previous form. When Paul Keating was Treasurer, one of his first acts was to abolish the fuel freight equalisation subsidy. His first act was to ensure that those people who lived in regional Australia paid significantly more for their fuel than did those living in urban Australia. Let us not forget those figures: the excise rate on fuel moved from 6c or 7c a litre to 36c a litre in the life of the Labor government, after collecting some $10 billion to $12 billion.I will conclude by just making a few general comments about mandatory sentencing. In the context of what a self-governing territory is about—moving towards self-government—the coalition government does believe that it should dictate to states and territories what is their lawful and constitutional duty. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for the Northern Territory administration, the Northern Territory government, and the Northern Territory people to make those laws and to vote in those members which they think most appropriate. It is not the role of the Commonwealth government to intrude upon those people who freely elect their own parliament. It is for us in the Commonwealth, who have this centre of government in Canberra, to facilitate the states and the territories in the exercise of their duly authorised power. It is a very clear principle in my mind that you should bring the laws and the authority of the state closer to the people, and that should be done through the states and through the territories and, wherever possible, through local government. I am a great believer in the separation of powers. We need a balance in this country and not a centralist government dominating and dictating from Canberra.21:10:0015075Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I am pleased to make a very short contribution to the debate on the Transport and Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, which in effect tidies up a number of acts and helps rectify some specific operational and technical anomalies. I might say at the outset that, though the member for Batman has indicated that we will not be opposing schedules 1 and 4, we will be opposing that contained in schedules 2, 3 and 5, for reasons which my colleague has outlined.I am particularly concerned about the amendments as they deal with the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 regarding specifically the discharge of sewage and disposal of garbage from ships in the Antarctic area. There is a technical argument concerning the commencement provision regarding the date to be fixed by proclamation being the day on which the Protocol on Environment Protection to the Antarctic Treaty enters into force. This happened on 14 January 1998 but a proclamation was not made by that date. Given the date that Australia ratified the protocol was in 1994 it could be argued that Australia has been in technical breach of its international obligations since 1998 by failing to ensure that it could effectively enforce the terms of annex 4. The proposed changes are intended to correct this situation. As I said, it was a technical situation but it is now being amended.Behind these rather legalistic and jargonistic words is the desire to protect Antarctica—not only the landmass but the seas around it—as the common heritage of mankind. I suppose, given the pollution of the oceans of the world and the lack of movement in the seas surrounding Antarctica, one could well argue what would it matter if some sewage or other waste were disposed in the waters around Antarctica. But it is important. It is important that there be one part of the world that is not polluted, one part of the world where plastic thongs do not wash up or where waste is not deposited. Antarctica is an area of incredible beauty, pristine beauty. It is one part of the world where man's imprint has not been great, and it should be left as such. Just as we are returning to the mainland waste left by previous visitors to Antarctica, so we should support these measures—as the Labor Party does—that will prevent the disposal of pollution, be it sewage or anything else, in the waters surrounding Antarctica.I now move to schedule 2 and schedule 3 of the bill. Schedule 2 seeks to amend the Christmas Island Act 1958. During most of the 20th century Christmas Island was governed by colonial administration in Singapore. Responsibility was transferred from the United Kingdom to Australia in 1958, and Christmas Island is now an Australian external territory. The 1958 act sets out the legal framework applicable to the territory. And, as the member for Batman said, it was transferred to Australia, not to Western Australia.Schedule 3 amends the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 in the same manner and with the same purpose as the Christmas Island Act 1958 discussed above in relation to schedule 2. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands were originally settled by John Clunies-Ross in the 1820s. Title to the island was granted to the Clunies-Ross family in 1886, subject to the right of repossession by the Crown for public purpose. Responsibility was transferred from the United Kingdom to Australia in 1955 and it is now an Australian external territory. The 1955 act sets out the legal framework applicable to the territory.I agree with the reasons put forward by the member for Batman about why the ALP will oppose these schedules seeking to replace Commonwealth law with Western Australian law as it applies to industrial relations. The same argument put by the honourable member for Batman applies to schedule 5. While I was interested in what my friend and colleague the member for Grey had to say, he did go on at the end of his speech about mandatory sentencing. I guess this has been a wide-ranging debate, but I would just like to point out something to him. He made much in his speech about the right of the states and the territories to enact the laws that the members of their legislatures were duly elected to enact. That point is all very well, but it did not hold true when this parliament intervened some two years ago in Northern Territory law as it applied to euthanasia.This is a basic contradiction that a lot of people on the other side of the House fall into on mandatory sentencing—it is right to intervene in one area of jurisdiction but not in another. That was a bill that I actually supported—I supported the right of the Northern Territory to pass that euthanasia legislation. You can employ the argument that the duly elected legislature of the Northern Territory had passed that law and that the Commonwealth therefore did not have the right to intervene, but those on the other side of the House argued that the Commonwealth did have the right to intervene. Now they are putting up a different argument. They are saying now, when it does not suit them, that the Commonwealth does not have the right to intervene. I might say that there is an element of inconsistency there. I just put that in to respond to the honourable member for Grey.The member for Grey made another point about the Northern Territory and its legislature but, in so many respects there, the Commonwealth picks up the tab. We pick up a fairly hefty tab for the administration of the Northern Territory, be it for their parliament house or whatever. I think we do have some right to intervene, especially on an issue which is so damaging, I believe, for Australia and such a denial of basic human rights. As I said, the Labor Party supports two schedules and some of the minor changes, such as the language that has been tidied up. Of the five schedules being put here, we will be supporting schedules 1 and 4 and opposing or moving amendments to schedules 2, 3 and 5 for the reasons that my colleagues have outlined.21:17:0015076Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I have quite a bit to say in my short contribution here about some of the issues concerning the question of water pollution, but seeing as the issue of parliamentary secretaries in the Northern Territory was raised by the member for Batman I thought I might have my two cents worth on that. It is continuingly ridiculous to see a debate going on in the parliament of the Northern Territory and that debate being duplicated down here in Canberra. When the member for Batman compared the Northern Territory legislature to his local council I think that was an interesting comparison in terms of the number of voters. But his council is not stuck on the other side of Australia in the way that the people in the Northern Territory are; but, then again, they do not have to put up with the Commonwealth government appearing every five minutes and interfering in their affairs either. If we do what the member for Batman wants us do, we will be setting out to interfere in those affairs again.We keep on setting up situations in Canberra where, I think, we shield the Northern Territory from the impact of its own decisions. If you want to have a government in a remote place like the Northern Territory it should be allowed to govern. There is a great tradition up there, just as there is in my home state of Queensland, of Canberra-bashing. Whenever the evil bureaucrats in Canberra set out to interfere in activities of the Northern Territory, it provides, I think, a cushion for democracy in that state, and I do not think it is appropriate for us to continue to do that. We have put training wheels on that government up there and I think it is time those training wheels were taken off. I am aware that they had a vote against self-government. I think that was because there is an element of people up there who like to have their cake and eat it too. I think, fair dinkum, we ought to hand over self-government to them and let them be totally responsible for the decisions that they take. It is of course the responsibility of a democratically elected government to reflect the needs of its people. If those issues, like mandatory sentencing or anything else, become so significant that people want to vote the government out, they should. There should not be the opportunity for a democratically elected government to go and blame another government in another place for what might be seen as their misfortune. I think it is wrong of us to keep setting up that situation, and I think we should desist.Meanwhile, one of the provisions of this bill is to look after the Antarctic environment, as has been discussed by the member for Throsby, in relation to the pollution of the sea from garbage, sewage and those sorts of things from passing vessels. This raises an issue about the sea and the environment and how much they contribute to the worth of our great nation. I note that when it comes to the issue of garbage, for example, there have been two successful prosecutions of vessels in other parts of Australian waters for polluting the sea with garbage. One of those involved the cruise ship Fairstar and another one, earlier on, in the Cocos Islands, involved a yacht that dropped garbage bags over the side. In fact in the case of the Fairstar, when garbage was dropped over the side, a lot of that garbage involved luggage labels. So they were in fact labelling their garbage, indicating whom the polluter was and where they could be contacted. Those prosecutions are definitely something that we need to undertake, but I think we need to review the value of the sea and access to the sea in all parts of Australia. I would like to bring to the House's attention the value to Queensland of the Great Barrier Reef in terms of the amount of Australian trade that passes through those waters and the potential for Australian trade to be severely hampered if ever there were an incident in which those trade routes were affected by, say, an oil spill or something like that. A situation in which trade through those Great Barrier Reef ports in Queensland was restricted because of an oil spill and the natural public outcry that would follow such an eventuality are things that we should bear in mind.I have done a little bit of digging on that. If we look in Great Barrier Reef waters, there are several important points. I am indebted to the Department of Transport in Queensland for these figures, which have just been released. I will take it port by port. There are currently 10.2 million tonnes of coal going out each year through Abbott Point, 1.6 million tonnes of silica going out each year through Cape Flattery, 53.9 million tonnes of coal through Hay Point and 468,000 tonnes of sugar going out from Lucinda. Unfortunately, I do not have figures on the port of Mourilyan. Quintell Beach is handling 3,178 tonnes of general cargo. Thursday Island handles 70,292 tonnes of general cargo, and the port of Brisbane has 20.7 million tonnes of cargo of all sorts. There are 42.8 million tonnes going out through the port of Gladstone, and that in itself has a value to the economy of $3.1 billion. The port of Mackay is handling 2.3 million tonnes. I do not have figures on the port of Rockhampton either. Townsville has 8.1 million tonnes, including 4.8 million tonnes of imports and 3.3 million tonnes of exports. There are 1.1 million tonnes coming through Cairns.Those are all significant figures and show that the industry is absolutely the basis of the Queensland economy and a very large proportion of the economy of Australia as a whole. Many articles have been printed and warnings have been repeated regularly by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, for example, that it is not a matter of if but when some kind of incident happens, whether it be a major oil spill or something of that ilk, in Great Barrier Reef waters. We could lose access to it. It is time that governments started making plans to arrange our shipping and our activity to tread more lightly in those waters and to protect that important asset, just as we are protecting the important assets that have to be exported and imported through that area.I would like to remind the House that there is a developing port at Karumba, which is outside Barrier Reef waters, and the ports of Brisbane and Bundaberg are outside Great Barrier Reef waters in Queensland, but it is important that we keep in mind the need to look for development in those areas so that some of the current weight is taken off reef waters. I have looked up the value of trade going through those areas. If we take exports through ports in Queensland, $15,322 million worth of products in the year ending December 1998 went through all Queensland ports. Of that, $10.3 billion worth or 67.7 per cent of Queensland's trade went through Great Barrier Reef ports. I think that is a significant situation, and the state of Queensland ought to be addressing that and making preparations, just as the Commonwealth should, for the development of alternative ports. It is not that you would want to strip development out of that area, but we need protections for safety in that area and development in other areas to provide a more balanced level of trade.We should remind ourselves in the process that in the past significant oil spills have occurred in Australian waters. Members would remember the Kirki incident in 1991, when 17,000 tonnes of oil were lost from a particular tanker over in Western Australia. In Queensland waters themselves, the Oceanic Grandeur in 1970 lost a total of 1,067 tonnes of oil in reef waters. I think it is something that we need to bear in mind. Just recently, in November 1997, there was the grounding of the Nol Amber, a Singapore registered container vessel. It was fortunate that the vessel was refloated from the area in the Torres Strait in which it ran aground without any leakage of oil. But it is a situation where we need to protect safety and, as the member for Throsby has said, it is an issue where we have to be on the lookout for ships of shame.I will go over some of the