2000-04-053915REPS1522102000-04-05—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills15221R101215221Debate resumed from 4 April, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.09:31:0015221Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—in reply—In the past, Australian courts have complained about the inconsistent jurisdiction provisions in the child support legislation in Australia and New Zealand. There have been cases where individuals have been issued with both Australian and New Zealand assessments. In other cases, payers in New Zealand have obtained New Zealand assessments for the purpose of extinguishing arrears owed under Australian maintenance orders. The agreement will put an end to the conflicts over jurisdiction. It will also provide for the recognition and enforcement of existing liabilities.Turning to the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations, for practical purposes Australia's accession to the Hague convention would have the same effect as establishing many bilateral reciprocal arrangements. The Hague convention obliges authorities in the convention countries to recognise and enforce maintenance decisions made by the judicial or administrative authorities in convention countries. It applies to both spousal maintenance and child support obligations. Australia's existing international arrangements for the enforcement of the child support and spousal maintenance liabilities are of limited value to the recipients of payments as they are largely dependent on slow and cumbersome procedures for the initiation and pursuit of proceedings in foreign courts.The Hague convention provides for the relatively simple and speedy enforcement of existing Australian liabilities by overseas courts and administrative authorities. Like the New Zealand agreement, the Hague convention provides for the recognition of administrative assessments, rather than just court orders or court registered agreements. The Attorney-General's Department and the Child Support Agency have already been meeting the costs of enforcing overseas maintenance decisions in Australia and of obtaining support for Australian payees in foreign countries. Accession to the convention would have a number of savings implications for agencies currently involved in overseas maintenance enforcement.Australia already has child support enforcement arrangements with many states within the United States. There are no formal agreements. Legislation and procedures vary from state to state, leading to complex and time consuming dealings. The US Congress recently passed legislation putting international child support enforcement in the United States on a federal rather than a state basis. The US State Department has proposed that the Australian government sign a new agreement with the US federal government which would put the existing arrangements on a federal level. The United States agreement provides for the recognition and enforcement of administrative assessments of child support. By entering into federal arrangements, the existing complex and time consuming state based legislation and procedures will be replaced by a coordinated approach.The Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 provides for real improvements to the international child support arrangements. I am particularly pleased that the opposition have agreed to support this bill. It was a little disappointing that the member for Grayndler raised unsubstantiated concerns that child support payers and payees would be adversely affected by the introduction of the new tax system. Australians with dependent children, including both child support payers and payees, will indeed benefit from tax reform. With tax cuts included in the government's tax reform package, effective marginal tax rates for custodial and non-custodial parents will reduce. This will mean that a large number of child support payers will get more income than is currently the case. Sole parents and other social security recipients will also benefit from tax reform, including increases to the pension free area, a four per cent increase in the rate of payments from 1 July and a reduction in the taper rate from 50 per cent to 40 per cent. For eligible families, the new FTB will mean an increase in the maximum amount of assistance by $140 a year for each dependent child. On top of this, single income families with children under five will also receive an increase of $350 a year or, where the youngest child is over five years, they will receive an additional $61 a year.This bill supports the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues. The measures contained in this bill are positive. It is appropriate for Australia to enter into international agreements for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of child support liabilities. Once again, I thank all members from both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate, and I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.15222Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony) read a third time.Bills15222R101115222Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.09:37:0015222Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—At the outset I indicate to the House that the opposition supports the passage of this bill, the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, with a very serious proviso in relation to the aspects that change foreign ownership laws. I also indicate that it is my intention to move a second reading amendment going to some serious issues which we believe the government should pursue in effecting the implementation of the bill if it passes as proposed. I also indicate that I have no opposition to that amendment being circulated at this stage. The proviso goes, as reflected in the second reading amendment I will move, to issuing a strong recommendation to the government to consider certain matters that fundamentally relate to Australian jobs and services in regional and rural Australia. I will come to those matters in more detail when I address that amendment.It is also fair to say that the bill contains two schedules: one going to the foreign ownership issue, the other going to the operation of Sydney airport. Schedule 1 contains the proposed changes to liberalise the foreign ownership restrictions of Australian airlines. It also contains other minor technical amendments to the Air Navigation Act 1920. I will return to address that schedule at length. Schedule 2 of the bill increases some of the penalties for breaching curfew legislation at Sydney airport. These amendments correctly increase fivefold the maximum penalty for taking off or landing at Sydney airport in breach of the curfew in the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995. The effect of these amendments is to increase the penalty for an individual operator from 200 penalty units to 1,000 penalty units. For a company, the increase is from 1,000 to 5,000 penalty units. In dollar terms I suppose this is the crux of the amendments. The new maximum penalty for an individual operating an aircraft in breach of the curfew will be $110,000 and $550,000 for a company. In a lot of ways it is a shame that we actually have to talk about such huge increases in penalties, but it comes back to a failure of some operators to adhere to the intent of existing endeavours by this parliament to exercise a curfew. Because of those inadequacies we are required to increase the penalties to try to effect a greater capacity for those operators to adhere to the curfew.The amendments in items 3 and 4 of schedule 2 will apply new maximum penalties for taking off between 10.45 p.m. and 11 p.m. from a runway not permitted by the act. These new maxima in section 10 of the act also represent a fivefold increase. They will now be $55,000 for an individual and $275,000 for a company. It is also interesting to note that the maximum penalty for breaching some other restrictions imposed by the act has not been changed. I draw that to the minister's attention: namely, the failure of the bill to increase the penalties in section 11. That section imposes a penalty for taking off or landing on a runway not permitted by the act between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. or between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. on a Saturday or a Sunday. Whilst the penalties for that section are the same as the existing section 10, the government for some reason has not seen fit to increase these penalties. Other penalties have not changed, such as those for failing to lodge notices for landing noisy aircraft during the curfew and providing false or misleading information. I think it would be appropriate in the minister's response at the conclusion of this debate for him to explain these apparent anomalies, as they raise some serious questions conveyed to me by constituents living in the immediate vicinity of Mascot airport. Whilst the minister is on his feet explaining this apparent oversight in his policy change, I also invite him to discuss the situation at Adelaide airport. As the House would recall, during the last session of this House we passed the private member's bill in the name of the member for Hindmarsh going to the question of a curfew at Adelaide airport. As a result of discussions between the member for Hindmarsh and the Labor opposition, agreement was reached on that bill, on the basis of which it was passed with the support of both sides of the House. I therefore draw the House's attention to the final reading of that bill, in which the member for Hindmarsh, despite my best endeavours in a bipartisan way, declined my offer to take forward the cause of people in the immediate vicinity of Adelaide airport. In a proper and constructive way, we had clearly come to terms with a curfew—which was received with great support by constituents in the member for Hindmarsh's electorate.I then also rightly requested that the member for Hindmarsh join with me to try and legislate for the provision of insulation for houses and public buildings affected by noise in the same way as Sydney residents. I took the view that the curfew, as was the intent of the Adelaide curfew bill, only went part of the way and that if it was good enough for the residents of Sydney to have some noise abatement policies in place then we as a community should give the same opportunity to those living in the immediate vicinity of Adelaide airport. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is good enough for Sydney—almost as though we have a Sydney-centric government—but not good enough for the residents of Adelaide. That reminds me of the difficulties confronted by the coalition recently in Victoria, where rural and regional Victoria very much came to the conclusion that the coalition was Melbourne-centric. Perhaps on this occasion we have a Commonwealth government that is Sydney-centric when it comes to trying to look after the issue of noise abatement for people living around airports. I therefore call on the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services to not only explain the apparent anomalies with respect to the penalties for breach of the curfew at Sydney airport but to also bite the bullet and clearly prove that he is not Sydney-centric when it comes to issues of noise abatement and the difficulties encountered by people living in the immediate vicinity of airports.I believe that in his response today he should also declare a commitment to join with the opposition and, hopefully, the member for Hindmarsh, who has given the green light. I understand from reports out of coalition meetings that at the moment there is very much an endeavour to put the muzzle on people with respect to a range of issues, including, unfortunately, the issue of mandatory imprisonment in the Northern Territory—yes, mandatory imprisonment, not mandatory sentencing. Despite that, I think on this occasion the coalition ought to at least front up to its responsibilities and basically say that it is prepared to join with the Labor opposition in a bipartisan way and try to overcome or address the anomalous situation which relates to the lack of support for those experiencing noise difficulties at Adelaide airport. As I have said, if it is good enough for Sydney, I believe it ought to be good enough for the residents of Adelaide.An early indication of how much support the minister has for the new curfew at Adelaide airport does cause me some concern. While on his feet he should elaborate as to why he has not come to the party with respect to such noise abatement programs in Adelaide. I also refer to some immediate difficulties relating to the application of the new Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill. I am referring to a press report from the Adelaide Sunday Mail of 26 March this year. That article reported that the curfew was broken to assist Ansett—which is an organisation potentially to benefit from the bill before the House today—to juggle its schedules because of a stop-work meeting. To be honest with the House, I would not have thought that the relaxation of the curfew at Adelaide airport on this occasion fitted the criteria for emergencies agreed to by the House. If the minister could perhaps address this issue, we could all gain a better understanding as to why he—or the person he delegated responsibility to on this occasion—gave the exemption. I would very strongly argue that the exemption given with respect to the operation of Ansett in recent weeks was not an intended exemption in the terms in which the House approved the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill. In conclusion, with respect to schedule 2, I reiterate the opposition's support for these changes, albeit incomplete as they seem. That is not for me to tidy up. It is the government's responsibility. I also appreciate that there is some evidence provided to the courts that some airlines—and I stress that this is probably a few—have ignored, or may in the future see fit to ignore, the curfew as a cheaper option than delaying a take-off or arrival. It is unfortunate that some people lack such a commitment and consideration to residents that the House is now required to increase the fines relating to the application and implementation of the bill going to the curfew at Sydney airport. It is for those reasons that, because of a few, the Labor opposition stands in support of the increase in the penalties outlined and detailed in the bill before