situations in relation to those vessels. In 1999, 145 foreign vessels and one Australian ship were required to undergo detention as a result of Australian officers inspecting vessels for safety. In February this year alone, there were 241 inspections of foreign vessels and eight of Australian vessels. There is quite an effort going into identifying ships that have a problem and that may well cause a problem in our waters. The sorts of things we are talking about are vessels operating with holes in hatches and bulkheads or with inoperative oil valves. I think members from Sydney would recall that inoperative oil valves were a serious part of the recent incident in which the Italian oil tanker polluted the harbour of Sydney. That vessel had sailed through the waters of North Queensland with those valves inoperative, and a little while later it was the centre of an oil spill in the centre of Sydney. Other problems are that some ships are sailing the waters of the world with no radio, no distress flares and inoperative lifeboats. In one celebrated case, a ship was sailing along with a main engine that would not operate in reverse. Heaven knows what they would have done if they had encountered the Great Barrier Reef. Their only option would have been to crash into it.In closing, I would like to mention the value of the coal export industry alone to Queensland. The value of exports of coal from Queensland in 1998-99 was $5.39 billion. The amount of employment created in Queensland through the coal industry was at 30 June last year 6,133 jobs in the open-cut mining industry and 2,428 jobs underground. This is an industry that is totally reliant on being able to export effectively through Queensland ports. We must make adequate preparation for the servicing of those industries. There will certainly one day be a problem in relation to shipping, just as AMSA keeps warning. We must make sure that preparations are made. Just as we are preparing through this legislation for the protection of the Antarctic environment, I think we should be making sure that we are protecting other important parts of the environment as they relate to Australia, not only in an environmental sense but also in an economic sense.21:30:0015078Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The Transport and Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, with its cocktail of schedules relating to discharging of sewage in the Antarctic, industrial relations coverage for Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands employees, adjustments to meeting quorum requirements at the National Capital Authority and upgrading of parliamentary secretaries in the Northern Territory is as broad a range of schedules as you could find in one bill. I want to concentrate on the last of these amendments, relating to the proposal for parliamentary secretaries to become members of the Executive Council in the Northern Territory. The House would be well aware of my position in regard to parliamentary secretaries in this place.We recently saw the House pass the Ministers of State and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, which provided for the further extension of political patronage to the parliamentary secretary system in this parliament. There was not a dissenting voice, except mine, in the House as the parliament converted the strongly arguable, unconstitutional position of parliamentary secretary into a de facto junior minister. The main problem is these junior ministers, complete with their extra payments, are not answerable to the parliament. They cannot be questioned by backbenchers on their duties—so much for their accountability. Not only does this office further separate the executive from the parliament, it increases the degree to which backbenchers on both sides are beholden to their seniors, living in hope of an executive position—albeit junior—that ensures their solidarity and meek acceptance of the party line, whatever they might privately wish to say on matters of conscience. And such matters are about us in spades in recent days.And so to the Northern Territory. We cannot take the moral step of moving against mandatory sentencing, but we can endorse the creation of these parliamentary secretary positions in a parliament that has—wait for it—25 members. So we are attempting to legitimise the appointment of junior ministers who presumably will also not be required to answer any questions without notice from ordinary members in a parliament of just 25. At the moment, there are nine ministers in the Northern Territory, and this bill leaves open the number of parliamentary secretaries to be determined by the Administrator. There are 18 government members, and half of them are ministers. It can be assumed that maybe half of the balance of nine government members stand to be appointed as parliamentary secretaries—a job perhaps for all of them.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—This is their job creation strategy!KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—That is the job creation strategy in the Northern Territory. What an absurd situation—all of these extra junior ministers then able to access higher payment but, importantly, not able to respond to questions from the other side. There will be none from their own side, because they are all executive, by the look of it. This potentially leaves anything up to 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the parliament not answerable to their electorate and constituents but answerable to the executive. A 1993 independent study of the role of parliamentary secretaries concluded this office of ambiguous constitutional parentage could well be seen simply as political reward to friends and allies. There is certainly not much room for same-party enemies in the Northern Territory's parliament. With only 18 members on the government side and nine of them ministers, almost all the remaining government members are in the front line for potential candidature for a junior ministry under this bill. The rationale for appointment of parliamentary secretaries in this junior parliament is allegedly to spread the workload of government. On that argument, on a pro rata basis we should have at least 50 ministers and parliamentary secretaries in this place. We are certainly on the way. It underlines how ridiculous, how self-indulgent, this argument is.This is about patronage and political reward. It diminishes representative government and further concentrates executive power in a parliament and administration that is largely funded by the Commonwealth. At a time when we should be amending the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act to strike out mandatory sentencing of juveniles and children, at least, and re-establishing the integrity and independence of the judiciary, we are amending the very same Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act here tonight to provide more rewards for the political elite. What a set of priorities—looking after the financial and political interests of a select few, looking after human greed, while human rights and justice go begging.According to the Northern Territory government's home page, at the moment the Northern Territory has one parliamentary secretary, but he is not a member of the Northern Territory Executive Council and thus is unconstitutional, illegitimate—as were this parliament's parliamentary secretaries until they were elevated to the ministry without any opposition, except from here. We are all supposed to pretend that they are really not ministers. Like those parliamentary secretaries who have masqueraded as junior ministers in this place over the years, any parliamentary secretary in the Northern Territory legislature at the moment is unconstitutional. Hence the rush to get this bill through. This is the real intent of this schedule. As the minister said, currently parliamentary secretaries in the Northern Territory are not members of the Executive Council. I would say that they are therefore unconstitutional, as they pay loyalty to the executive and not their constituents. That is the key to this, and that is exactly what happens. Anybody who would like to argue otherwise about the constitutionality I am quite willing to debate.Now they are to become members of the Executive Council, and they will inevitably receive remuneration allowances and entitlements. What a rort. If you are on the government side in the tiny Northern Territory parliament and you do not win one of these gigs, you are going to be a very lonely person, having a feed alone in the cafeteria and looking across the room at the seven opposition members while your mates are at an Executive Council meeting. You may have one person on your side who, for whatever reason, has not been able to score one of these jobs. Such is the contempt for proper detail on the so-called need for Northern Territory junior ministers, we had a two-sentence explanation in the minister's introductory speech to this bill and a meaningless explanatory memorandum. There is absolutely no justification for this move to create extra executive positions in a parliament of 25 looking after the interests of just under 200,000. This is a territory whose budget is largely met by Australian taxpayers outside the territory, a budget currently enjoying almost $1.4 billion support from Canberra—more than Tasmania, which has just under half a million residents. In the case of the ACT, there are 17 members for 300,000 residents, there is $679 million from the Commonwealth and there are no parliamentary secretaries, probably because there are a few Independents to make sure it does not happen.This legislation is all about legitimising and expanding these junior members of the executive, closing them off from questioning by backbenchers—those who are left and who have not been rewarded, that is. It is so outrageous that even the opposition in this place, which was all too quick and happy to support the upgrading of the parliamentary secretaries in this parliament, has decided this time it is just too much, too blatant and totally inappropriate at a time when the nation's attention is focused on far more serious business in the Northern Territory.In the climate of the most passionate public debate on abuses of basic human rights in the Territory, the Howard government, with breathtaking lack of sensitivity, finds time in this parliament to legitimise political patronage. While it will not let the people's house even debate overturning the Northern Territory's mandatory sentencing laws, it has no problem opening the door to more lurks and perks for an already overgoverned territory. The majority of Australians oppose mandatory sentencing and almost 50 per cent support the Commonwealth overthrowing these unjust, inhumane and discriminatory laws—laws that are a blight on our country's oft proclaimed but often so shallow belief in a fair go.I totally reject this schedule of the bill. I only support those opposition amendments so far as they relate to schedule 5. Unless the government excises schedule 5 from the legislation, I really have no option but to oppose the bill in total.21:39:0015080Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I want to thank the previous speaker for his contribution and say that I agree with much of what he said. I have to admit an interest in that for a period of six years I was a parliamentary secretary of this parliament but, I might add, without the pay.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—You earned every cent you were paid.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Every cent of what I got, which was nothing. So, whilst I can accept the merits of his arguments in relation to schedule 5 of the bill before us, I am afraid that I do not concur with some of his more general comments about the role of parliamentary secretaries. While it is not my intention to go into an advocacy of those positions at this time, I do want to make a point about the Northern Territory which was made by both the member for Batman and my friend. It is worth while pointing out that, when this matter was raised in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 2 March this year, the Chief Minister was asked:This Country Liberal Party government has asked their mates in Canberra to amend the Territory's Self-Government Act to provide for unlimited parliamentary secretaries. Each secretary will, of course, be entitled to a substantial pay rise. We already have 9 well paid ministers to oversee the affairs of just under 200 000 Territorians. There are far more urgent priorities in the Territory, calling for government funding, than a pay rise for politicians. Is this the Chief Minister's way of delivering a pay rise to his entire backbench?The response from the Chief Minister, who I have just observed parading his skills on Four Corners, was:Mr Speaker, I have never, since I've been Chief Minister, written to the federal government with regard to the appointment of parliamentary secretaries. That avenue is available to me. There is one parliamentary secretary, Mr Steve Hatton—and I will comment on Mr Hatton in a moment—assisting the Chief Minister on statehood. That position carries no—and I would emphasise—no remuneration, and no benefits.The title that's been given to him simply is to ensure that everyone is aware that he is assisting me directly on this most important issue.So in terms of the nature of the question, I know not from where it comes.From that you would take it, I am sure, as I do, that there has been no communication between the Northern Territory government and the federal government about this question. I find that very difficult to understand, as I am sure you do. I know of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister. He was a previous Chief Minister. He is perhaps the only Chief Minister, certainly in my experience, who has not waged a racist election campaign in the Northern Territory. Whilst I do not agree with him on many issues and we are poles apart on most, I have to say that I do respect him for the way in which he carried himself in the context of the election campaigns that he was participating in as the then Chief Minister.I cannot say the same thing, however, for the current Chief Minister, his boss, who we saw tonight on television parading his skills. His skills certainly left me wondering whence he came. It is very clear from his performance tonight on national television that he is basically a man bereft of integrity and a man bereft of any compassion or understanding. In response to a question from the ABC about the issue of mandatory sentencing, `If you were to be proven to be in breach of the international conventions in relation to this matter, would you change your position?' he said no. I think that says it all about the Northern Territory's Chief Minister.He has either lied directly to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly or we have got an unannounced gift from the federal parliament by way of a fiat to the Northern Territory government in relation to parliamentary secretaries. I have a piece of correspondence which I would like to share with the House. It is a letter to the Hon. John Howard from Clare Martin MLA, Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory. Because I am sure I will not be given leave to table the document, I will read it into Hansard. It states:Dear Prime Minister, I am writing to you in relation to the Transport and Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 introduced into the House of Representatives on 8 December 1999 which would if passed, provide for paid Parliamentary Secretaries positions to be created in the Northern Territory. There is no justification for the creation of paid Parliamentary Secretaries in the Northern Territory. There are currently 9 Cabinet Ministers in a Parliament of 25 members, representing just under 200,000 constituents. The capacity to create paid Parliamentary Secretaries for the Northern Territory is not worthy of support. Further pay rises for Territory Politicians simply cannot be justified. I have also written to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator the Hon. Ian McDonald in these terms. Yours sincerely Clare Martin MLALeader of the Opposition That letter was written on 6 March. We are currently at 3 April and, as of today, there had been no response to the correspondence to the minister, Senator Macdonald, although advice had been received from Mr Howard when he acknowledged receipt of his correspondence that Senator Macdonald would reply. He has not. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—He doesn't even answer questions in the Senate. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—He is not known for his integrity, but I might just say a number of things. Where does this leave us? We have a Chief Minister who claims to have no knowledge of this proposal about parliamentary secretaries being put forward in the parliament. We have a Prime Minister who acknowledged receipt of correspondence and passed it over to the minister to respond to, and the minister has not responded to date. We have a piece of legislation before us which proposes to give an open-ended cheque to the Northern Territory government to appoint as many parliamentary secretaries as they please.My friend has just outlined in a very considered way what that means in the context of the Northern Territory. We have currently 18 government members, nine of whom are ministers, one of whom is the Speaker and one of whom is the whip. That leaves seven members, one of whom is a parliamentary secretary unpaid. That leaves six. What are they proposing?2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—Do you want to go back to an Administrator?LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—They have one of them, too.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—For the purposes of the member—10000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I ask members to address their remarks through the chair. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Through the chair, for your edification, they have an Administrator. For your edification, this parliament, as a result of the 1978 self-government act, has the ability to override each and every piece of legislation of the Northern Territory. Until you understand what the regime is here, don't offer an opinion.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—Do you want to get rid of self-government?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Parliamentary Secretary, I don't want to get rid of the government. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Warn him!IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Yes, get into him. This is one of a piece. It is the way in which this parliament is being treated with contempt by the government. It is a very small thing in the general scheme of things but a very big thing when you are looking at the way in which they are delivering largesse to their parliamentary colleagues in the Northern Territory.I want to say very clearly that I endorse wholeheartedly the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I reject absolutely the notion that we should provide an open-ended commitment to the Northern Territory government for them to appoint as many parliamentary secretaries as they please.It is worth while elaborating just for a moment. Under this proposal, a new section 34A would be inserted which would allow the number of parliamentary secretaries and their respective responsibilities to be determined from time to time by the Administrator. If there were a need for these parliamentary secretaries, it would be a debate which would be argued in the public domain in the Northern Territory. What we saw when the matter was raised in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was feigned ignorance by the Northern Territory Chief Minister. There has been no debate about this in the public domain in the Northern Territory, apart from the rejection by the Chief Minister: this was not a proposition he was considering. If he is not prepared to acknowledge it and advocate it in the Northern Territory context, why should we do it here? So I say to members of the government: do not be blinded by the way you are being misled by the Prime Minister and his ministers. This is just another example of how that is so.The other matter I want to deal with is that part of the bill which seeks to amend the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955. As has already been said by the member for Batman, we will oppose these proposals and we will seek to have them excised from the legislation. It is worth while contemplating just for a moment the historical facts, and I am aware of them because I was the parliamentary secretary responsible for territories at the time. I want to put this in another context and go to the point that this is not something which is accepted by the people of Christmas Island or the people of the Cocos Islands. There has been no appropriate process of consultation or deliberation about these proposals by those communities. When I have been in a position to discuss these proposals with people in the communities—and I was there reasonably recently—they have said that they oppose them outright and that they want to stick to the agreement which was made in 1994 between the then federal Minister for Industrial Relations, the Western Australian government and the ACTU which applied to the then industrial relations act 1988. It is worth noting, perhaps in the true course of the way in which this government deals with many issues, that there has been no consultation over this issue with the Union of Christmas Island Workers, the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union in Perth or employers on the island.These amendments would potentially allow all island employees to move to the Western Australian industrial relations system so that all private sector workers would be brought under Western Australian law, in this case well beyond the original agreement of 1994. The employees of the island administration are Commonwealth employees. The amendments would result in two industrial jurisdictions on the island and there is absolutely no need for that at all. In fact, I would argue, and I have argued here before, that what we should be doing is transferring more responsibility into the hands of the residents of Christmas and Cocos islands, citizens of Australia, to make their own decisions, but we are far away from that. The government has moved to reimpose its order over the communities, and this is just another example of the way in which they are being dealt with. It is our view, and it is certainly my view, that in developing our relationship with these territories we should accept that they need to be able to make decisions themselves and that we should be moving along a path which provides for them the capacity to determine which laws of Western Australia apply and how they apply after consultation with the Western Australian legislature and with the Commonwealth minister. The point is that the people of Christmas and Cocos islands have no voice in the Western Australian parliament. Their only voice is through this parliament. They have not chosen to be nor do they want to be part of the Western Australian legislative system. They do not want to be part of the Western Australian political system. They are happy the way they are. In fact, what they want, and they have argued this consistently, is more autonomy. What we need to do is move towards giving them that autonomy, to move to a position in which the people of the Christmas and Cocos islands can feel confident that when they are dealing with the federal government they are dealing with someone who will actually take notice of what they say. Currently we have an administrative structure—there is an Administrator responsible for both Christmas and Cocos islands. That Administrator is responsible directly to the minister. There is no compulsion on the Administrator or indeed the minister to negotiate over issues to do with the community. There is no compulsion upon the Administrator or those he works with to seek a consensus over what should happen on those islands in terms of the legal regime. There is no compulsion on the government to see how these communities would like to advance themselves. I argue that we should be moving towards the establishment of an Indian Ocean territories authority. This authority would have the responsibility for making decisions over budget issues relating to the territories but would not override the independence of the shire councils of either Christmas or Cocos islands. Rather, the authority would have a coordinating responsibility and take a major role in promoting development and capitalising on economic opportunities in the region through a regional development board. This authority would become the minister's chief adviser on issues to do with the territories, and the current staff who are employed by the territories office, apart from the small cell to advise on policy issues, would be transferred to the territories authority and that staff with their budgets would move across so that there would be an administrative structure with which the territories authority could work. What this would do is provide the capacity for the territories' citizens to assume far greater responsibility for decisions that affect their lives without the heavy-handed interference of a remote state or territory government, which is currently the case. Whilst there have been investigations into this issue by the Commonwealth, they have not released their reports or their responses to reports which have been developed. We have yet to see what the government's view about the future vision for the Indian Ocean territories is, but we know by their past practice what it is likely to be. I have to say—and perhaps I have a jaundiced view about this government—that I hold no great confidence that they will advance the interests as they are perceived by the Indian Ocean territories' citizens in the way those citizens would like them advanced. We know from past experience—and this bill just demonstrates yet again what is likely to happen—that they will not be consulted. They will not have a role in decision making. Their views will not be properly accommodated. If this government are fair dinkum about advancing the interests of these territories, they will not impose on them by fiat, as they have done in this instance, their view and perhaps the view of their colleagues in Western Australia. What they will do is consult with the people of those communities and make laws which reflect their priorities, not the government's priorities. I see the member opposite arguing about self-govern-ment in the Northern Territory. How about a measure of self-government for the people of Christmas and Cocos islands? It is about time. 21:58:0015084Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Two weeks ago the member for Parramatta sparked a debate about regional Australia. He made the valid point that hyperbole and melodrama will not solve the problems of depressed suburbs and country towns. In fact, it is a disservice to regional Australia to assess its problems through hysteria rather than factual analysis. It is a disservice to regional Australia to create a culture of complaint instead of a culture of solutions. It is a disservice to regional Australia to engage in crude pork-barrelling when more serious and sophisticated solutions are needed. I wish to use this Transport and Territories Legislation Amendment Bill to make this point with regard to the Darwin to Alice Springs railway. I acknowledge that there are several passionate advocates of this project in the House. It is quite a shame, however, that their passion and commitment to the project has not been matched by the rigour of this government in applying feasibility studies. This project has not received proper scrutiny. It has not passed an adequate cost benefit analysis. In fact, it reflects one of the complaints of the member for Parramatta, that this government has a Field of Dreams approach to regional development: it believes that it can build it and they will come.I take my lead from former finance minister and senator Peter Walsh. He wrote in the Australian Financial Review in March 1998:The money is to come from the $1 billion Federation Fund ... and $100 million has been allocated for the Darwin-Alice Springs railway.Since that is unlikely to be enough, another $100 million transfusion or two will be demanded and probably paid ... Little of this money will generate additional income or ongoing employment.As it is, Walsh's prediction came true. Another transfusion of federal money was announced by the Prime Minister in October last year. The Commonwealth is now spending $165 million, the South Australian government, $150 million and the Northern Territory, $165 million—a total public outlay of $480 million, near enough to half a billion dollars. One would normally expect for the government to spend this amount of money only on the basis of a positive cost-benefit outcome. The feasibility of this project however has been based on electoral margins, not financial margins.I first asked questions on this matter of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services in November last year. I followed up with a question on the Notice Paper on 17 February—the answer to which I received earlier today. This answer is a damning commentary on the competence of this government and its shoddy approach to regional development.The first questions I asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services were as follows: on which study is the government relying to justify its $165 million investment? What cost-benefit outcomes were forecast in this study? Listen to the minister's reply—a minister of the Crown spending $165 million of taxpayers' funds: The Commonwealth's decision to contribute funds to the project was not based on any one particular feasibility study, but on the significant benefits that the rail link will provide to the Northern Territory, South Australia and the entire nation.It is a justification by assertion, not by fact and not by a feasibility study. The minister can point to no feasibility study that this government is using to justify the use of $165 million of federal funds, nearly half a billion dollars, of taxpayer funding overall.My next question related to his assertion that 7000 jobs could be expected. I asked: would these be generated in the construction phase or would they be generated on an ongoing basis? Listen to the minister's reply—a minister of the Crown spending $165 million of taxpayers' funds: The Commonwealth has not conducted a detailed analysis of the likely breakdown of the employment that will be generated by the rail link. The AustralAsia Railway Corporation in its 1998-99 annual report forecast that the project will increase national employment by 7,100 jobs in 2001-02.There has been no independent study and no independent feasibility assessment. He is relying on the annual report of one of the agencies involved to justify nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayers' expenditure. This is policy making by ignorance, not policy making by information. It justifies the complaint of the member for Parramatta that this government has a knee-jerk, short-sighted electorally driven attitude to regional Australia that will not deliver results in any part of the country.I then went on to ask a further question of the minister: what estimates does the government