the House today.I will now go to schedule 1, which is perhaps that part of the schedule which has attracted most attention, especially in the airline industry and, I might also say, in the media. The intent of this bill is basically to liberalise the foreign ownership rules for Australian airlines. The nub of the opposition's support for this bill is a conviction that Australian companies can and should be able to operate on the international stage and that competition can enhance the welfare and services to our community and economy. I also stress in making that commitment and statement at the outset that it is also important that, in dealing with this issue, we properly focus on an endeavour to ensure that airlines operating in Australia are sufficiently strong enough sellers to ensure that they have a capacity to continue to deliver a service of excellence to rural and regional Australia. That issue has weighed heavily in the minds of the opposition in considering how we should best handle the bill currently before the House.The last thing we would want is the major operator in Australia hamstrung because of a lack of capital injection, which in the end could undermine their capacity to properly service rural and regional Australia. It is about ensuring that we have an airline policy in Australia that is not city-centric. It is about ensuring that we have airlines in Australia that are capable of obviously servicing major capital cities and our international commitments but also guaranteeing that in making those commitments, both domestically and internationally, they make the same commitment to rural and regional Australia. I therefore am of the firm understanding and belief that Australian companies can provide that competition. Our community can gain the greatest benefit from it if they are given the latitude to operate with the same advantages as their competitors. More and more, their competitors are operating in the international regime.We have got to make sure that Australian airline operators that have historically been associated with us as a nation have a capacity to operate not only domestically but also internationally—because, as far as I am concerned, in this day and age you cannot separate those requirements. You cannot operate on the basis that we can maintain and prop up an operator which is basically domestically orientated. More and more, the number of operators internationally is declining. We are having a smaller number of huge operators with a capacity to service both domestic economies and international economies. The amendments therefore seek to remove some of the current restrictions on foreign airline ownership and control of Australian international airlines other than Qantas. At present, the Air Navigation Act of 1920 limits ownership of shares in an Australian international airline to no more than 20 per cent for an individual foreign airline and no more than 35 per cent in total for all foreign airlines. The amendments clearly intend to remove these restrictions and replace them with a requirement that foreign persons can own no more than 49 per cent of an Australian international airline. This makes that provision more general and removes the distinction between restrictions on airlines and persons. It makes the provisions with respect to definitions consistent with the Qantas act.I also note in passing, for the record, that these amendments do not apply to the restrictions on the level of foreign ownership of Qantas. Those restrictions are contained in a separate act, the Qantas Sale Act of 1992. There are no amendments to that act before the House this morning. I would also say that it is naive for us to think, and we would indeed be dishonest to attempt to infer, that these amendments have absolutely no bearing on Qantas.As has been borne out in recent media reports, British Airways has a keen interest in the passage of these amendments. That foreign airline has made no secret of its desire to acquire a larger portion of Qantas. That decision is obviously not before the House today; that debate will occur should amendments to that act be put forward by the government. I personally have no doubt that the arguments put forward in relation to these changes to the Navigation Act will however be run against any future consideration of Qantas in the separate Qantas Sale Act 1992. The government has judged that it is not the time to consider such a change at the moment, and I agree with it on this occasion.There has been, as we are all aware, a lot of focus on the recent negotiations between Air New Zealand and News Corporation on the sale of News Corporation's share in Ansett domestic. This would give Air New Zealand 100 per cent ownership and control of Ansett domestic. As Ansett domestic owns 49 per cent of Ansett International, an Australian international airline for the purposes of air service agreements, the amendments before the House are important for that deal. Soon after the announcement of that proposal, the public became aware of negotiations between Qantas and Air New Zealand—or at least their significant shareholder, Brierleys—and, simultaneously, new talks between Ansett and Singapore Airlines seeking to finalise long-term ownership arrangements. The latest seems to be a suspension of the talks between Qantas and Brierleys and an expectation that the announced deal between Air New Zealand and Ansett will be implemented.The Labor opposition carries no candle for any of the proposed mergers. That is an issue to be determined by the Foreign Investment Review Board and the respective commercial interests. Our responsibility is to make sure that we have a legislative framework in Australia which guarantees all Australians, both regional and metropolitan based, the best possible service both domestically and internationally. However, the strong message for the last three weeks in airline politics is that it is a dynamic, vibrant, ever changing industry. It is also a crucial time in the history of Australian aviation. Decisions made today and through the passage of this bill cannot be, and are not, about one possible scenario. Before us is a bill that at some stage is highly likely to impact on Ansett. But we must not view it only through the Ansett window. In considering our support for the bill, the opposition considered the bill in a far broader context. In fact, there are 12 airlines that have, at one time or other, been designated and have received allocations from the International Air Services Commission. These airlines are: Ansett International, Ansett Australia Ltd, Asian Express, Australia Air, Flight West, National Airlines, National Jet, Pel Air, Qantas, Qwestair, Transair and Transpac. It is not an Ansett-centric bill; it ranges across the industry at large. Each of these airlines—with the exception of Qantas for previously stated reasons, and National Jet because it is no longer an Australian company—would be beneficiaries under the new provisions of the act. Not all of these airlines are currently operating, but it shows the potential broader application of what is before the House this morning. The limits on foreign ownership and control in the Navigation Act 1920 are derived from provisions in the bilateral air service arrangements. Those provisions allow either country party to the air service arrangements to refuse entry of the airlines of the other country into their market on the grounds that they are not substantially owned and effectively controlled by nationals of that country party. The Productivity Commission inquiry report released in September 1998 provided a focus for considering and reassessing progress on Australia's approach to international air services. When the government announced its response to that report, the opposition welcomed the government's decision to reject the more extreme elements of the report. The opposition supported the choice of incremental liberalisation rather than the unilateral and unfettered liberalisation favoured by some. My colleague the then shadow minister, the member for Dickson, was right when she said that there is no sense giving away rights without getting something in return.The changes before the House are part of an incremental approach to liberalisation of international air services. They liberalise ownership and investment arrangements whilst clearly staying within the bilateral air service arrangements. They build on the long and strong history of aviation reform by, I would contend, the previous Labor government. However, the challenge to any government at this time was always going to be how to keep the momentum of change while still delivering a benefit to the Australian community and Australian exporters, including tourism interests, airfreight users and Australian international airlines. Ownership and control provisions are a universal feature of an internationally applied framework of bilateral treaties. That is to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by overexposure and therefore disadvantaged by controls imposed by other countries on Australian airlines and persons that retain minimum restrictions. The changes as put before us in these amendments would assist in airlines' alliance plans, allow better access to capital markets and ensure Australia retains a healthy presence in the international market. At the same time, they send a message that Australia is continuing to reform and is not a closed country. My colleagues on this side share a view that our community is best served by competition, but in a sensible manner, ensuring that we all share in the benefits. We should not argue against foreign ownership per se; we should put an emphasis on what will help our community grow, create jobs and ensure we retain and improve services to all locations in our country.And that brings me to our amendment to this second reading motion. The amendment suggests that, should the changes to the foreign ownership provisions in the Navigation Act 1920 proceed—as we very strongly support them doing—it is still up to the government to consider the national interest implications of each application for foreign purchase of Australian airlines. The government's foreign investment sectoral guidelines, that are applied through the Foreign Investment Review Board, will also be changed to reflect changes in this bill. Under those sectoral guidelines, the Foreign Investment Review Board presently can only permit approval, provided it is consistent with the national interest, of acquisition of up to: 25 per cent of an Australian domestic or international airline by an individual foreign airline flying to Australia; 40 per cent in aggregate of an Australian domestic airline by foreign airlines; and 35 per cent in aggregate of an Australian international airline by foreign airlines.Other foreign investors, including foreign airlines who do not fly to Australia, can acquire up to 100 per cent of an Australian domestic airline. Although the government has been prepared to consider proposals in excess of these standards for domestic airlines in special circumstances, there is no similar exception for international airlines. So, to take advantage of changes arising from the bill before this House, the sectoral guidelines will also need to be changed. The Foreign Investment Review Board is also, as I said, required to take account of the national interest. It is in that area that the government, through the Foreign Investment Review Board, has latitude to examine closely the plans and intentions of particular proposed amendments. The amendment I put forward relates to the proposed investment by Air New Zealand to take over Ansett. There exist legitimate and expected concerns from the employees and their representatives that the deal will not deliver on the expectations of our community.As I said before, the opposition support globalisation of markets and opening our organisations to foreign ownership, provided there are benefits and provided those benefits are shared and enhance our community. These are very strong requirements from the Labor opposition's point of view and is the basis of the fundamental approach that we have taken in consideration of the bill before the House today.I will turn now to the genuine fears of our community and the issue is whether or not they will come to be realised. They are as follows. Firstly, there is a concern that Air New Zealand is undercapitalised and that jobs will be cut to provide the injection of funds. Secondly, the Australian Services Union fears a loss of 2,000 positions in administration, information technology, engineering and maintenance, and reservations. Thirdly, there is also concern about loss of skills and expertise from Australia and that jobs will be transported to the purported lower wage market in New Zealand. Fourthly, the regional focus of Ansett and its subsidiaries Kendall, Aeropelican and Skywest must also be maintained for passenger and trade access to and from regional communities. Fifthly, and finally, there is also an issue of which badged airline—for example, Air New Zealand or Ansett International—will receive which share of future growth in international business. Obviously, the fear is that the growth will be through Air New Zealand and that Ansett will not receive its fair share with a flow-on to jobs and security.While it has principally been Ansett employees and their union officials who have raised and campaigned around these issues, they are echoes of the broader community and many other competitive industries. The concerns fundamentally are jobs, skills, security, growth and access. In considering the fears of the Ansett employees, their families and their representatives, the government must also consider these fears with empathy in the same terms as other industries.In considering the decision of the potentially effective takeover of Ansett by Air New Zealand, the Foreign Investment Review Board and the government must obtain commitments from Air New Zealand to address these concerns. Through this amendment we are calling on the government to pursue assurances from Air New Zealand that ensure that the benefits of the liberalisation of ownership and opening up of this airline will be shared. We are seeking to ensure that: (1) Ansett remains headquartered in Australia; (2) that a fair share of future growth in Air New Zealand's international routes be through Ansett International; (3) that high skilled, high value Ansett jobs remain in Australia; and (4) and (5) the retention of jobs, services and growth in services in regional and rural communities.These points, as laid out in the second reading amendment that I will move at the conclusion of my contribution to this debate, are about ensuring that already locationally disadvantaged communities do not pay the price of cheaper fares on popular routes. My colleague the member for Bass will speak on these amendments and address the issues for her electorate and, in particular, the large call centre at Launceston. I also note in passing that, as a result of the recent discussions I have had with Ansett, they have reaffirmed their commitment to a call centre in Canberra. It is now the responsibility of the ACT Legislative Assembly to ensure that commitment is delivered as a matter of urgency. Other speakers on our side will also comment on the assurances we seek from the government.In conclusion, the opposition will not decline to give this bill a second reading. There have been discussions between the opposition and the government on the nature of the second reading amendment. It is fair to say that it is only for technical reasons that the government will not be able to vote on the opposition's second reading amendment on this occasion. I welcome and accept the constructive nature with which the government has entered into those discussions with the Labor opposition on this occasion. In relation to the announced deal between News Ltd and Air New Zealand, we are urging them in the strongest terms—it is a very strong call from the employees of Ansett, their families and the community at large—that those involved in these discussions exercise the powers they have in the process to ensure that Ansett Australia remains headquartered in Australia. That is important not only to Australia but also especially to the state of Victoria and Melbourne. Secondly, we are urging that a fair share of the future growth in Air New Zealand's international routes be through Ansett International. Ansett International wants not only to provide a quality service in Australia but also to grow internationally and, in doing so, create more employment opportunities internationally. That takes me to the third issue. We want to make sure that that delivers high skilled, high value Ansett jobs in Australia. Fourthly, Ansett jobs must be in regional and rural communities and they should not be jeopardised by the sale. Finally, services to regional and rural communities must be preserved at current levels or improved. I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“this House, whilst supportive of the amendment to adjust foreign ownership rules under the Air Navigation Act 1920, and whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, considers that in examining a proposal for the sale of shares in Ansett to foreign interests, the Government should take into consideration the view that:(1) Ansett Australia should remain headquartered in Australia;(2) a fair share of future growth in routes should be through Ansett International;(3) high skilled, high value Ansett airlines jobs should remain in Australia;(4) Ansett jobs in regional and rural communities not be jeopardised by the sale; and(5) services to regional and rural communities should be preserved at current levels, or improved”.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the amendment seconded?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.10:07:0015228Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today in support of the government's Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 and note with interest the comments of the member for Batman. I listened with interest to his speech and I agree with much of what he expressed. I will go through some of those comments on a seriatim basis. He spoke at some length regarding Adelaide Airport and the curfew and the need for noise insulation. I would say that Labor had plenty of opportunities when they were in government to make such a change but failed to do so. In relation to compensation and the question of noise insulation and the question also of whether the government is Sydney-centric, it is really a simple matter of where the majority of flights are. More than 50 per cent of the total take-offs and landings in the entire country are based on Sydney. That does not mean that we should ignore the problems that exist in other airports, but that is the simple reality.If we move to the other aspects of this legislation, I think it does bring us into a contemporary world, a world in which there is increasing globalisation, particularly as it relates to international air services. We have had the development of oneworld, in which one of the lead proponents is Qantas, along with British Airways and the other carriers which are part of that agreement. It was interesting to see Cathay Pacific actually became part of that agreement recently. There is also Star Alliance, in which Ansett and other operators such as Thai, Lufthansa, SAS and United Airlines, which is the biggest airline in the world, are involved. It is a very strong alliance. This context of increasing globalisation puts increasing pressure on Australian operators to be competitive. There are important aspects of it. There are moves to greater liberalisation of our air agreements in terms of open skies as they relate to airports other than Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth and also questions of restrictions of flights in the curfew period. This bill is in part in response to the Productivity Commission's 1998 report on its inquiry into the International Air Services Commission. Australia's aviation policy is now a liberalised aviation sector with regard to ownership and control, capacity, frequency and destination of flights. The government's international aviation policy focuses on reciprocal bilateral open skies arrangements with other countries. I believe that it is appropriate that we simply do not open up all of our ports on a totally open skies basis without reciprocal arrangements being provided by other countries. There are some countries where there are still difficulties in negotiating these arrangements. But the arrangements as proposed in the bill permit unrestricted access by foreign aircraft to all airports except, as I mentioned, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth and give foreign international airlines operating in regional Australia unlimited capacity, code share and owned stopover rights. These arrangements have been negotiated with a number of countries. But, by preventing access by private foreign aircraft to domestic routes, the government has ensured that foreign airlines cannot take jobs from country Australians.The other aspect of policy changes relates to market share. The bill implements the government's decision to liberalise the foreign ownership of Australian international airlines, except Qantas. Australia has four airlines that would benefit from the bill—Ansett International, Flight West, Asian Express cargo and Transpac cargo. Under current foreign ownership rules in Australia no more than 35 per cent of an airline can be foreign owned and no single airline can own more than 35 per cent. This bill would allow for no more than 49 per cent foreign ownership and for no restriction within that 49 per cent cap.In Cheryl Kernot's press release of June 1999, as the then shadow minister for regional development, infrastructure, transport and regional services, she described this liberalisation as a `reasonable outcome and one that goes down the sensible path of incremental liberalisation, rather than the unilateral and unfettered liberalisation favoured by some'. This bill would make it easier for Australian international carriers to obtain capital and negotiate an alliance. International aviation is expensive and risky, and airlines need as much flexibility as possible to obtain capital. The alternative is that Australian airlines would gradually become undercapitalised, lose market share and be unable to compete with well-funded foreign carriers. We see this as a great benefit to tourism.It is important to recognise that today we have in this parliament the annual general meeting of the Inbound Tourism Operators Association of Australia. They are visiting Parliament House today. There is a lot of focus on this. There are a lot of calls within the tourism industry for greater liberalisation, more open skies—and of course there is a balance in getting liberalisation and greater foreign ownership and at the same time protecting Australian jobs and protecting the long-term future and viability of the Australian aviation industry. There is no doubt that competition brings down costs and enables more options to be developed for incoming tourists. The cheaper our fares, the more global and competitive our environment, the more tourists we are going to have visit us, if common economic principles work in terms of elasticity of demand.This is something the government has sought to respect in its consideration and action in relation to the Productivity Commission inquiry into our air access arrangements. The recent announcement by the government which simply allows greater liberalisation to regional airports other than the main east coast airports is an especially good thing and is welcomed by the tourism industry. Freight has now been completely liberalised. This opens up all sorts of possibilities for those who want to develop freight operations at airports around the country and, of course, the opportunity to maximise the export of fresh fruit and vegetables and other commodities into particularly the Asian market but also into Europe and the USA.At a regular meeting of the Friends of Tourism that was held yesterday a deregulated, liberalised industry was a key issue in a speech given by Tony Stuart of Sydney Airport Corporation. In the words of Mr Stuart: ... the tourism industry must ensure that all foreign carriers who wish to access Australia can do so provided that Australian carriers have some form of reciprocal benefit. The first cab off the rank was the United Arab Emirates, which have now accessed considerably more liberal arrangements in time for the Olympic Games. Last week they started their services to Sydney, and they will be flying to Sydney four times a week.There are increased penalties for breaching the Sydney airport curfew. I noted the comments of the member for Batman on this and I, of course, have a strong interest in this whole issue on two fronts. First, more airline employees, according to the airlines, live in my electorate than in any other electorate in Australia and, second, my electorate experiences more aircraft noise than any other electorate in Australia, with 55 per cent of all take-offs and landings occurring over my electorate. So there is considerable interest in these particular provisions. They are about increasing the penalties that apply to those who continually break the curfew, or who break it at all. This is good news for the people of Kurnell, Bundeena and Cronulla.While the movements of the air ambulance services are unrestricted and freight planes that are propeller driven are allowed to fly over the bay at all hours, there is no question of there being a strong need to restrict the activities of passenger carriers and stop them from breaking the law. On 28 February last year a Thai Airlines flight took off at 1 o'clock in the morning and at 1.45 a.m. over Kurnell it woke everybody up. I was told about this in no uncertain terms by the people of Kurnell. They rang me and said, `What is going on with the curfew situation when you have aircraft constantly breaking the curfew?' That is in fact happening because I actually overlook the airport from my apartment in Cronulla and I do see aircraft taking off at various times. If there is a special reason, such as a mechanical delay or difficulties in getting accommodation in peak times for people, on some occasions the appropriate authorities do give approval for these take-offs to take place. On this occasion the aircraft took off without receiving the necessary approvals and the result was considerable discomfort and annoyance for the community of Kurnell.This flagrant breach of the curfew requirements cannot be tolerated. They simply calculate whether it is worth paying the penalties as opposed to having the aircraft sit overnight and providing accommodation for the passengers in Sydney hotels and motels, and the result is that airlines often make the decision that it is worth taking off. These amendments increase the penalties so significantly that it certainly does not provide them with any economic incentive to do that. The proposed amendments will increase the maximum fines by a factor of five. The maximum fine for operating an aircraft during the curfew period will now be $110,000 for an individual or $550,000 for a company. The maximum penalties in section 10 for taking off between 10.45 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. using a runway which is not permitted by the statute are also increased fivefold. I think that is very good news for not only my electorate but also the other electorates that surround the airport and the members who represent those electorates, such as the member for Grayndler and so on. So we welcome the changes that are included in this proposal.There is much in the sentiment of the amendment sought by the member for Batman, in seeking to ensure the long-term future of Ansett in Australia, that can be applauded. Obviously there are questions about the way he has drafted his amendment. He talks about a fair share of future growth in routes through Ansett International, but he does not indicate how that fair share is to be determined. That is left on a fairly vague basis. It is true that the government intends to grow Ansett International in the future—that is the distinct plan the government has to encourage growth—but holding Ansett to the other aspects would create certain difficulties for their long-term future. Certainly I would be sympathetic to the sentiments outlined by the member for Batman, and obviously that matter needs to be worked through with the government.I was part of the transport committee that was briefed by the senior management of Ansett, as well as by the senior management of Air New Zealand, and there were absolute assurances about the long-term future of Ansett operating domestically in Australia and about Ansett International