have for the potential of the project to improve Australia's export opportunities? I get used to the National Party rambling on in this place about export growth and what it claims to have done for the export sector. Listen to what its leader had to say on this question of export potential arising from a $165 million public investment: The Commonwealth has not conducted in-depth forecasting of the export opportunities that will be created by the project. However, it is expected that the rail link will facilitate the growth of export based industries.' Again, it is policy making by ignorance, not policy making by information. It is policy making by assertion, instead of policy making by a detailed feasibility study and analysis.My final question to the minister was as follows: is it a fact that if the project has a $480 million public investment in it, then the average public cost per job is $69,000? If so, how does the average cost compare with alternative job generating projects in regional Australia, including through improved public investment and education? The minister's response again points to his ignorance and his lack of research: While a large number of jobs will be created during the construction and operation of the railway, it is not appropriate to compare the cost of each job associated with the railway with that of other projects. And get this one: This is because the railway is not primarily a job generating project. That is what the minister for regional development has had to say about the much touted Darwin to Alice Springs rail line: `This project is not primarily a job generating project.' We had the Prime Minister calling it the `steel Snowy'. The minister has revealed it to be the steel shonk. It is not a job generating project. He has pulled the rug from under the Prime Minister, just as the member for Parramatta pulled the rug from under him. This is a government in chaos on the question of regional development and a sensible policy approach. I repeat, `The railway is not primarily a job generating project.' It leaves all those taxpayers funding the half billion dollar investment asking, `What is it for? If it is not for job generation, if it is not for export development—because there has been no feasibility study into that—what is it for?' Why is the government spending this huge amount of public money on a project without clear objectives, clear goals and stated cost benefit for the country?It really is absolutely amazing that the government conducts regional development policy on this basis. My question about alternative projects of course related to the fact that, in my electorate in south-west Sydney, there is a big transport and capital works project that has passed not one but two environmental impact statements and has been subject to not one, two or three but four cost-benefit studies and feasibility assessments of its employment potential. It is the second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek. The research over a decade or more has shown that that project can generate more than 30,000 jobs over the next 20 years in a region starved of employment. Yet since 1996 this government has not spent a single dollar and has not made even a single decision about the progress at Badgerys Creek airport.It is absolutely amazing: with no research, no studies, no feasibility, no export work and not even a job generating project for the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, the government spends $165 million of its own funds as part of an investment of half a billion dollars of public money, yet when it comes to Badgerys Creek which would create 30,000 jobs over a 20-year period—it has jumped through numerous hoops and passed numerous tests and studies—the government cannot even make a decision. The Australian taxpayers deserve better than this when it comes to regional development. As I mentioned earlier, the government members have created a culture of complaint about regional Australia. They are not coming up with a culture of solutions based on sensible studies and projects that have a cost benefit for the country.This answer from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services represents a perversion of process. It confirms everything the member for Parramatta has been saying about this government: it has no policy framework, it has no clear vision, it has no sophisticated analysis and it has no decent policies for regional Australia. Of course I would anticipate the member for Kennedy and maybe a few others standing up and saying, `There goes the member for Werriwa again being economically rational.' Well, too right, I am being economically rational. I will tell you this: the alternative is economic irrationalism. What has that produced on the Darwin to Alice Springs rail line? It is policy making by spin the bottle and see where it might turn; it is policy making by speculation; it is policy making by assertion and ignorance instead of dealing sensibly with the facts.We have enough white elephants in capital works and transport in this country. One international air terminal was built that now has the grand total of two international flights a week. That was built for electoral reasons in one of the nation's cities. We have had too much of these electoral margins driving policy instead of financial margins. We have had too many white elephants built in this country. There may well be good reasons for this rail line to be built, but at least the parliament and in particular the executive government should have had the decency to do the appropriate studies and to run it through the appropriate feasibility work before this massive public investment was made. It is incredible that the minister has now declared the railway is not primarily a job generating project. For all those unemployed people in Western Sydney who want the job generating project of the second Sydney airport—the decision this government dare not make— they will be asking, `Why can't we have some of the public money to get moving with a project that has long been on the drawing books and has long passed the appropriate studies and research?' I join with the member for Parramatta in condemning this government's approach to regional development. I hope he is going to add this shameful episode of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway to his armoury, I hope he is going to add it to his research bank of shoddy decision making and I hope he continues with his campaign to stand up for better policy making for the regions of this nation. 22:10:0015087Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I want to thank everybody for their participation this evening in the debate on the Transport and Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. In wrapping up the debate for the second reading I will make a few comments on some of the schedules and outline again, for the benefit of the House, the benefits of each of the schedules to the people of Australia and also repudiate some of the remarks by those opposite. Schedule 1 amends the commencement provision of the Transport and Communications Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1992 to overcome a technical difficulty that prevents proclamation being made for the commencement of amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. Those amendments relate to the discharge of sewage and disposal of garbage from ships in the Antarctic area, and they are supported by the opposition.Schedules 2 and 3 of the bill will make almost identical amendments to the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955. The amendments will remove the reference to a court of Western Australia which has been abolished, make changes in relation to industrial disputes and repeal obsolete provisions relating to the removal and the return to the territories of accused persons and prisoners. Those opposite have said that this is somewhat of a witch-hunt by the government and their industrial relations push. There was a clear misunderstanding by those opposite which was demonstrated by the member for Northern Territory when he stated in the debate that this piece of legislation would involve all the workers of the Christmas and Cocos islands. This is simply untrue. I believe that is a politically motivated point. They often refer to the unions over there which are very strong—and so they should be; there is no problem with that whatsoever. This does not impact on those several hundred workers. This relates to no more than 10 per cent of the work force—those members of the work force in the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island who are actually Western Australian based employees and, hence, more often than not working for the state government. The opposition does not seem to support these changes which are intended to align workplace relations arrangements in the Indian Ocean territories for employers based in Western Australia with workplace relations arrangements on mainland Australia—or mainland Western Australia particularly. The opposition opposes these changes because they are different from what the ACTU supported during the term of the last ALP government and the Union of Christmas Island Workers was not consulted. The amendments will not affect the workers of the Christmas Island union; the amendments will affect only those people in the territories who are Western Australian based employers and their employees. Western Australian based employers and their employees should have the same choices between federal and state workplace relations coverage as they do on the mainland. That is what these schedules will do. We consider that this should apply in the private sector as well as in the public sector. Consistent with coalition policy, external territory residents should have the same choice, the same rights and the same obligations as Australians on the mainland. The ALP and those opposite clearly have another view.Schedule 4 amends the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 to remove the requirement for the full-time member of the National Capital Authority, normally the chief executive, to be present at meetings for there to be a quorum when the full-time member has disclosed a pecuniary interest. This schedule is of a minor nature and will be agreed to by those opposite. The final schedule, schedule 5, amends the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to provide for a mechanism whereby the Administrator of the Northern Territory may appoint parliamentary secretaries. This schedule came in for some criticism from the member for Calare as well as from those opposite. Let us make it clear that this bill does not make provision for remuneration for any parliamentary secretary that may be appointed under this legislation. That goes to the authority of the remuneration tribunal of the Northern Territory and for that government to decide. There is only one parliamentary secretary in the Northern Territory, and that is a parliamentary secretary to the cabinet, I believe. I find it ironic that a former President of the ACTU, who is always championing the rights of workers to be fully remunerated, would on this occasion decide that this particular worker should work unpaid. I think that is hypocrisy at its best, and I am sure that, if he were a member of the union, he would have a different point of view.I also make the very salient point that the ALP member for the Northern Territory and the member for Batman are very much opposed to anything positive in the Northern Territory government because this is a CLP—Country Liberal Party—government and has now held power there continuously since its formation. There is very little likelihood that the numbers of the measly six or seven members—or whatever it is now—of the ALP opposition will ever be extended whilst they maintain the sorts of policies they have in the Northern Territory. It is simply sour grapes on the part of those opposite that they have not been able to be on the government benches since 1978 when self-government was proclaimed. It is okay to support parliamentary legislation for the Commonwealth. That was done unconditionally here, as the member for Calare said, by those opposite. But the ALP again becomes paternal in regard to the Northern Territory. There is no provision for any additional money for parliamentary secretaries. That is a mechanism, as I said earlier, for the self-governing territory, a decision for them, not for Canberra. It is up to the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory remuneration tribunal. It is simply misrepresentation by those opposite, mischief making of the facts, to represent it in the way that they have—a typical approach for those opposite. I again thank all the members who have participated in tonight's debate and I commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the bill be now read a second time.22:21:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 74Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A.*Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.64Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.*Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.*Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Wilton, G.S.Zahra, C.J.Hawker, D.P.M.Swan, W.M.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Kemp, D.A.Crean, S.F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.15089Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.22:25:0015089Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 2, page 4 (line 1) to page 6 (line 28), omit the Schedule.(2) Schedule 3, page 7 (line 1) to page 9 (line 23), omit the Schedule.(3) Schedule 5, page 11 (line 1) to page 12 (line 27), omit the Schedule.I would indicate that we have gone into an extensive debate about the matters before the House. We have indicated our concerns specifically with respect to the issues going to the question of industrial relations as they apply with respect to the Christmas and Cocos islands. I say in response to the remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business that these issues go not to the question of WA employees but specifically to the issue of private sector employees and the endeavour by the government to extend the definition of employees so as to ensure that they are, to a large extent, prevented from seeking appropriate coverage under the Industrial Relations Act of the Commonwealth.I now want to deal specifically in detail with the question of the Northern Territory and the issue relating to the question of parliamentary secretaries. The parliamentary secretary responsible for this bill sought to suggest to the House that it is not the intention to establish a new set of remuneration conditions of employment for persons appointed to these positions. In response to that, I go to the replacement explanatory memorandum to the Transport and Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. I quote from the outline of that bill as follows:The intent is to amend the Northern Territory Self-Government Act 1978 to provide for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries and for them to be members of the Northern Territory Executive Council and receive remuneration for their services.Contrary to what the government would have the House believe, it is very clearly the intent of the Howard government, in cahoots with the Northern Territory CLP government, to not only establish the new position of parliamentary secretary but, more importantly, then proceed as a matter of urgency to ensure that, in association with establishing that position, an appropriate set of conditions of employment specific to remuneration for those services is established by the tribunals. I therefore challenge the parliamentary secretary to give an undertaking to this House that it is not the intention of the Northern Territory government, with the establishment of the position of parliamentary secretary, to actually proceed to have an appropriate set of wages and conditions established for that position. That is the impression he has sought to create in the House in response to the debate earlier this evening.I would suggest that the time has come for the parliamentary secretary, in an honest way, to put up or shut up. It is clearly the intention of the Northern Territory government in establishing the position of parliamentary secretary to also then proceed to establish a new rate of pay with respect to these positions. That is exceptionally important because we are talking about the most overgoverned constituency in the Commonwealth. I refer to the fact that in the Northern Territory House of Assembly there are 25 members of parliament. Each constituency has an electorate of about 3,200 and, of those 25, 18 are members of the government, nine of whom are cabinet ministers. We then take out a Speaker, a Whip and associated positions and we are down to the one or two final people who do not have a title in the Northern Territory parliament. That, therefore, leaves open under the bill and the schedule before the House the establishment of an open-ended number of parliamentary secretaries. Having established an open-ended number of parliamentary secretaries because it is not limited, it is then an entitlement of the Northern Territory government to actually proceed to allocate additional remuneration to their mates. I object to the time of the House this evening being wasted on such a proposition when it would have been more appropriate for us to consider the failure of the Northern Territory government to actually come to terms with how you overcome some of the difficulties with respect to sentencing young people in the Northern Territory.Consideration interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—What we have here before the House this evening is an endeavour by this government to yet again reward mates. Despite the fact that time and time again it is telling rural and regional Australia at the moment that it does not have sufficient resources to ensure that there are adequate services provided in rural and regional Australia, we have a behind the door, under the lap, tacit agreement between the Howard government and the Northern Territory government to create additional positions to use scarce resources that could, for example, be better allocated to try to improve Aboriginal education, health and employment in the Northern Territory rather than trying to create new positions, a number of which are open-ended, to which resources will then be added for the purposes of paying off mates in the form of higher remuneration for their appointment as parliamentary secretaries. I consider that the House this evening ought to be debating more fundamental issues. (Time expired) Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.15090Bill (on motion by Mr Brough)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous1509015090Message received from the Senate requesting the House to consider immediately the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999.Bills15090The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill 1999Adjournment15090Motion (by Mr Brough) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I move that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call. I had in fact recognised the parliamentary secretary. The question is that the House do now adjourn. I call the honourable member for Makin.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Makin will resume her seat. I did in fact recognise the parliamentary secretary. He proposed that the House do now adjourn. I put the question that the House do now adjourn. The member for Makin was first to her feet and has the call.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am only interrupting the Leader of the Opposition to enable him to be heard, not to interrupt him. But I point out to him that I thought he had risen on another matter, and for that reason when I put the question that the House do now adjourn I recognised the member for Makin. The Leader of the Opposition now has the call.22:30:0015091Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—No, I have not. My ruling is consistent, and the Leader of the Opposition has moved dissent from it, as is his right.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—So you have not actually called on the adjournment?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—For the sake of clarification—I do not know that this is entirely within the standing orders—I recognised the parliamentary secretary, who moved that the House do now adjourn. The question before the House at this point in time is that the House do now adjourn. At that point I recognised the member for Makin because I believed the Leader of the Opposition was discussing another matter that I had not recognised. He has now moved dissent from my ruling—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Absolutely.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—and that is the question before the House.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—That is fine, Mr Speaker. I will move dissent from your ruling.WI4Reith, Peter, MPPE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—It is a dissent motion, old son.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, my point of order is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition—namely, a dissent from your ruling—is unable to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition for the simple reason that you have not ruled.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Hear me out. My submission to you, Mr Speaker, is very simple and that is that it is not a ruling of the Speaker for the Speaker to call one side or the other. Mr Speaker, it is simply the practice of the House that you will call the person that you believe is seeking the call.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has the call and will be heard in silence.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, it is not a ruling—which can, therefore, be the subject of a motion of dissent—for you to call somebody from this side. In fact, what the Leader of the Opposition is really attempting to do is to—7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect! The Leader of the House has the call.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—The objection that the opposition have is to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was not called. That is not a ruling on your part. The standing orders on this are quite clear. Standing order 61 states:When two or more Members rise together to speak the Speaker shall call upon the Member who, in the Speaker's opinion, first rose in his or her place; but it shall be in order to move that any Member who has risen “be now heard” or “do now speak” and the question shall be put forthwith and determined without amendment or debate.So, Mr Speaker, it is simply a discretion for you to exercise. The reason that there was uncertainty—if I may say so, quite understandably—in your mind as to the intent of the Leader of the Opposition is that, his having put a proposition and your then having made it clear that you had given the call to the parliamentary secretary, the Leader of the Opposition remained at the dispatch box, and you were entitled to believe that he was remaining there for another purpose. On that basis, there cannot be a motion of dissent. You cannot receive it. The only motion, therefore, validly before the chair is the motion that the House do now adjourn.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will, of course, recognise the Leader of the Opposition. I was waiting for the House to come to order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—You will recollect, Mr Speaker, that I asked you directly whether or not you had called on the adjournment or recognised the adjournment motion moved by the parliamentary secretary. You responded to me that you had, and I therefore moved dissent from your ruling. That was validly before you. It is longstanding custom in this place that when you have reported a matter to the House you respond to the person on their feet, and I was on my feet at this dispatch box.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition has—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am dissenting from the ruling, aren't I? I was on my feet at the dispatch box to seek your attention in order to discuss with you the matters on which you had reported. I was on my feet at the very moment you concluded those matters. Therefore, courtesy would have demanded that the call went to me at that point. When I asked you whether or not you had accepted the motion from the parliamentary secretary and you said you had, I moved dissent from your ruling that you accepted that motion. That is a deliberation that you have made; therefore it is a ruling that is quite capable of being dissented from. I am in the process of doing that, and the Leader of the House's intervention in that is entirely inappropriate.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat, I presume, to allow me to reflect. There has been, as I hope all members would concur, a genuine effort from the chair to recognise people as appropriate. What I had overlooked, and this has been brought to my attention by the Leader of the House, was standing order 61. It is not possible for me to make a ruling in this instance but merely to give an opinion as to who was first on their feet. In this case, for reasons that the Leader of the Opposition understands, because I believed the matter he was addressing was not the question of the adjournment, I deemed that the member for Makin was on her feet and so ruled. Should the Leader of the Opposition wish to be heard at this stage, as he is aware, standing order 61 provides him with the opportunity to so move. But it is not in fact a case of moving dissent from my ruling, because I have in fact given an opinion about who was on their feet, not a ruling.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, I was not moving dissent from the ruling of the member being on her feet; I was moving dissent from the ruling that you had made on the matter of calling the adjournment and that you had inappropriately called at that point. So I am moving dissent from that ruling, that ruling which I asked you whether or not you had made.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind a number of people in the chamber that the vast majority of them are not in fact in their normal seats, so the opportunity for them to participate in any way in the debate is somewhat restricted.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—On page 280 of House of Representatives Practice under the subheading `Motion moved by a Minister' it states:The motion `That the House do now adjourn' can be moved only by a Minister (or Parliamentary Secretary) and no amendment can be moved to it.Sir, I further draw your attention to a precedent cited on page 208 of the House of Representatives Practice:... a member, during the adjournment debate, questioned the way in which Speaker Cameron had called Members during Question Time. The Speaker in reply said that the Member `will come to my office in due course, examine the figures, and next week he will state the correct position'.In fact, anybody that goes on reading that will find that Speaker Cameron refused to give the call to that member for some lengthy period, and that of course is the precedent that has always been available to the Speaker in giving anybody the call. The Leader of the Opposition, whether he was standing on his feet or his head, only gets the call, Sir, if you choose to give it to him, and on this occasion you did not. That is not a ruling; that is, in fact, a discretion available to the chair. There are, therefore, no grounds on both cases for there to be any dissent ruling.Opposition members interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Don't talk stupid.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, I am now dissenting from the ruling that you made in relation to the point of order that was raised by the Leader of the House.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the question be now put.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—It is not possible for the chair to accommodate a dissent motion at this stage, as standing order 61 clearly points out. It is inappropriate to enter into any debate.Question put.22:49:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 74Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S.*McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.66Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.*Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.*Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Wilton, G.S.Zahra, C.J.Kemp, D.A.Crean, S.F.Hawker, D.P.M.Swan, W.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative. 22:53:0015094House adjourned at 10.53 p.m.Notices15094The following notice was given:Mr Martin Ferguson to move:That the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 9), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 333, and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed.Answers to Questions in Writing15095The following answers to questions were circulated:15095(Question No. 1014)101415095Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards 83RCowanALP00asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:(1) Is he able to say whether the former Government of South Vietnam intended to present awards to some 21 Officers and Other Ranks of the 1st Australian Task Force in Vietnam following the battle of Long Tan, and that confirmation of this is available from Charles Tran Van Lam, former President of the Senate, Ambassador to Australia and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Vietnam.(2) Is he able to say whether the then South Vietnamese Government had intended to present all soldiers and officers of D Coy, 6RAR, a unit citation in addition to awards to individual soldiers, but the presentation of the awards was prevented by the then Australian Government through the Ambassador to South Vietnam on the basis that Her Majesty, the Queen, had not given consent.(3) Is he able to confirm that the Australian Government of the day gave a commitment that it would seek approval for these awards and allow them to be presented at a later date.(4) Was the President of the then South Vietnam forced to substitute Vietnamese dolls and cigar boxes as presentations to these diggers in lieu of medals.(5) Is it appropriate for these veterans to wear those trinkets in lieu of proper decorations on occasions such as Vietnam Veterans' Day or Anzac Day; if not, will he review the evidence from Mr Tran Van Lam and grant the retrospective approval for the correct awards.(6) Why was this matter not dealt with under the review of the Vietnam End of War List completed earlier in 1999.(7) Is he satisfied that the decorations presented to Australian Servicemen under the previous Imperial system of awards following the battle of Long Tan were the appropriate level of award; if so, on what basis does he make that assessment.15095Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) This Issue was addressed by the Independent Review Panel on the End of War List-Vietnam. The Government of the Republic of Vietnam did intend to make awards to Australians involved in the Battle of Long Tan. Mr Tran Van Lam's views on this matter were made available to the Independent Review Panel.(2) No.(3) No.(4) No.