in its operations on a global basis and that the two airlines would continue to remain separate entities. The provisions of part 3, which state that high skilled, high value Ansett airline jobs should remain in Australia, is really to put them in a straitjacket. I, for one, have been watching some of the developments with Qantas as they have moved some of their jobs offshore. I see that they have recruited Thai flight attendants and that some of their servicing of aircraft and maintenance work is being carried out in Asia. Those provisions provide a straitjacket in terms of a company that is trying to respond to international pressures and demands. I think that really needs to be thought through, even though the sentiments outlined by the member for Batman are important. As I mentioned before, as somebody who represents an area which has a high number of airline employees living within it, I am sensitive about trying to maximise the number of jobs that we have in Australia and of course the number of high skilled jobs. I also point to the outstanding record in Australian aviation history of both Ansett and Qantas. It is therefore disappointing to note the attacks in recent days on the CEO of Qantas, James Strong. I refer particularly to the Miranda Devine article. She is a journalist that I agree with in the majority of cases, and she writes some excellent articles, but on the recent occasion when she wrote an opinion piece `Airline chief veers offcourse' I believe the attacks on James Strong were unwarranted. His track record has been quite outstanding. Under James Strong, Qantas has implemented a dramatic change in the culture of the airline from a government operation to a successful commercial business. He has guided change in the international relations climate from confrontation to a constructive partnership. He has achieved increased levels of efficiency and productivity while growing the size of the business and the number of job opportunities and has posted record profits each year since the business was listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in mid-1995, even though the Asian economic downturn occurred during this period.Under James Strong, the airline has maintained a strong focus on air safety. Only on Monday, a report of the Joint Committee on Treaties was tabled in this place recommending—with the approval of Qantas and Ansett—that liability of the airlines be unlimited and set by the courts in line with the damage done and not limited to protect members of the industry. This speaks volumes about the organisation's confidence in safety and its sense of corporate responsibility. So the idea of chasing the jumbo and questioning whether it was in China or not—and I notice there was some egg on the face of the Herald reporter who chased the aircraft and announced to the world that they had found the Qantas jumbo only to find they had the wrong aircraft type; it was in fact a Cathay Pacific plane—is embarrassing. Instead of trying to cut down our tall poppies, it is time that we supported people like James Strong. He has done an outstanding job in lifting the viability of the business, expanding the route network, improving the business's profitability and improving the price of its shares—in terms of its shareholders, for one thing, and in terms of its international reputation. To focus on the incident in Bangkok, which undoubtedly was unfortunate, at the expense of his great track record at Qantas is not in the spirit of what we would want in this country.As far as these amendments are concerned, I am glad to see the bipartisan approach that has come into the debate today from the member for Batman—recognising that it is important that we have an increasing globalisation of the aviation sector and recognising that it is appropriate that we also have foreign ownership in our airlines where it is to the benefit of the Australian community, to the viability of the airline and does not disadvantage local employees. That is what we saw in the previous government's proposals for the privatisation of Qantas. British Airways bought a substantial share in Qantas, and that has proved to be important to the overall competitive position of Qantas. There is no doubt that we would not be enjoying the type of competitive position we have now if it had not been for the special global alliance that occurs with British Airways. It results in cost cutting, code sharing and the sharing of sales activity and maintenance agreements. The residents of Australia are the beneficiaries of lowered costs, lowered fares and an increasingly globalised position. The ability with which Qantas is now able to offer services to Buenos Aires and to ports such as Paris has been brought about through this increased cooperation between the airlines. Rod Eddington—another very fine chief executive, brought over from Cathay Pacific—has provided a significant turnaround in the fortunes of Ansett. They have now moved into a position of quite strong profitability. They are looking very confident. They are providing a very strong level of service. In order to get that competitive position, the infusion of funds from Air New Zealand will allow them to address many of the issues that have been raised today—providing a strong network of regional services, being competitive and providing a balance to the oneworld alliance of Qantas, British Airways and other members. That is to be applauded. As we work through this together, and I have noted the sentiments that are included in the member for Batman's comments, it is important that we see an honouring of the undertakings given by Ansett and Air New Zealand on continuing the long-term role of Ansett in Australia and ensuring that Australian employees of the airlines see a long-term future. (Time expired)10:27:0015232Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am pleased to speak in support of the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 and particularly to support my colleague the honourable member for Batman in the second reading amendment that he has moved, which I note the honourable member for Cook has a great deal of sympathy for, and well might he. The bill seeks to change the foreign ownership rules applying to Ansett. Well might we ask: how did we get ourselves into this position? It does not seem so long ago that, if you looked at the two domestic carriers, you saw that perhaps Ansett was the stronger of the two. The workers of Australia pay a very high price for poor management. One of the pressing problems that Ansett has is a lack of capital. It is certainly not the fault of the pilots, the hostesses, the ground crew or the Transport Workers Union staff that this situation has come into being. I know I risk being labelled yet again very old-fashioned, but I always have a point of regret when I see an Australian brand name, an Australian icon, effectively passing into foreign hands. A country of Australia's size will always require a great deal of foreign investment. But it is also the case that it does need some medium sized—and, hopefully, very large—businesses that are Australian owned, that actually see a commitment to this country as a priority.I am not suggesting that we can turn the clock back in this instance, but I think we ought to note that this really comes about because of a failure of management, not because of an unwillingness of workers to work hard, to commit to the business or to be dedicated. Both sides are supporting this legislation, which will allow a 50 per cent shareholding of Ansett at News Corp and will allow 100 per cent of the domestic operation and 49 per cent of the foreign operation to be owned by Air New Zealand.I note that the member for Cook said that some of the airline servicing is going to be done in Australia. I often recall a meeting of the Transport and Communications Caucus Committee, as it then was, where Qantas boasted about capitalising on their outstanding reputation—Ansett also has an outstanding reputation, for that matter—on their engineering skills and on their safety record. They said that they saw a real growth industry in Australia, not only in servicing our own airlines from an engineering perspective but in actually attracting other airlines to come and have their servicing done in Australia. It is really a sad state of affairs that that is not happening today and that both airlines are having some of their aircraft serviced overseas. How ridiculous to have the world's safest airline, Qantas, not capitalising on that reputation and not being able to garner a market. Servicing overseas airlines is a big dollar, high skill market in Australia. As I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will no doubt feel that I am very old-fashioned in raising these issues, but I really feel very deeply about them. I would also like to say that I am pleased to see the increased penalties for breaching Sydney's airport curfew. I am very proud to come from Western Sydney. I might say again that that region of Sydney will in 2016 comprise more than 50 per cent of Sydney's population. I stand up here very proud to be a member for Western Sydney, and I say to the House that I think the noise problem generated by Kingsford Smith is horrific. I absolutely welcome anything that we can do to ensure that the law is not broken and that there are hefty penalties. Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is nothing new to you to learn that the big debate in Sydney is about Sydney's second airport.I want to put on the record that I support the comment of the honourable member for Werriwa in this. He claimed that airport decisions in Sydney, the gateway to Australia, are not being made on a rational basis. I happen to agree with him. Although this problem has been going on year in, year out, and I am told that a decision is imminent, I really think we have the process wrong. I cannot honestly say to the House that a rational decision is about to be made. If anything, I would say that the government is going to announce a decision to be seen to be taking a decision—the very worst circumstance in which any decision can be taken.But why isn't it rational? I could say a few things. Firstly, I think the thing that turned Western Sydney against the airport was the absolutely rorted EIS into the third runway. I do not think anyone in this House would stand up and say, `This was a triumph of the department of transport and demonstrates how an EIS ought to be run.' It was an absolute cock-up, a stuff-up. In fact, I believe some public servants should have been hung, drawn and quartered and the company conducting it driven out of town. That is what turned public opinion. We are told that the EIS for Western Sydney has been going on for some time. Indeed it has. I also need to say to the House that the then shadow minister for transport, Lindsay Tanner, and Duncan Kerr put out a press release stating quite clearly that they believed that the EIS process was fundamentally flawed and lacking in public confidence. Nothing that changes those circumstances has happened since that joint press release. The more we have gone into Badgerys Creek, the less convinced we are that we need it.Who in this House can tell us what the capacity of Kingsford Smith airport is? A Robert Gottliebson article in the Australian entitled, `Spending $7bn on Badgerys Creek is plane silly', says that Sydney airport has the capacity for 350,000 air movements, is currently undertaking only 282,000 and therefore has a capacity yield which will make it last for another 25 years. I do not know what the capacity of Kingsford Smith airport is, but I think that before we make a $7 billion decision or a baby $5 billion decision we ought to know. By the way, let me just put on the record the question: how will baby Badgerys go? We have had a public opinion poll conducted by the Western Sydney Alliance just recently. The majority of the respondents, 62 per cent, opposed the big Badgerys concept, whilst 56 per cent of respondents opposed a smaller airport at Badgerys Creek. Public opinion is not in favour of Badgerys and, as Sandra Prout from Minchinbury says, babies have a habit of growing up.Clearly, that is how that decision would be seen in Western Sydney. I understand to better test public opinion, to further refine the accuracy of polling and to gauge the likely impact of any government decision, the Western Sydney Alliance may be undertaking a poll in marginal seats in Western Sydney. The point that I am making is that the proposals of the Minister for Finance and Administration for baby Badgerys involve shifting aircraft from Kingsford Smith to Bankstown. Should we not have the empirical evidence of what this will do not only to the residents of Bankstown but also to Bankstown airport—what is the capacity of Bankstown airport, what is the commensurate infrastructure that needs to be spent to link up with a fast rail service to Kingsford Smith and will this solve this problem? No-one in this House can stand up and say, `Here is the evidence.'In this debate about Badgerys a number of alternative sites, not originally considered, have been thrown into the melting pot. Goulburn believes it has a case. Canberra believes it has a case. There is an argument about Williamstown airport. None of these options have really ever been considered. That is why I suggested to the Western Sydney Alliance that we are really in a hiatus position. The government is about to make a decision to be seen to be making a decision, but the people of Western Sydney are probably exhausted having gone to huge public rallies, sent letters of support, signed petitions and filled in cards protesting about this airport. They are pretty exhausted by the whole process. What can we do? I think there are tough decisions that need to be made. There are some rational decisions that have to be made about air transport in Western Sydney. But we have not yet had a process where the public can be confident that it is fair, that it is open, that it is transparent and that we do not have Dracula in charge of the blood bank—that is, the Department of Transport and Regional Services, perhaps one of the most ideological Public Service departments, running the show. What can we do? What I suggested we need to do is not put in a fix, not select people with a biased view, but select people with impeccable credentials to run a commission of inquiry and look at everything. Everything should be on the table—noise