(5) Veterans may display any form of awards recognising their service in any way they see appropriate, providing that if in government uniform, or in an official capacity representing the Government, it is accordance with relevant Instructions and protocols.(6) The matter has been dealt with by the Independent Review Panel of the End of War List - Vietnam on page 33 of their report.(7) Yes. Military commanders at each level in the field during Vietnam were well placed to assess the performance of individuals as nominations for awards were processed through the chain-of-command, rather than those physically far removed from the conflict at the time, or others in time some 33 years after the event.15095(Question No. 1047)104715095Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 November 1999:(1) Are members of the Army Reserve who agree to undertake temporary continuous full-time service in Australia, East Timor or elsewhere, eligible to receive assistance under the ADF's Resettlement Scheme; if so, are they entitled to (a) resettlement information and advice, (b) discharge resettlement training, (c) approved absence for job-seeking and associated purposes and (d) financial assistance under the Services Vocational Educational Training Scheme for study in the member's own time.(2) If reservists are ineligible for resettlement assistance, what measures are in place to facilitate their return to civilian life after a period of continuous full-time service.15096Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Members of the Army Reserve who undertake temporary continuous full-time service, be it in Australia, East Timor or elsewhere, transfer to the Permanent Force. Members of the Permanent Force do not have access to all of the Australian Defence Force's (ADF) resettlement assistance if their period of service in the Permanent Force is less than 12 years. Resettlement assistance becomes available to Permanent Force members progressively depending upon the length of service. Reserve Force members who do transfer will have access to resettlement information through unit level Resettlement Officers and ADF Resettlement Seminars.(b) Members of the Reserve Force who transfer to the Permanent Force will not have access to Discharge Resettlement Training.(c) Members of the Reserve Force who transfer to the Permanent Force will not have access to approved absences for job-seeking and associated purposes. (d) Members of the Reserve Force who transfer to the Permanent Force will have access to the Services Vocational and Educational Training Scheme.(2) It is not intended that resettlement assistance measures be developed specifically for Reserve Force members who transfer to the Permanent Force for short periods. These members, like other Permanent Force members who do not have a Reserve Force background, will not have been absent from the civilian environment and workforce for an extended period. Therefore, provision of such assistance is not necessary, as they are able to readily assimilate back into civilian life. To introduce such a specific provision for Reserve Force members would advantage these members ahead of Permanent Force personnel who have rendered similar short periods of service. Like all members, these members will have access to resettlement information through unit level Resettlement Officers and ADF Resettlement Seminars.15096(Question No. 1048)104815096Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 November 1999:(1) Has naltrexone been approved in the USA for drug rehabilitation; if so, when was it approved.(2) Which countries have approved naltrexone for use.15096Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) ReVia, containing the active ingredient naltrexone, was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration, USA, on the 20 November 1984 for the treatment of opioid addiction and on the 30 December 1994 for the treatment of alcohol dependence.ReVia is not approved for ultra rapid opiate detoxification programs in the USA.(2) Australia approved the use of naltrexone for treating opiate addiction and alcohol dependence in January 1999. Twenty-eight other countries have also approved naltrexone for these indications, including the U.S.A., France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Italy, Israel, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Oman, Austria, Pakistan, Brazil, Bahrain, Finland, Canada, Egypt, Colombia, Peru, Kuwait, Taiwan, Argentina, Bolivia, Eire, Hungary, Korea, Lithuania and Thailand.13 countries had registered naltrexone for the treatment of opiate addiction only. These are U.K., Belgium, Germany, Poland, Singapore, Portugal, Switzerland, Malaysia, Greece, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and U.A.E. Of these, Greece, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal and U.A.E. had marketing approvals pending for the treatment of alcohol dependence.13 countries had marketing approvals pending for the treatment of opiate addiction and alcohol addiction. They are Chile, Ecuador, Estonia, Jordan, Latvia, Mexico, Norway, Paraguay, Uruguay, Russia, Slovenia, Sweden, and Venezuela.15097(Question No. 1081)108115097Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 December 1999:(1) Will he provide details of the Government's agreement with the FIA, Australian Grand Prix Corporation and the previous Victorian Coalition Government in regard to the phasing out of tobacco sponsorship of the Formula One and 500cc Motorcycle Grands Prix.(2) Is he able to say whether it is the current practice in the British, French and German Grand Prix races to allow logos only on cars and uniforms of drivers and pit crew and, in the case of the German Formula One Grand Prix, not to allow trackside signage; if so, will the Government implement restricted exemptions from the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act for the Australian Formula One Grand Prix to bring Australia into line with those races.(3) Under policy announced in September 1998 to phase out all tobacco sponsorship of international sporting events held in Australia, will he provide details of the phase out schedule for the Australian Formula One Grand Prix with respect to matters such as trackside signage, brand names on cars and team uniforms and other advertising within the confines of the venue.(4) Has he or his Department received reports on, or complaints of breaches of, the tobacco exemption granted for the 1999 Australian Formula One Grand Prix; if so, (a) will he release this information, (b) what action has been taken and (c) what steps will be taken in 2000 to ensure that the event complies with all conditions of the exemption.15097Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government does not have any formal agreement with the Federation Internationale d'Automobile, the Australian Grand Prix Corporation or the previous Victorian Coalition Government in regard to the phasing out of tobacco sponsorship of the Formula One and Motorcycle Grands Prix. In my media release of 22 September 1998, I stated that my discussions and negotiations with Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosely of the Federation Internationale d'Automobile were very productive and they had given me personal assurances that in view of the manner in which they had been involved in my deliberations and given the adequate lead times to arrange alternative sponsors, that automotive events would not be jeopardised by the phasing out of tobacco advertising.(2) The Government is aware, in general terms, of the conditions set at the British, French and German Grand Prix races. I however, have consistently applied tighter restrictions on the extent of tobacco advertising at all events in Australia which have been granted an exemption than has been done by my predecessors. Further, given Australia's geographic isolation, I do not believe the examples you have given to be particularly relevant.(3) The Government will lay the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act Amendment Bill before the House in the Autumn Parliamentary session. This Bill will ensure that as of 1 October 2006, there will be no tobacco sponsorship or advertising at any sporting or cultural event held in Australia. The Bill will allow for a transitional phase out period between 1 January 2002 and 1 October 2006, which will allow time for event organisers to work towards securing alternative sponsorship prior to the 2006 deadline. As stated in my media release of 22 September 1998, I believe that many events will choose to be totally tobacco free before the expiry of the phase out period. (4) The Australian Grand Prix Corporation's compliance with the conditions imposed on tobacco advertising has been exemplary. Indeed, I have suggested to the organisers of some other events that have received section 18 exemptions that they should consult the Australian Grand Prix Corporation on the steps they have taken to ensure compliance by teams competing at their event. The Government received a number of complaints regarding tobacco advertising in and around Melbourne during the staging of the 1999 Formula One Grand Prix event. The majority of these complaints related to State legislation, rather than the conditions imposed by the Commonwealth. A member of the public contacted the Departmental officer monitoring the event on 5 March 1999 and claimed that health warning signs were not displayed at the entry to and exit from the Formula One exhibition. This complaint was investigated and found to be incorrect; health warning signs were displayed prominently at both the entry to and exit from the exhibition as required by the conditions imposed under the exemption. There was one complaint which was relevant to the terms and conditions imposed on the event.(a) This complaint concerned the display of Winfield caps at one of the retail outlets within the Grand Prix circuit. The caps were displayed on Thursday 4 March 1999 by the proprietor of the particular outlet, despite clear instructions from the Australian Grand Prix Corporation on the application of the exemption.(b) Immediate steps were taken to remedy the error and the caps were removed that day. A Departmental officer visited the Grand Prix site on Friday 5 March 1999 and noted that the caps were not on display. The Department advised the complainant that in light of the rapid remedial action, it was unlikely that any further action would be taken.(c)As with previous events, Departmental officers will attend the event to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions imposed on the event. Event organisers have been advised that non-compliance with the terms of the exemption will be taken into account when considering future applications for exemption, and that non-compliance could lead to prosecution.15098(Question No. 1126)112615098Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) What sum did the Government spend on its Y2K compliance program.(2) Which companies or individuals were the major beneficiaries of the expenditure.15098McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts 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) The Commonwealth Government estimated expenditure of $600 million for remediation work on its own systems. Expenditure was within this target, (approximately $530 million).(2) The Office for Government Online (OGO) had prime carriage in coordinating the reporting of compliance of Commonwealth departments and agencies. The following companies were commissioned by OGO to review the processes used in Commonwealth departments and agencies in order for them to meet their reporting requirements, namely:- Acumen Alliance (ACT) Pty Ltd- Admiral IT Services Pty Ltd- Alan Platcher and Associates Management Services- Azimuth- Infrastructure Control Services Group Pty Ltd- Interim Technologies (formerly Computer Power Pty Ltd)OGO is not in a position to provide details of expenditure of individual departments or agencies. Such details are a matter for the relevant department or agency.15098(Question No. 1176)117615098Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 2000:(1) What will be the total cost to the Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) for compliance with the Government's Goods and Services Tax.(2) What sum has been, or will be, spent in each budget year on GST compliance costs by TSRA.(3) From which programs will the cost of this GST compliance be found.(4) Will the Government be providing extra funding to TSRA to cover these GST compliance costs.(5) Has TSRA estimated the cost to TSRA funded Indigenous corporations or other entities for compliance with the GST; if so, what is the total of this compliance cost for such Indigenous corporations and entities, and what is the average cost for each corporation or entity. (6) Has TSRA estimated the cost to non-TSRA funded Indigenous corporations, bodies or entities of compliance with the GST; if so, what are the names of these organisations and what are their individual estimated GST compliance costs.(7) Has TSRA estimated the full impact of the GST, including compliance costs, in its areas of responsibility.15099Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following information to the honourable member's question:(1) I have been advised that the estimated total cost will be around $60,000 for account system modifications, training of relevant staff, clients and suppliers liaison and project management.(2) It is expected that only a nominal sum on stationery and transmission costs would be budgeted each year on GST compliance costs by TSRA once the accounting modification and staff training as mentioned in Response 1 has been completed.(3) GST compliance costs form part of TSRA administrative cost. The administrative cost is an overhead of TSRA which will be distributed to all outputs or programs of the TSRA.(4) No. It is not anticipated that the TSRA will get extra funding for GST compliance costs.(5) No, TSRA has not been requested by the responsible Chairpersons or Chief Executive Officers of the Indigenous Corporations or entities to undertake such a task for them. The TSRA is working with the ATO to ensure indigenous corporations are fully aware of their reporting requirements under the new legislation.(6) See response to Question 5 above.(7) The Government is still considering a few issues relating to Appropriation and Grants to organisations. As the legislation stands today, the TSRA has estimated the full impact of the GST, including compliance costs in its areas of responsibility.15099(Question No. 1177)117715099Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 2000:(1) What will be the total cost to the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) for compliance with the Government's Goods and Services Tax.(2) What sum has been, or will be, spent in each budget year on GST compliance costs by AIATSIS.(3) From which programs will the cost of this GST compliance be found.(4) Will the government be providing extra funding to AIATSIS to cover these GST compliance costs.(6) Has AIATSIS estimated the cost of GST compliance for Indigenous organisations, whether Commonwealth funded or not; if so, what are the names of these organisations and what are their individual GST compliance costs.(7) Has AIATSIS estimated the full impact of the GST, including compliance costs, in its areas of responsibility.15099Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following information to the honourable member's question:(1) $73,500(2) 2000-2001 $73,500; 2001-2002 $5,000; 2002-2003 $5,000(3) AIATSIS(4) No(5) No(6) Yes15100(Question No. 1178)117815100Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 2000:(1) What will be the total cost to Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL) for compliance with the Government's Goods and Services Tax (GST).(2) What sum has been, or will be, spent in each budget year on GST compliance costs by AHL.