around KSA, flight paths of KSA, capacity of KSA, Bankstown, Badgerys, Goulburn, Canberra and Newcastle. We should have the commission conduct its inquiry in a public way so that everyone will have their day at the inquiry. But, at the end of day, we should ask the commission to make recommendations about what needs to be done. If we were to have such a commission of inquiry and at the end of the day it recommended Badgerys, well, then I would say that we put up a good fight, but Badgerys it is. I do not think any sane, rational process will throw up Badgerys, but if it did the people of Western Sydney could say, `We have put up a good fight, but we have lost.' But, whatever the decisions, there must be a guarantee that they will not be fiddled, that they will not be rorted and that the government and the opposition would be prepared to rapidly implement those recommendations. This would give you a process that you are confident of. We can learn from the mistakes made in the past.I also wanted to address the issue of potential employment that is always flung at us in Western Sydney. From the very beginning of my time as a federal member of parliament I supported Badgerys on the basis of the employment prospects that it might generate. Not so different from the bulk of my constituents and the people of Western Sydney, I started to have a change of heart when I saw the mayhem that the third runway caused in the inner city. In those early days we used figures of about 100,000. I notice that the honourable member for Werriwa currently uses a figure of 30,000. That is down from 60,000 that used to be talked about. I think the figure will be less than that. How can a member from the western suburbs of Sydney deny job opportunities to his constituents or to a region where there is so much unemployment? Like any other member, I desperately want jobs for my people. But why do we in Western Sydney have to accept jobs with an environmental price tag? Why are we so different in Western Sydney that unquestioningly we should accept these jobs knowing the dislocation it will cause to our lifestyle, our environment, our health and the education of our kids? All these things are documented in the EIS. I have turned my back on those jobs. I get into arguments with some of my constituents. A very good friend of mine is the parish priest at the Holy Family Church. He says to me, `Roger, we need to take these jobs.' But I say to him, `Why should we take these jobs which come at such a heavy price? Why can we not have a fair share of the long-term jobs, the high-tech jobs, the jobs with a future?' Other parts of Sydney may treat the people of Western Sydney as second-class citizens, but I want the House to know that we in no way consider ourselves as second-class citizens and we will not be treated as such. It is for those reasons that I reject that argument.I believe that when you look at Western Sydney, with its exciting demographics and the fact that 50 per cent of Sydney people will reside there, we have ample opportunities to generate good jobs and clean jobs—jobs that will not degrade our environment, will not degrade our health and will not create greater educational barriers than currently exist in Western Sydney. I again want to say, along with other opposition members, that we are supporting this bill. I want to commend the shadow minister, who has moved an amendment, principally that: (1) Ansett Australia should remain headquartered in Australia;(2) a fair share of future growth in routes should be through Ansett International;(3) high skilled, high value Ansett airlines jobs should remain in Australia;(4) Ansett jobs in regional and rural communities not be jeopardised by the sale; and(5) services to regional and rural communities should be preserved at current levels, or improved”.10:45:0015235Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I always enjoy speaking on aviation bills because, for one thing, my electorate is close to the existing airport, Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, and, secondly, this particular bill, the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, deals with a favourite topic of mine, that is, foreign investment, or at least the liberalisation of foreign investment in our airlines.Let us be frank about this: foreign investment is a very good thing for Australia. There is a certain hesitation about it in parts of this parliament, certainly among opposition members. That sort of thing reflects a rather old-fashioned view of the damage that restrictions on the movement of capital can do. Some of our colleagues in this place and in other parts of the parliament really have a view of life that suggests that we ought to do as much as possible within our own economy, make as many possible things and provide as many possible services and that the parliament ought to have some prescriptive role in making sure that happens. That kind of autarchy is a death sentence for an economy. It only serves in the end to reduce people's incomes.When you look around the world now, foreign investment is growing at a pace that it has perhaps never grown at before. Not many people would realise that the Chief Executive Officer of Nissan Motors—one of Japan's proud old brand names—is a Brazilian, because the management of that company performed so badly that the French company Renault took a large stake in Nissan and installed their own man to make sure it was run properly. Likewise, the American company General Motors has large stakes in other Japanese car makers, and Daimler-Benz has just taken a 30 per cent stake in Mitsubishi Motors. So the once unconquerable brand name motorcars from Japan are now being infused with fresh foreign capital, and they are going to do a lot better as a result of that.Part of this bill allows the liberalisation of investment in Australian international airlines, with the exception of Qantas. This is all about welcoming Air New Zealand's proposed investment in Ansett. I do not know why people would have doubts about Air New Zealand. I think it is a good company. I have a lot of affection for New Zealand and New Zealanders generally, so I welcome their participation in Australian aviation. Australian capital needs the best possible return it can get. Throughout the eighties and the nineties, you might say there was a huge excess of capital washing through the stock, bond and real estate markets. This was caused, I suppose, by the development of silicon technology and historically low oil prices as a result of a lot of exploration for oil in the seventies. This I think, in a cyclical fashion, will soon change, and in the next 10 to 20 years people will likely start talking about a shortage of investment capital, which puts a premium on the return that Australian investment capital can seek.From now on, we are going to have to confront huge unfunded needs in aged care and health for the so-called baby boomer generation. We are going to have to confront the need to spend a lot more money on defending ourselves, especially as the proliferation of missile technology becomes much more of a reality in North Asia. The only antidote to that as a defence strategy is what is called theatre missile defence—that is, smaller missiles guided by satellites that are able to shoot down a missile that is heading for a target. This is now slowly being undertaken between the United States and Japan as a result of a missile fired from North Korea in August 1998. Given that we are a close ally of the United States, there is no doubt in my mind that we will have to take part in the development of these new systems. They will be very, very expensive, but they will also have a few other consequences. You will not really be able to participate in them without attracting much larger numbers of advanced software developers and, in order to do that, our current income tax rates, for a start, will have to fall. There is no way in the world we will attract enough people with those skills while we steal half of our high achievers' income at rates of 48 per cent or so. I think various jurisdictions will compete for this kind of human capital in the future, and they will do it by cutting their tax rates to attract them. Hence, you might say that you can foresee a diminution of tax receipts coming as these jurisdictions compete, and we will be one of them. So any restriction on Australian capital now preventing it from getting its best return—whether it is invested in airlines, agriculture or anything else—is pretty soon going to look very, very stupid.The opposition have moved an amendment, not I notice of a prescriptive nature but which asks the government to take into consideration certain matters when it examines the proposal for the sale of shares in Ansett. They are things like:(1) Ansett Australia should remain headquartered in Australia;(2) a fair share of future growth in routes should be through Ansett International—that is, with the Ansett livery on aircraft. Also:(4) Ansett jobs in regional and rural communities not be jeopardised by the sale; and(5) services to regional and rural communities should be preserved at current levels, or improved”.I suppose that sort of rhetoric will deliver some feeling of security to some people. It would be nice if this kind of thing happens in the future, so we should not be too harsh perhaps. But they are not conditions on the sale—they are not prescriptive things that Air New Zealand will have to do. It is more a matter of moral suasion and any government has the right, I suppose, to do that. All in all this is really a case of incremental liberalisation. Beyond this, the government's aviation policy generally has changed as a result of some recommendations made by the Productivity Commission largely inspired by a submission from a certain person a couple of years ago who served as the then minister for tourism—that was me. I put in a submission to the Productivity Commission at the time calling for open skies, for much more freedom for airlines to carry passengers within Australia, and for the abolition of the dreadful evil cabotage rule. This went to the cabinet. Some of it was accepted, and I welcome that. One day in the future maybe we will be even freer. We will not hurry towards that. It has to be done at a fairly reasonable pace. The other part of this bill is the proposed increase in penalties for the breach of the curfew at Sydney airport. Obviously, on behalf of my constituents, I support that. It really gives rise to a discussion about the need for more capacity for aviation in the Sydney area. The member for Chifley, my friend Mr Price, spoke about that and some of the issues surrounding the expected development at Badgerys Creek. It is government policy of course, and I understand it is opposition policy too, that that be the location. I say: more steel to their spine and more strength to their hand in building that. There is no doubt that as the capacity constraints come into play at Kingsford Smith we will need a second airport. It is about time we started to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. People talk about a baby Badgerys. It is a cute kind of phrase. As the member for Chifley said, babies grow. You give them nutrition and they grow, and so they should. So, of course, will an airport at Badgerys Creek.The biggest problem has been the lack of coordination between the tiers of government. I worked out there for a few years before I was elected to this place and I saw with some dismay the subdivisions creeping west of Liverpool and Fairfield out towards the site. I often thought that this was madness because the airport had to be built there, yet they were allowing all these subdivisions to creep ever closer. Although people might say, `Oh, well, the people who bought there knew very well the airport was coming,' inevitably it leads to fuss and protest: `We don't want it there.' We have to face up to that some time. I can only say that it is really not all that bad. An airport is something to be welcomed, not to be opposed. You would not have a baby economy or a baby income, would you? No. So why would you have a baby airport? It will grow. The important thing to assure people is that it will grow slowly and steadily, and so it should. You should not necessarily throw huge amounts of capital at something that will not be needed in its full capacity for about 10 years. I think the government's participation in the funding of it, frankly, should be at a minimum and that as much as possible of private capital should be employed to build what you might call a baby Badgerys to start with but to develop it as it grows naturally as the air traffic grows. It is one thing for me to say that we should have the best possible return on Australian capital because we will desperately need it in the future. The same can be said for public capital. There is no point overcapitalising on an airport at Badgerys Creek if it is going to be half empty for the next 10 years. It can grow in that location incrementally, and I hope that is exactly what happens in the future.I would like to conclude my remarks by reiterating that I welcome the participation of Air New Zealand in Australian aviation. I welcome foreign ownership of Australian companies just as I welcome Australian ownership of foreign companies. The less restrictions on the flow of capital the better the return on equity, and that is the best thing that Australian shareholders, citizens, taxpayers, whomever, can expect.10:57:0015237O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—The Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 currently before the House seeks to amend both the Air Navigation Act 1920 and the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995. These amendments will have two major impacts on the operation of the aviation industry in Australia: to increase the allowable percentage of foreign ownership in Australian international carriers other than Qantas and to increase the penalty imposed for breaking curfew restrictions at Sydney airport. This follows a report released on 11 September 1998 by the Productivity Commission on its inquiry into international air services and the International Air Services Commission. I am pleased to say that the government has for the most part responded in a responsible manner to this report and the bill before the House will give legislative approval to its response. Sections of the report from the Productivity Commission have not been supported, and I am pleased that this is the case. Allowing for free and unfettered access to our domestic routes by international airlines would have had a real and, I believe, very negative impact on our domestic services. To have given international carriers the ability to pick and choose from our domestic routes, whereby the profitable ones in our current domestic market would have been lost, would have reduced the quality of service received in regional Australia. The very high volume and consequently profitable routes play a role in the cross-subsidisation of services to regional Australia. It is important to note that this action in maintaining domestic routes for Australian carriers is in line with the treatment that Qantas and Ansett receive from our major trading partners. Other than New Zealand, none of the major trading partners allow Ansett or Qantas access to their domestic markets. This legislation will give effect to the government's formal response to the report from the Productivity Commission. I will confine my comments to the portion of this bill that relates to the increase in the allowable holdings in Australian international carriers by foreign nationals. The Australian aviation industry is important. It is important to those who work in it. It is important to those who for commercial or recreational reasons use it, and it is especially important to regional Australia. I can assure all members that, coming from Tasmania, I particularly appreciate the importance of air services. The ownership of Australian international airlines has implications for the capacity of the Australian government to negotiate bilateral air service agreements with other countries. Bilateral air service agreements and the rights contained with them are the province of a country and not any particular airline. Accordingly, for an airline to exercise the rights granted to a country, it must be substantially owned or effectively controlled by nationals of the country to which the right was granted. The bill before the House will alter the current arrangements such that 49 per cent of Australian international carriers will be able to be owned by any foreign person or company. Currently there is a limit on holdings of Australian international carriers, other than Qantas, by individual foreign airlines of 25 per cent and no more than 35 per cent for foreign airlines. Indeed, the current guidelines administered by the Foreign Investment Review Board allow for the following: 25 per cent of an Australian domestic airline or international airline by an individual airline which flies to Australia; 40 per cent total ownership of an Australian domestic airline by foreign airlines; 35 per cent total ownership of an Australian international airline by foreign airlines; and foreign investors, including airlines which do not fly to Australia, can hold up to 100 per cent of an Australian domestic airline. These ownership levels are, however, dependent upon an assessment that the level of foreign ownership is in the national interest. As I previously indicated, the bill before the House will increase these limits to allow for 49 per cent foreign ownership of Australian international carriers and will remove the distinction between foreign airlines and other investors when considering holdings in Australian airlines.This brings me to the impact that this change will have directly on the industry. There are 10 Australian airlines which will be affected by this legislative change. I will, however, limit my remarks to the impact on Ansett and Ansett International. As honourable members are aware, Air New Zealand is proposing to acquire News Corp's share—50 per cent—in Ansett Holdings. This will give to Air New Zealand 100 per cent ownership of the domestic operations of Ansett and a 49 per cent holding in Ansett International. Mergers of this sort occur for many reasons, one of which is the efficiencies which can be gained through the streamlining of administrative and back office operations.As Ansett is a significant employer, I have concerns that through any merger there are no job losses in Australia. In 1998-99, Ansett employed 14,876 people and had a net profit after tax of $156.8 million. By any reasonable measure, this is a significant company. The maintenance of the headquarters of Ansett in Australia is an essential ingredient to maintaining in the national interest employment with Ansett in Australia. Given the complexity of the aviation industry, many of the jobs within the industry are of a highly complex nature and provide a correspondingly high value, both to the employee and to Australia. Through all operations of an airline, highly skilled people are required to ensure that the operations are efficient, profitable and above all safe. Maintaining these highly skilled employees in Australia, working out of Australia and providing a benefit to Australia is essential.I am not speaking solely of pilots. There are, just to name a few of them, ground crews, maintenance engineers, computer technicians and programmers, and people experienced in logistics and scheduling. These are examples of only some of the highly skilled and valuable employees who contribute to any successful airline and the loss of any of these highly skilled jobs from Australia would be a loss to Australia. Skilled people are a resource that we cannot risk. What needs to be ensured by the government, if this merger is to go ahead, is that the national interest is not counted in dollars and cents or strategic industry placement alone but in maintaining a work force which is employed in Australia. I would be amazed, and not a little disturbed, if any member in this House did not believe that highly skilled and often well paid jobs are not to be considered when assessing the national interest. It is important to remember that, even following the passage of this bill, if that is to occur, there will remain a national interest test which must be applied to any increase in the holding of an Australian airline by foreign nationals, and it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the public interest is taken into account.The development of a skilled work force is essential to Australia. A skilled population is not something which just appears overnight or simply when we require it. A skilled work force needs to be developed and nurtured. This development can only really occur under a government committed to real skill development. Since 1994-95 apprenticeships in the aviation industry have fallen significantly. In 1994-95, 226 apprenticeships commenced. In 1995-96, 232 apprenticeships commenced. In 1996-97, the number fell to 172, and in 1997-98, it was 94. In the first half of the 1998-99 year, just 12 new apprenticeships were commenced. Australia's best interest is served when our work force is skilled and those skills are not only maintained but further developed. A commitment to maintaining skills in Australia must be threefold: a commitment to training, a commitment to retraining and a commitment to not exporting highly skilled jobs to another country. It is essential that not only highly skilled jobs are protected but these jobs are maintained in regional areas. In this context, I am speaking not only about Ansett but also about Kendall Airlines—which fly to Tasmania—Skywest Airlines and Aeropelican Air Services. These services provide what in many regional areas is an essential service, and maintaining the employment levels of staff in regional Australia is important. Already the gap between major mainland capital cities and the rest of Australia in relation to job opportunities has grown too large, and to see an increased flow of jobs from regional areas to capital cities would be a further blow to struggling communities. Were any merger to affect the employment opportunities of people in regional Australia, it is clear that no national interest would be served.I am particularly concerned that the Ansett call centre within my electorate not only is maintained as an Australian based facility but remains in Launceston. Given the Prime Minister's much lauded commitment to regional Australia, I would expect no less than a direction to the Foreign Investment Review Board that, in assessing the national interest, the impact of possible reductions in employment in regional Australia must be taken into account. This is a real test because either regional Australia is important to Australia and our future as a nation or it is not. This should be a demonstrable commitment, if such a commitment exists, to the people of regional Australia.This is another of the firm principled commitments that the government needs to make. It has failed to make it with regard to mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory; let us hope it does not fail us in aviation. The corollary of maintaining jobs and skill enhancement opportunities in regional Australia is that this will give the best guarantee possible that services will be maintained. Airlines in regional Australia provide employment and infrastructure but, further, they provide access for those who do not live in major capital cities. This cuts both ways: airlines for many regional areas are the artery of our tourist industry. Tourism plays a huge role in Bass with one in nine Tasmanians employed in the tourism industry. Accordingly, it is essential that services are maintained for three reasons: that those people who live in regional Australia are not further isolated from many of the things our nation has to offer; that our tourist industries are not constricted; and that growth in employment is not contained by the inability of tourists to access holiday destinations outside capital cities. In regional Australia the importance of air transport is paramount. Members from metropolitan electorates can rarely understand this importance. I will be supporting this legislation because it is a sensible response to the Productivity Commission's report. It behoves the government to ensure that the national interest is served. I believe that the national interest is broad. It is in the national interest to maintain employment in Australia. It is in the national interest to ensure that the skills of Australia's work force are developed. It is in the national interest to ensure that jobs are not lost from regional areas to capital cities. It is in the national interest to ensure that air services are not reduced in regional Australia. These are the tests by which the government must judge any mergers in the airline industry. These are also the issues that the government must address in its approach to the policy surrounding our aviation industry. 11:07:0015240Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—During my nearly 24 years in this place I suppose I have been involved in most of the major aviation debates, and yet this debate today probably comes up at one of the most significant times of Australian commercial aviation history. It is appropriate that this bill is being debated at this time when we see the tremendous changes going on in the aviation industry. I have been quite fascinated today to follow this debate and to see some of the lines that have been run. I would like to comment on a few of the contributions made by previous speakers, because I think we have seen a major change in attitude in this place to not only the present state of Australian aviation but indeed to the future of Australian aviation. As I say, I think this is a most significant time in the history of aviation, because now we are seeing a time when massive consolidation is about to take place with the two major carriers in which we have an opportunity to go out into the world and to put our stamp on international aviation facilities and indeed we have the opportunity, I think, of creating a strong and viable but an ever-expanding aviation facility here in Australia.I was interested to hear the member for Bass and her concern about what was happening in terms of the possibility of the loss of jobs in Australia and the necessity to maintain those jobs and to have certain protections written in in the future activities in terms of the takeover of Ansett. I was interested to hear of her concern that in her home state of Tasmania there could possibly be the loss of jobs. It is quite interesting that the fact that Ansett maintain their 24-hour call centre in Launceston and employs something like 340 people is a most significant part of the Tasmanian economy these days. I do not think there is any doubt that Ansett have made a commitment to maintain that. Indeed, I think it made a formal commitment to the Tasmanian government that they are not going to move the call centre. Also, I believe that there is an indication from Ansett that they are in fact looking at increasing the number of people who are employed in that facility in Launceston. So what I think is going to happen is that you are not going to see a loss of jobs but, as I said earlier, there is the possibility of a major expansion in the number of jobs in aviation.I was also very interested in the comments of the member for Chifley and a number of the scenarios that he raised. I think the substance of the opening of his speech was the fact that he had some concern that an Australian icon—namely, Ansett Airlines—was moving into foreign hands. As a former employee of Ansett Transport Industries—not in the aviation sector but I did have 10 years with that division of the company before I entered parliament—I must say that I share that concern, although I probably lost that sympathy with the takeover by TNT and News Limited back in the early 1980s. That was where the real change came in terms of the administration of Ansett. What we are debating today really is going to see the survival of Ansett, because Ansett has been through some pretty tough times. It was under the administration of Sir Peter Abels and his crew that Ansett started going bad. If we cast our minds back 11 years now to that disastrous pilots dispute, the reality was that Ansett never really survived that. There have been times in recent years when Ansett went very close to the wind in terms of staying in business. I would like to particularly pay tribute to Rod Eddington, whom News Corporation had enough sense to buy from Cathay Pacific to try to turn that airline around. I think he has done a magnificent job, despite the fact that he arrived at an airline that really had some very bad vibes about