(3) From which programs will the cost of this GST compliance be found.(4) Will the Government be providing extra funding to AHL to cover these GST compliance costs.(5) Has AHL estimated the full impact of the GST, including compliance costs, in its areas of responsibilities.15100Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following information to the honourable member's question: (1) The total cost during 1999/2000 to AHL for compliance with the Government's Goods and Services Tax will be approximately $50,000. AHL intends to upgrade its financial accounting system this financial year, independent of the need to upgrade the system to accommodate GST. Therefore, the financial system upgrade cost has not been included in the 1999/2000 compliance cost.(2) AHL will spend approximately $60,000 in each budget year on GST compliance.(3) AHL will meet the cost of GST compliance from its General Administration Costs.(4) The Government will not be providing extra funding to AHL to cover GST compliance costs.(5) AHL is currently in the process of estimating the full impact of the GST, including compliance costs.15100(Question No. 1179)117915100Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 2000:(1) What will be the total cost to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation (ATSICDC) for compliance with the Government's Goods and Services Tax.(2) What sum has been, or will be, spent in each budget year on GST compliance costs by ATSICDC.(3) From which programs will the cost of this GST compliance be found.(4) Will the Government be providing extra funding to ATSICDC to cover these GST compliance costs.(5) Has ATSICDC estimated the cost to ATSICDC funded Indigenous corporations or other entities of compliance with the GST; if so, what is the total of this compliance cost for Indigenous corporations and entities, and what is the average cost for each corporation or entity.(6) Has ATSICDC estimated the cost to any non-ATSICDC funded Indigenous corporations, bodies or entities of compliance with the GST; if so, what are the names of these organisations and what are their individual estimated GST compliance costs.(7) Has ATSICDC estimated the full impact of the GST, including compliance costs, in its areas of responsibility.15100Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following information to the honourable member's question:(1) The ATSICDC is currently in the process of assessing the total costs of compliance with the government's Goods and Services Tax. However, at this stage the estimated cost of compliance will be around $10,000, as a one off cost for systems implementation.(2) Unknown. However, ATSICDC expects ongoing compliance costs to be minimised.(3) As the ATSICDC is not currently on appropriation, the costs of GST compliance will be funded through the ATSICDC's income derived from investments.(4) The Government will not be providing extra funding to cover these compliance costs, as the ATSICDC is not currently on appropriation.(5) The ATSICDC does not fund indigenous organisations as such. It provides one-off commercial loans, where appropriate, to indigenous organisations. Existing loans do not have GST implications. Any future loans will factor in GST arrangements, but it is not possible at this stage to predict compliance costs in respect of unknown future events.(6) The ATSICDC has not estimated the cost to any non-ATSICDC funded Indigenous organisations.(7) The ATSICDC is in the process of estimating the full impact of the GST including compliance costs.15101(Question No. 1180)118015101Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torees Strait Islander Affairs, upon noice, on 16 February 2000:(1) What will be the total cost to the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) for compliance with the Government's Goods and Services Tax.(2) What sum has been, or will be, spent in each budget year on GST compliance costs by ILC.(3) From which programs will the cost of this GST compliance be found.(4) Will the Government be providing extra funding to ILC to cover these GST compliance costs.(5) Has ILC estimated the cost to ILC funded Indigenous corporations or other entities of compliance with the GST; if so, what is the total of this compliance cost for Indigenous corporations and entities, and what is the average cost for each corporation or entity.(6) Has ILC estimated the cost to any non-ILC funded Indigenous corporations, bodies or entities of compliance with the GST; if so, what are the names of these organisations and what are their individual estimated GST compliance costs. (7) Has ILC estimated the full impact of the GST, including compliance costs, in its areas of responsibility.15101Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following information to the honourable member's question:(1) It is estimated that the total cost to the ILC for compliance with the Government's Goods and Services Tax is in the vicinity of $100,000. This takes into account the use of external consultants, the allocation of key staff time for the implementation process and the cost of training sessions to be conducted with all staff. This estimate does not include resources that may be allocated to provide advice or logistical support to Indigenous groups on GST matters.(2) Ongoing compliance costs to the ILC for each budget year are expected to be approximately $40,000. This amount includes allocation of resources for ongoing compliance and lodging of returns, ongoing staff training, supervision of GST resources that may be allocated to provide advice or logistical support to Indigenous group on GST matters.(3) The ILC receives and annual allocation from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Fund Reserve according to a formula set out in the ATSIC Act. The ILC utilises this allocation to perform its two statutory functions being to assist Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders to acquire and to manage indigenous-held land. The ILC utilises the earnings on the unused allocation to subsidise its administration costs. Administration costs in excess of investment earnings are met from the balance of the allocation from the Land Fund. The cost of GST compliance will be met in the same manner as administration costs are currently met.(4) As a result of the way that the ILC is funded there will be no extra funding to the ILC to cover compliance costs.(5) The ILC's Land Management program does not operate on an annual funding cycle. Each proposal is assessed by the ILC on its merits. Each funding package is designed specifically for each project. Therefore the components of each package will need to be reviewed for GST implications on the assessment of the proposal. Compliance costs to the Indigenous corporations and other entities will depend not only on the nature of assistance from the ILC, but also on that of other sources of assistance, the complexity of their operations and the corporation's or other entity's status for GST. An estimate of the total cost of compliance for Indigenous corporations or other entities has not been undertaken by the ILC at this time. The ILC is in the process of engaging external GST experts with a brief to address ILC's GST related issues and their impact on the Indigenous corporations and other entities. These consultants have already conducted considerable work in this area for other Indigenous agencies.(6) The ILC has not estimated the cost to any non-ILC funded Indigenous corporations, bodies or entities of compliance with the GST.(7) No. However, the ILC is currently undertaking a GST implementation plan which has identified a number of issues on which the ILC requires clarification as to the full impact of the GST and is seeking external advice on these matters.15102(Question No. 1182)118215102Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 16 February 2000:(1) Did the term of appointment of Rear Admiral Ken Doolan as the Service member of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal expire on 27 March 1999.(2) Has a replacement Service member been officially appointed to the Tribunal; if so, on what date did the new appointment take effect.(3) Why was the Government unable to fill the position of Service member in a timely manner.(4) Did the appointment of Commissioner Patricia Leary as a member of the Tribunal expire on 6 February 1999.(5) Was the position formerly occupied by Commissioner Leary (a) vacant between 7 February and 2 May 1999, (b) occupied on an acting basis by Commissioner Leary from 3 May to 2 July 1999 and (c) occupied by Commissioner Leary for a further 12 month term that commenced on 5 July 1999.(6) What is the explanation for this sequence of events.(7) Was the work of the Tribunal disrupted by vacancies involving 2 of its 3 part-time members; if so, what are the details of the disruptions that resulted.15102Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Yes. Air Vice Marshal Franklin David Cox AO (Retired) was appointed to the Tribunal on an acting basis on 11 August 1999.(3) The appointment of members proceeded after due consideration by the Government. (4) Yes. However, Commissioner Leary acted as President of the Tribunal from 25 August 1998 to 28 February 1999 and from 8 March 1999 to 30 April 1999 during the absence overseas of the then President, Justice Alan Boulton.(5) (a) Yes.(b) Yes.(c) Yes. (6) The delay in substantively re-appointing Commissioner Leary resulted from the Government's consideration of the recommendations of the 1998 review of Australian Defence Force pay setting arrangements.(7) The Defence Act 1903 provides for the conduct of the Tribunal's business by a single member so the Tribunal was able to exercise its powers and perform its functions. The appointments made to fill the vacancies will facilitate its work. 15102(Question No. 1193)119315102Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 17 February 2000:(1) Does Telstra have independent power generation capacity to supply its telephone exchanges in Melbourne; if so, (a) how many generators does it have and (b) what is the electricity supply capacity of the generators.(2) Did Telstra use its power generation capacity on 3 February 200 when Victorian households and industry experienced power blackouts; if not, why not.(3) Did Telstra receive a request from either the National Electricity Management company or any Victorian electricity supply or distribution authority to use its independent generation capacity.15103McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts 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, based on advice from Telstra:(1) (a) Telstra has independent diesel power generation plants at its major and strategic network sites. In Victoria this amounts to about 265 sites, of which about half are located in Melbourne's metropolitan area.(b) Telstra's estimated total generation capacity for all Victorian network sites is 12 MWatts.(2) Yes. On Thursday 3 February diesel power generation was used at those network sites which were affected by the rolling power black-outs across Victoria and also at other selected sites to mitigate the risk to Telstra should these power blackouts be extended. Telstra generators were used to support essential telecommunication network infrastructure and services.(3) Telstra did not receive any request or notification from NEMCO during the period of rolling power outages at the beginning of February to use its independent generation capacity for load shedding purposes.In Victoria, United Energy requested Telstra use its diesel generation capacity at its Global Operation Centre in Clayton. In South Australia, at the request of the Electricity Trust of South Australia, Telstra operated its diesel generation capacity at Waymouth and Flinders Exchanges.15103(Question No. 1196)119615103Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 17 February 2000:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 1030, of the number of studies undertaken over the years into the feasibility of the Alice Springs to Darwin rail project, on which study is the Government relying to justify its $165 million investment.(2) What cost benefit outcomes were forecast in the study identified in part (1).(3) How many of the 7000 jobs expected to be generated in regional Australia will be generated (a) in the construction phase and (b) on an ongoing basis.(4) What estimates does the Government have for the potential of the project to improve Australia's export opportunities.(5) Is it a fact that if the project has a $480 million public investment in it, then the average public cost per job is $69,000; if so, how does the average cost compare with alternative job generating projects in regional Australia, including through improved public investment in education.15103Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The Commonwealth's decision to contribute funds to the project was not based on any one particular feasibility study but on the significant benefits that the rail link will provide to the Northern Territory, South Australia and the entire nation. (3) The Commonwealth has not conducted a detailed analysis of the likely breakdown of the employment that will be generated by the rail link.The AustralAsia Railway Corporation 1998-99 Annual Report forecasts that the project will increase national employment by 7100 jobs in 2001-02.(4) The Commonwealth has not conducted in depth forecasting of the export opportunities that will be created by the project. However, it is expected the rail link will facilitate the growth of export based industries.(5) While a large number of jobs will be created during the construction and operation of the railway, it is not appropriate to compare the cost of each job associated with the railway with that for other projects. This is because the railway is not primarily a job-generating project. The benefits of the rail link will be wide ranging, impacting upon the region and the nation as a whole.15104(Question No. 1198)119815104Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 2000:(1) Has funding been provided by his Department to the Convention of Ambulance Authorities, also known as the Convention of Ambulance Authorities of Australia and New Zealand, for any purpose.(2) If so, has this funding been provided for, but not limited to, the establishment of a body provisionally titled (a) Ambulance Australia, (b) Australian Ambulance Board, (c) Australian Ambulance Education Council or (c) Australian Ambulance Registration Board, or similar names. (3) What are the purposes of the proposed bodies.(4) Under whose auspices are the bodies to be incorporated.(5) To whom will the bodies report.(6) On what basis were requests for funding made.(7) When were applications for funding made.(8) What sum was sought, and what sum has been provided for the proposals.(9) Under which scheme administered by his Department did the bodies qualify for funding.(10) Is he able to say (a) who currently provides funding to the Convention of Ambulance Authorities, also known as the Convention of Ambulance Authorities of Australia and New Zealand and (b) to whom does it report.(11) Are any of the proposed or existing bodies to act as an Industry Training Advisory Board, or have a similar function; if so, when are the bodies to be formed and become operational.15104Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No funding has been provided by my Department to the Convention of Ambulance Authorities, also known as the Convention of Ambulance Authorities of Australia and New Zealand, for any purpose.(2 - 11) Not applicable.15104(Question No. 1199)119915104Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:What have been the sources, titles and dates of blockbuster exhibitions conducted by the National Gallery of Australia since the answer to question No. 2380 (Hansard, 1 December 1997, page 11735).15104McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: YearTitleVenueDatesSources1997Rembrandt: A Genius and his ImpactNGV NGA(01.10.97 to 07.12.97)(17.12.97 to 15.02.98)96 works primarily from the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam1998Esso presents New Worlds from Old: 19th Century Australian and American LandscapesNGANGVWADSCOR(07.03.98 to 17.05.98)(03.06.98 to 10.08.98)(12.09.98 to 05.01.99)(26.01.99 to 18.04.99)109 works approximately 50% from various Australian galleries / 50% from USA galleries1999From Russia with Love: Costumes of the Ballets Russes 1909-1993AGWANGA(16.02.99 to 05.04.99)(15.05.99 to 21.08.99)118 works primarily from National Gallery of Australia, also from the Museum of Theatre and Music, Russia, and the Victoria and Albert Museum, London1999An Impressionistic Legacy: Monet to Moore-Millennium Gift from Sara Lee CorporationNGA(11.06.99 to 21.08.99)52 works from Sara Lee Corporation, Chicago, USA1999Masterworks in Glass, Paint and Print: Chihuly/ Hockney/ StellaNGA(24.09.99 to 26.01.0030 installations from Chihuly Studio, Seattle, USA2000The Book of Kells and the Art of Illumination; Revealing the Holy Land: The Photographic Exhibition of PalestineNGA(25.02.00 to 07.05.00)The Book of Kells, Trinity College Dublin; The Art of Illumination: 55 works primarily from the State Library of Victoria, the National Gallery of Victoria and the Dunedin Public Library, New Zealand; Revealing the Holy Land: 91 works from Santa Barbara Museum of ArtAcronymsNGANational Gallery of AustraliaNGVNational Gallery of VictoriaWADSWadsworth Atheneum, Connecticut, USACORThe Corcoran Museum of Art, Washington, USAAGWAArt Gallery of Western Australia15105(Question No. 1200)120015105Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:What have been the destinations, titles and dates of overseas exhibitions to which the National Gallery of Australia has contributed since 1990.15105McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The destinations, titles and dates of overseas exhibitions to which the National Gallery of Australia has contributed since 1990 Title of ExhibitionDestinationDate of Exhibition1L'Eté australien à MontpellierMusée Fabre and Galerie Saint Ravy d'Art Contemporain, Montpellier, France30 June to 13 September 19902Marc Chagall: Mein Leben - Mein Traum (My Life - My Dream)Wilhelm-Hack-Museum, Ledwigshafen, Federal Republic of Germany6 April to 3 June 19903Francis Bacon RetrospectiveHirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington DCLos Angeles County Museum of Art, Los AngelesMuseum of Modern Art, New York11 October 1989 to 7 January 19905 February to 22 April 199031 May to 4 September 19904Monet in the 90s: The Series PaintingsMuseum of Fine Arts, BostonThe Art Institute of ChicagoRoyal Academy of Arts, London7 February to 29 April 199019 May to 12 August 19907 September to 9 December 19905Seurat: 1859-1891Grand Palais, Réunion des Musées nationaux, ParisMetropolitan Museum of Art, New York10 April to 10 August 19919 September 1991 to 12 January 19926Vincent van Gogh en de Moderne Kunst 1890-1914Museum Folkwang, EssenRijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, Amsterdam10 August to 4 November 199016 November 1990 to 18 February 19917Jean Dubuffet RetrospectiveSchirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt4 December 1990 to 3 March 19918The Court Arts of IndonesiaArt Society, New YorkDallas Museum of ArtArthur M. Sackler Gallery, WashingtonNatural History Museum of Los Angeles17 September to 16 December 199010 February to 7 April 199119 May to 2 September 199119 October 1991 to 5 January 19929De Kooning and Dubuffet: The WomenPace Gallery, New York30 November 1990 to 19 January 199110Large BathersPhiladelphia Museum of Art9 September 1990 to 25 November 199011Florence Henri: artist-Photographer of the Avant-GardeSan Francisco Museum of Modern ArtDetroit Institute of ArtsMary and Leigh Block Gallery, Northwestern UniversityUniversity of Iowa Museum of Art, Iowa CityLos Angeles County Museum of Art13 December 1990 to 10 February 19917 March to 5 May 199130 May to 4 August 199131 August to 27 October 199119 December 1991 to 16 February 199212Konstruktivistische Internationale 1922-1927: Utopien für eine europäische KulturKunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, DüsseldorfStaatliche Galerie Moritzburg, Halle30 May to 23 August 199213 September to 13 November 199213Kenneth Tyler and Contemporary Print MakingYokohama Museum of ArtMarugame Genichiro- Inokuma Museum of Contemporary ArtMuseum of Modern Art, WakayamaTokushima Modern Art Museum, TokushimaHokkaido Obihiro Museum of Art, Obihiro13 June to 26 July 199215 August to 15 September 19923 October to 25 October 199231 October to 13 December 19925 January to 5 February 199314Two Hundred Years of Australian PaintingNational Museum of Western Art, TokyoNational Museum of Modern Art, Kyoto28 April to 28 June 199214 July to 6 September 199215Cezanne ExhibitionKunsthalle, Tübingen16 January to 2 May 199316ARATJARA - Australian Aboriginal ArtKunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, DüsseldorfHayward Gallery, LondonLouisiana Museum of Art, Humlebaek24 April to 4 July 199322 July to 10 October 199311 February to 23 May 199417American Art in the Twentieth Century: Painting and SculptureZeitgeist-Gesellschaft, BerlinRoyal Academy of Arts, London8 May to 25 July 199317 September to 12 December 199318Court Arts of IndonesiaKunsthal, Rotterdam31 October 1992 to 17 January 199319Cultures at Crossroads: Southeast Asian Textiles from the Australian National GalleryThe Asia Society, New York18 September 1992 to 17 January 199320Henri MatisseThe Museum of Modern Art, New York16 September 1992 to 19 January 199321Claude Flight and His Followers: The Colour Linocut Movement Between the WarsAuckland City Art Gallery, Auckland3 June to 18 July 199322By the Waters of the Babylon: The Art of A. Lois WhiteAuckland City Art Gallery, Auckland4 March to 8 May 199423Sidney Nolan: The Ned Kelly PaintingsThe Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York19 April to 4 September 199424Joan MiróThe Museum of Modern Art, New York13 October 1993 to 11 January 199425Robert Morris RetrospectiveSolomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York1 February 1994 to 30 May 199526Gift of the Cotton Maiden: Textiles of Flores and the Solor IslandsFowler Museum of Cultural History, Los Angeles11 September 1994 to 9 April 199527On the Edge: Australian Photographers of the SeventiesSan Diego Museum of Art, San Diego14 January to 4 June 199528Baron Adolf De MeyerInternational Centre of Photography, New York10 December 1994 to 12 February 199529Degas - IntimeOrdrupgård, Charlottenlund, Copenhagen14 October 1994 to 15 January 199530Claude CahunMusée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris21 June to 1 October 199531La Galerie des cinq continents Musée des Arts Africains et Océaniens, Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Paris21 September 1995 to 15 January 199632Cézanne RetrospectiveGrand Palais, Réunion des Musées nationaux, ParisTate Gallery, LondonPhiladelphia Museum of Art26 September 1995 to 1 January 19967 February to 28 April 199626 May to 1 September 199633Australian Art 1940-1990 from the Collection of the National Gallery of AustraliaThe Museum of Fine Arts, Gifu28 July to 3 September 199534Mark Rothko RetrospectiveThe Tokyo Shimbun, Chiyoda-kuMarugame Genichiro- Inokuma Museum of Contemporary Art, KagawaNagoya City Art MuseumMuseum of Contemporary Art, Tokyo23 September to 5 November 199511 November to 24 December 19954 January to 12 February 199617 February to 24 March 199635Under CapricornStedelijk Museum, Amsterdam28 June to 18 August 199636Rubens self portraitDunedin Public Art Gallery, Logan Park17 February 1996 to 30 June 199637Tina Modotti RetrospectivePhiladelphia Museum of ArtMuseum of Fine Arts, HoustonSan Francisco Museum of Modern Art16 September to 26 November 99517 December 1995 to 25 February 199628 March to 2 June 199638Constantin Brancusi RetrospectivePhiladelphia Museum of Art8 October to 31 December 199539César RetrospectiveGalerie Nationale du Jeu de Paume, ParisMalmö Konsthall, Malmö, SwedenPalazzo Reale, Milan, Italy9 June to 19 October 199710 February to 13 April 199814 May to 8 July 199840Max Pechstein RetrospectiveBrücke-Museum Berlin, BerlinKunsthalle Tübingen22 September 1996 to 1 January 199711 January to 6 April 199741The Eye of the Storm: Eight Contemporary Indigenous Australian ArtistsNational Gallery of Modern Art, New Delhi22 October to 26 November 199642Dragon and Phoenix: The Textiles of Southeast Asian's Chinese CommunityRobert McDougall Art Gallery, Christchurch18 March to 18 May 199743200th Anniversary of W.A. BolinThe Royal Armoury, (Livrustkammaren), Stockholm10 October 1996 to 12 January 199744The Photomontages of Hannah HochWalker Art Center, Minneapolis20 October 1996 to 2 February 199745Retrospective René MagritteMusées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels6 March to 28 June 199846Aboriginal ArtEstablissement Public du Parc et de la Grande Halle de La Villette, Paris25 November 1997 to 11 January 199847Aubrey BeardsleyKawasaki City MuseumThe Museum of Modern Art, WakayamaHokkaido Museum of Art, HakodateMuseum of Modern Art, Gunma21 February to 5 April 199811 April to 10 May 199820 May to 21 June 199827 June to 26 July 199848WaterproofCentro Cultural de Belém, Parque Expo '98, Lisbon 26 February to 31 May 19984997 Kwangju Biennale - Unmapping the Earth97 Kwangju Biennale, Kwangju1 September to 27 November 199750Roy LichtensteinFondation Beyeler, Basel1 May to 30 September 199851Love HotelAuckland Art Gallery, Auckland30 May to 2 August 199852The Elaine and Jim Wolfensohn Gift - Suitcase KitsSingapore Art Museum, Singapore15-16 June 199853Esso presents New Worlds from Old: 19th century Australian and American LandscapesWadsworth Atheneum, HartfordThe Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington12 September 1998 to 4 January 199926 January to 18 April 199954Life in the Emperor's Tomb: Chinese Art from the T.T. Tsui Collection in the National Gallery of AustraliaRobert McDougall Art Gallery, Christchurch5 February to 4 April 199955Post-Partum Document by Mary KellyE A Generali Foundation, Vienna24 September to 20 December 199956XXIV Bienal de São PauloFundação Bienal de São Paulo2 October to 12 October 199857Jardin d'artiste: de memoire d'arbreMusée Zadkine, Paris9 June to 11 October 199858Salvador DaliMitsukhoshi Museum of Art, TokyoFukuoka Asian Art Museum12 June to 20 August 199924 August to 24 October 199959Margaret MichaelisIVAM Centre Julio Gonzalez, VilenciaCentre de Cultura Contemporanea de Barcelona15 October 1998 to 10 January 199919 January to 14 March 199960Jackson Pollock RetrospectiveThe Museum of Modern Art, New YorkTate Gallery, London28 October 1998 to 2 February 199911 March to 6 June 199961The Aboriginal MemorialThe Olympic Museum, Lausanne, Switzerland1 July 1999 to 31 October 199962Puppen Körper AutomatenKunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf24 July 1999 to 17 October 199963Honore Daumier RetrospectiveGaleries Nationale du Grand Palais, Paris5 October 1999 to 3 January 200064The Aboriginal MemorialSprengel Museum, Hannover16 November 1999 to 21 January 200065Cézanne in JapanAichi Prefectural Museum of Art, Nagoya5 January 2000 to 12 March 200066Sol Lewitt Retro-spectiveSan Francisco Museum of Modern Art18 February 2000 to 18 May 200067Yosl Bergner Retro-spectiveTel Aviv Museum of Art2 March 2000 to 2 June 200068The Aboriginal Mem--orial and Aboriginal Art in Modern WorldsThe State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg2 February to 9 April 200015111(Question No. 1219)121915111Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 7 March 2000:(1) Is the Government committed to providing regional and remote area radio listeners who have print handicap with the same level of broadcasting service provided to those in metropolitan areas; if so, how.(2) Has the Minister investigated the pricing proposal from Radio for all Australians Association Inc. to broadcast from one fully equipped studio by satellite.(3) When will the Government make a final decision on funding for the proposal.15111McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts 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) The Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) has been progressively planning new radio services throughout Australia and new radio licences have already been allocated in most regional and remote areas. Four regional community licences have been granted to RPH Australia, the national body that represents radio for the print handicapped service providers. In addition, RPH Australia has established a satellite service that carries dedicated programming for the print handicapped and can be accessed and rebroadcast by community radio stations, or picked up by direct to home satellite receivers.(2) The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the ABA have investigated the proposal put forward by Radio for all Australians Association Inc. In addition to the cost of establishing a satellite service, a national network would require the installation of terrestrial transmitters and access to broadcasting band frequencies. Unfortunately, the shortage of suitable frequencies is a major obstacle to establishing a national network. In most regional licence areas, the ABA has allocated all available frequencies for new licences. As indicated previously, RPH Australia already has in place a national satellite service with programming dedicated to the print handicapped.(3) Funding to implement proposals of this nature would be considered in the Budget context. The Government already provides funding to the Community Broadcasting Foundation Ltd for services for the print handicapped. In 1999-2000, $270,000 was allocated to RPH stations, and an additional $358,000 was provided for transmission of those services.15111(Question No. 1230)123015112Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 2000:(1) Which CSIRO properties have been recommended for sale as a result of the recent CSIRO property review.(2) What is the current estimated book value of each property recommended for sale.(3) What is the current estimated annual rent level likely to be required for each property recommended for sale.(4) What is the current estimated annual rent expressed as a percentage of the current estimated book value for each property recommended for sale.(5) If the property sales go ahead will funds previously marked for research be used to pay property leases and rents; if so, will the Commonwealth adequately compensate the CSIRO budget if any CSIRO property sales do have a negative effect on the CSIRO's overall financial position and available research funds.(6) What benefits to the Commonwealth will result from the sale of CSIRO. 15112Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1), (2), (3), (4). The CSIRO Property Review Committee has reported to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources and me. The Government is currently considering this report therefore no properties have been recommended for sale. (5) The Government continues to value the capacity of CSIRO to contribute to the future wealth of the nation. CSIRO is provided with appropriation funding to undertake its statutory functions. The appropriation funds for the coming three years were announced in last year's Budget.(6) The sale of CSIRO is not proposed. The Government's policy is to ensure that it makes better use of scarce capital than by engaging in property investment. The sale of Commonwealth property puts the Commonwealth on a firmer financial footing, allowing it to retire debt, invest in programs to enhance productivity, or to provide additional funding for its priorities without the need to raise taxes.