it. Certainly, staff morale was down. He had a mixture of fleet that was really unheard of—I think they had about 16 different types of aircraft in the fleet. He had Qantas up and rampant, operating on two types of aircraft and ripping the market out of them to the point where they were almost 10 points ahead. He had ageing aircraft and needed to undertake fleet renewal. Despite all those disadvantages, he battled on and did a reorganisation of the airline which kept it going.As a result of this legislation and as a result of what happened in New Zealand yesterday, Ansett certainly now has the opportunity to come back in a big way. Yesterday in New Zealand the shareholders of Air New Zealand approved the formal takeover of Ansett, and that now is likely to go ahead. While the game is not completely over and there is still an interesting sideshow going on in terms of the bids by Qantas and Singapore Airlines as to future ownership of Ansett, my feeling is that the situation will probably settle down and, if you hear what is happening out of the offices of Brierley in Singapore and indeed from New Zealand, it would appear that Air New Zealand would like to see Singapore Airlines take a share of Air New Zealand and consequently have that involvement with Ansett. From Ansett's point of view, obviously that is going to give them some access to tremendous capital and to some good fleet arrangements as well. So, in that respect, once this all settles down, we do have the chance of having a very viable Ansett once again, hopefully providing some real competition in the Australian domestic industry and ultimately an expansion in terms of their international routes. I was also interested in the member for Chifley's summing up of the situation of Badgerys Creek airport. This has been an interest of mine for many years. In fact I was in negotiations with a number of the councils of Western Sydney—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—That's true.MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—I am very pleased to see Mr Latham in the chamber today, because 10 years ago there was a completely different attitude to the development of Badgerys Creek. But a couple of things have happened since then. There have been some tremendous advances in technology, and the member for Chifley raised the question of what the true capacity of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport is. I do not know the ultimate answer to that. There have been various quotes that they can probably get another 70,000 movements within Kingsford Smith if they make some changes to the present technology and the present operating procedures. I think that is probably true. One of the difficulties that they may have at Kingsford Smith is that there is gong to be less and less terminal access and obviously there is going to have to be a great deal of slotting going on to maximise the gate facilities in the non-peak hours. That really still is one of the difficulties of Kingsford Smith—that the majority of the traffic arrives and takes off between six and nine in the morning and about four and seven at night. Quite often, the airport is semi-deserted during the day.Part of that difficulty is our position in the world. We are at the end of a long route and it is not always possible for operators to schedule their services out of Europe and beyond to arrive in Sydney in the middle of the day. But that in itself is going to be an interesting exercise. Our air traffic control procedures never cease to amaze me. When you go to the United States and look at a place like Chicago, where there is a 23-second separation of aircraft, or to Los Angeles, where the separation is about 32 seconds, while we may feel good about anything up to a three-minute separation in Australia, it certainly does restrict the flow of traffic. But that is not to pay some tribute to Kingsford Smith airport because, as anybody in this place who has to fly through Kingsford Smith knows, it can often be a trip from hell when you leave, as in my case, from Brisbane, you fly for an hour and then do a circuit around Mount McCord for about three quarters of an hour before you can get in—it drives you mad. Presently, the operations in Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport have improved and I understand that the most recent figures that are available indicate that the on-time performances are up into the high 80 per cent, so things are improving there; but we have got a long way to go.One of the things that I think would be a fascinating exercise would be the privatisation of air traffic control services. This has happened in a number of overseas countries. In actual fact they have looked towards staff buyouts, and air traffic controllers have taken over a lot of the systems, particularly in the UK, I understand, and the United States. The improvement in performance has been absolutely magnificent, and air traffic control systems have proved to be a very lucrative business. I do not think that that is quite on the books here in Australia at this stage, but it would be interesting to see what the increase in the productivity of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport might be if we went along that particular track. In terms of Badgerys Creek, the member for Chifley probably hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that within a matter of years you are going to have more than 60 per cent of the population based in Western Sydney. Looking at the size of that population, the reality is that you can probably justify an airport there now and, despite what the airlines might say, there would certainly be enough traffic going in there for the major airlines to provide direct interstate services from other capital cities to serve that tremendous population in Western Sydney. I also noted my friend from Sydney who indicated that he had worked in that particular area and was fairly impressed with the capacity for the number of jobs that could be created if that airport went ahead; and I think that that is true. Airports are very great employersMy understanding is that there are about 29,000 people directly and indirectly employed with Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and that some of the quotes on the possible jobs that would be available in the western suburbs would indicate that many thousands of jobs could be provided if Badgerys Creek went ahead. But we have got the same situation as we had with Tullamarine. Local governments allowed development to ease up closer and closer to the airports and, in the case of Tullamarine, there are now noise problems—not the fault of the federal government at all. We have a similar situation with Badgerys Creek. Obviously noise is always going to be a factor, although I think in all fairness that the efforts that have been made by this government and the previous government in terms of noise control in Sydney and the provision of silencing material in homes directly surrounding the airport have probably been good ones. In fact, I understand that we have been a world leader in terms of trying to provide some relief from aircraft noise with the work that has been done.Badgerys Creek ultimately is going to be needed. It is the nature of Sydney. I would hope that, if a decision is made to go ahead, we are not going to completely rub out the possibility of a fully fledged major airport there—because we are going to need it. We are going to need it not only in terms of passenger traffic but also in terms of freight. The freight market to Australia is building quite well. I do not think we should ever close off that Badgerys Creek option. Sure, make all the provisions we can for noise protection and the rest of it, but the reality is that that facility is going to be needed.When you talk to people from Sydney within the tourist industry and within the business community, they say, `Badgerys Creek is too far out.' The reality is that Badgerys Creek is about 54 kilometres from the middle of Sydney. If you need a comparison with a Badgerys development, I suggest that you have a look at the development at Stansted outside London, about 54 kilometres from the middle of town. It was not quite a greenfields site—the site had been a World War II airbase—but the work that was done there by the British Airports Authority, not only in the development of that but also in the way that they undertook consultation with the local community, maintained a liaison with the local community and established local community groups to advise them, was really a tremendous exercise in the way airport development should take place.As I say, Badgerys Creek being similarly located from the heart of Sydney as Stansted is from London, the possibilities of providing direct links into the middle of Sydney are obviously going to be essential. In the case of Stansted there is a high speed train. It is 34 minutes from Stansted to Liverpool Street station—which is certainly a lot quicker than from Heathrow to the city via the underground and not terribly different in terms of the time taken from London Gatwick into the middle of town by the Gatwick express. I would certainly not write off the prospect of the future development of Badgerys Creek and all the advantages that it can provide.My statement earlier that this is one of the most exciting times in terms of airline development is true. We are seeing now a major shift in international aviation, and Australia has got to be part of that game if we are going to survive and if we are going to be able to continue to provide full airline services to Australia and all the advantages they bring, not only in terms of business but in terms of the tourist industry as well. We have seen some interesting things happen because Australia is really in a very difficult position. Being at the end of these long routes—and they are quite often thin routes—it is easy for major carriers to forget us. Over the last couple of years we have seen indications of that. There was a downturn at the time of the Gulf War. A couple of carriers dropped out of Australia and included in those were Germany's Lufthansa and airlines like American Airlines and Continental. We have not seen them come back on the route yet. In the Asian downturn we saw the cancellation of a number of services and a number of airlines operating into Australia. I still am in two minds, I think, about the airline alliances, but they probably are necessary—or a variation on a theme is necessary—if we are to maintain those services. Frankly, I am not sure exactly what the Star Alliance does for Air New Zealand and for Ansett in the physical traffic that they get from the major partners. My feeling is it is probably not much more than they would normally get, and I guess the same thing happens to the oneworld alliance. Qantas is one of the smaller operators in that group. But it does give you clout and helps you maintain your presence in some of those major markets of the world. I have got no doubt that those alliances are very good for American airlines and British Airways, who in actual fact set up oneworld primarily to make sure that they tied up the North Atlantic market; similarly with United Airlines and Lufthansa tying that up fairly tightly as well. The disadvantage, I think, from an Australian point of view of the alliances is that they tend to take away some of the competition. In actual fact—maybe this is a good thing—air fares internationally have increased quite dramatically if you are flying with alliance partners. There basically is a fixed fare; there is little room to negotiate. That is not saying that by searching the market you cannot find some good fares. I have just been on the Internet, Mr Deputy Speaker, and if you want to fly first class to London at the moment I can advise you where you can get a fare for $3,250. It is quite interesting that the market is still pretty free and fluid at the moment. It is a new airline that has just started operating out of Sydney. They have got some specials on. All that is going to be in the market. But the reality is that if you are looking at, in an international sense, selling Australia as part of an around the world ticket, the discounts are not there if you travel with the alliances. One of the concerns is that airlines that are not in the alliance—some of the smaller carriers—could in actual fact ultimately be squeezed out of business.I want to talk about Brisbane before my time expires, and the comment of the member for Bass who was concerned about the loss of highly skilled and highly paid aviation jobs overseas. I would like to remind her that, when her particular political party was in government, there was a move to establish a major maintenance base in Brisbane by an overseas carrier. Unfortunately, the negotiations with the then Federal Airports Authority—and, I understand, with the Queensland state government at the time—resulted in that not being taken up. But there are some enormous opportunities for us to expand that section of the business. Obviously I may be a little biased, but ultimately I think we will see major maintenance bases established in places like Brisbane purely because of the facilities they have got there. They have got a huge tract of land. If you look at a place like Singapore, while Changi airport is regarded as the best in the world, in actual fact they have not got too much room to expand. Singapore Airlines is an expanding airline. They have been looking around places like Thailand for major maintenance bases. I think there probably is an opportunity for us, through some of these alliances, to try to make arrangements whereby they can put these major facilities within Australia.We are going to have some major opportunities. If Virgin Atlantic, the Branson airline, comes in and is based in Brisbane, obviously it is going to need maintenance facilities there. We could build on that, particularly as there is some tie-in between Virgin Atlantic and Singapore Airlines at the moment. We are looking at the work that is being done by Impulse, which is the independent airline from New South Wales. They are going into jet equipment, and they will be looking around for local maintenance. I think that, as the whole industry expands, that is one area that we should concentrate on and one area where we should promote the concept of establishing these Australian facilities, because there is no doubt that some of our engineering is amongst the best in the world. We have a huge and ever growing aviation market with Asia, and there is an enormous opportunity for us to cash in on that. But I certainly support the bill. As I say, it is quite a historic time for Australian aviation, and the passage of this bill will see a much stronger Ansett and the opportunity for Australia to take its place as one of the major players in international aviation.11:27:0015244Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I always enjoy listening to the member for Fadden in these debates. He is certainly a learned contributor in this parliament when it comes to aviation policy. On this occasion, however, I must correct him on two matters relating to Badgerys Creek airport. The first is his claim that there has been residential encroachment on the Badgerys Creek airport site. In fact, this is one of the myths of the Sydney airport debate. The EIS to establish the Badgerys Creek site was delivered and ticked off in the mid-1980s. By the end of that decade, the state planning department had instructed local government authorities in the region to establish an exclusion zone around Badgerys Creek airport. I know that, because I was one of the mayors at that time—at Liverpool Council—that had to enforce the exclusion zone surrounding Badgerys Creek airport, and to this day that exclusion zone has been maintained. There has been no residential release in the zone that was established around Badgerys Creek in the late 1980s. Some residents who bought into large homes on acreage properties, knowing that there will be an airport constructed at Badgerys Creek, then complained to their local members of parliament about this outrage. I am always surprised that those members have their ear captured by such residents and such complaints. People who moved in knowing that there would be an airport have got no legitimate complaint. They knew what they were getting into. We can proceed confident that there has been no suburban encroachment on the Badgerys Creek site. The exclusion zone has been protected; in fact it is enshrined in the laws of New South Wales, and local government authorities cannot break those laws.The second matter where I would draw a correction to the attention of the member for Fadden is his claim that the Badgerys Creek site is 54 kilometres from the centre of Sydney. That is true if you take the centre of Sydney to be the CBD. But from where I look at Sydney, the centre of it is, on demographic grounds, at Parramatta. The distance from the Badgerys Creek site to Parramatta would be probably half the 54 kilometres that the honourable member mentioned.This is one of the reasons why the Liberal member for Parramatta—showing leadership for his side in the region— is supporting Badgerys Creek airport. He is one of those people who seems to act on principle instead of populism. His principles and conclusions support the Badgerys Creek airport. I welcome his support for this longstanding and important project for the region, and I support the principles that he brings to the debate.Often members will stand up in this parliament and ask, `Why is democracy so sick? Why is there so little trust and support for representative democracy these days?' One of the reasons is that too few members act on principle. So many members blow with the wind on this question of Badgerys Creek airport. The member for Fadden pointed out, if you go back to the early 1990s when unemployment was exceptionally high in the region, every local government authority and every member of state and federal was supportive—if not supportive, then at least silent—on the question of the Badgerys Creek airport. Now the wind has changed direction and some of them have changed their views. That does not mean they are right. I would have thought it is a sure sign that they are wrong and they are acting on populist ideals instead of sound principle and fact.This legislation addresses two questions: the first is competitive arrangements in the Australian aviation industry, and the second is the matter we have just been discussing, Sydney's aviation arrangements. I want to talk about both matters in further detail. On the question of competition I am a very strong supporter of the entry of a third domestic airline. It is great to see Virgin come into this industry. In Australia we have had the problem of having two airlines but just one set of prices. We have had the problem of having two airlines but just one timetable. There has been no effective competition between Ansett and Qantas. Virgin—which is a dynamic entrepreneurial company with deep pockets—is ideally suited to bust up that duopoly and bring Australian air consumers more effective competition and, hopefully, a better service and lower prices. I also note that Virgin has decided to locate its headquarters in Brisbane. It could not locate in Sydney because of the lack of airport capacity. If we had Badgerys Creek up and running, of course, there would have been further jobs for Western Sydney as our region would have been in the race for attracting the headquarters of this new entrant. It is not just the third player that would bring improved competition to the Australian aviation industry. We must also look at some of the administrative arrangements. I was attracted recently to an article that appeared in the Australian Financial Review written by David Trebeck. The Australian Financial Review, particularly on the op ed page, is always reliable and he has made a very convincing argument about the ways in which competition might be improved in the aviation industry. He has written a piece relating to the computer reservation systems. We all know that a former government made the faulty decision to give Qantas and Ansett a lock-up in terminal space. It was one of the reasons why Compass found it very hard to break into the industry. Unfortunately, these lock-up arrangements also apply to computer reservation systems. There are just two systems of course, one dominated by Qantas and the other dominated by Ansett. Unfortunately, the ACCC has never comprehensively analysed the computer reservation system and brought to bear a report that might break up these duopoly arrangements.Mr Trebeck then goes on to make some very good points about these arrangements and the need for improved access and competition. I will quote him at length:Independent airlines have had to negotiate a hosting arrangement with either the Ansett or Qantas CRS. But they are then virtually beholden to that CRS. If they lost hosting, they would be in financial strife within days, as a number of small regional airlines have found to their great cost. This inhibits their capacity to grow, much less to become a genuine competitive force.Among other effects, the independent airline is not only denied access to its only data from the CRS but the major airline controlling the CRS can view and analyse its competitor's data. The opportunities for plunder can be readily imagined.Even when an airline is hosted by one CRS, it is typically not listed in the other, with the result that consumers can be disadvantaged. For example, an inquiry to Qantas by a Canberra traveller seeking a flight to Albury, would result in the passenger being routed via Sydney. The Qantas CRS would not disclose Air Facilities' direct flight from Canberra to Albury because it is hosted on the Ansett CRS.This is a locked up system, not only locked up for the benefit of Ansett and Qantas, but a system where they can actually view the financial data and reservations of their competitors and plunder it accordingly. We need to declare it as part of an excess regime where all players in the aviation industry can have fair and equal access to reservation systems, and none of them would be disadvantaged by those arrangements. Mr Trebeck has made a valid point. Public policy and pro-competition policy in this country for the aviation industry does not only involve a third entrant, such as Virgin. It also involves breaking up the duopoly within the terminal spaces and also providing fair access arrangements on the computer reservation systems.I turn to a matter you are quite passionate about and interested in, Madam Deputy Speaker. Sometimes we have differences of opinion, and I am afraid I will have to continue that pattern in my remarks about the Badgerys Creek airport. Let me address the recent comments made by a newcomer to this debate. Senator Payne from the Liberal Party has dropped out of one of those cocktail parties on the lower North Shore and set up an office in Parramatta, ostensibly as a representative for Western Sydney. Dropping out of a cocktail party one day and saying that you are a representative the next is, of course, not a good qualification in politics. Her ignorance about Western Sydney has been reflected in a press release she put out on 8 December last year entitled `Figures defy Badgerys argument'. This is what the good senator had to say: The latest employment figures for Greater Western Sydney nullify the argument that a second airport at Badgerys Creek will be a much-needed boon for local jobs ...That is such an illogical statement. Fancy saying that employment figures today disqualify an employment generator in the future. Western Sydney is a growing region with a big population increase. There is big growth in its labour force and there will be a big demand for jobs for the next 30 or 40 years. So it is an illogical statement to say that the airport is nullified by current employment figures. She then goes on to say, using figures produced by the Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board:... a further 87,000 people should be employed throughout the Greater West by 2005.... ... ...This growth defies any argument that Western Sydney needs the second airport for job creation.All I can ask is where does the Liberal Party get these people? Where do they find these ignorant fools? Where do they get these people who can make such comments? The creation of 87,000 jobs in Western Sydney over the next five years would, of course, be exceptionally welcome. But it does not solve the unemployment problem. It does not wipe out the job deficit currently experienced by every local government area in the region. I mentioned that Western Sydney will have enormous population growth. It will grow by hundreds of thousands of people in the next 10 to 15 years, and a good proportion of those people in the labour force in Western Sydney will be wanting jobs.In addition, we already have 50,000 unemployed people in the region. So, if you take the population growth, the growth in the labour force plus the existing 50,000 people in Western Sydney unemployed, I am afraid that 87,000 jobs is not enough to wipe out the unemployment problem. So the senator has got it wrong. In fact, I think she is wasting her time in the Senate. She is denying a village somewhere the perfect idiot. She has displayed absolute ignorance about the needs of people in Western Sydney on the employment front. Not only that, she has drawn these figures from research work by the National Institute of Economic Research. This is the same institute that strongly supports the development of Badgerys Creek airport as a solution to unemployment. The senator knows nothing of the history of this issue and its research. She has drawn figures from the national institute that say, `Yes, it is welcome; 87,000 jobs coming up in Western Sydney. But you will do even better on our recommendation to build the second airport at Badgerys Creek.' The senator is damned by her own source. The national institute has recommended on employment grounds that Badgerys Creek must proceed. She is damned by her own source and damned by her own ignorance. Her statements only need to be thought about for five seconds to be dismissed as ignorant and inadequate.I mentioned job deficits in the region. Have a go at these statistics. A place like Blacktown has 46,000 more residents in the labour force than jobs in the local area. The job deficits in Penrith, 36,000, Campbelltown, 34,000, and Fairfield, 31,000, are just as bad. So the 87,000 jobs that the senator talks about will not wipe out the unemployment problem, and they will not wipe out the job deficits. Those job deficits will remain if Western Sydney does not build the Badgerys Creek airport and generate the estimated 30,000 jobs over the next 20 years. We will still have big job deficits in every local government area—Fairfield, 31,000; Campbelltown, 34,000; Penrith 36,000; and Blacktown, 46,000.What this means, for the information of honourable members, is two things: first, of course, residents find it a lot harder to get a job because they have got to travel a lot further—you have to travel well out of your local government area to get a job—and, second, if you do get a job you are normally in the car early in the day and late in the evening to and from work, and cars are the great air pollutants in Western Sydney. Moving the jobs closer to where the people live is the great environmental bonus for our region. That is why I say Badgerys Creek is good not only for the economy of Western Sydney but for the environment. Because, as people live closer to their place of work there are fewer cars, reduced travelling times, less air pollutants and greater environmental sustainability in the Greater Western Sydney region. I have spoken in the past about my despair on this question, and I often vow that I will never again say anything about Badgerys Creek. The debate has been running for over a decade, and I have been involved, in local government and now in federal politics, for that period. But every now and then my blood boils again and I cannot hold back. Every now and then I read something or hear something that just confirms the stupidity of these delays, the hopelessness of the 15-year delay in building Badgerys Creek airport. Recently I was wading through some old papers and looking at some material from Robert Reich's book The Work of Nations. This is an internationally respected work on economic development. This is what Reich has had to say about regional development:The university offers a steady supply of bright and eager graduates delighted to labour at low initial wages for the opportunity to gain experience in the hope of greater rewards later on. The international airport provides direct access to the rest of the world.... ... ...A world-class university and an international airport combine the basic rudiments of economic growth—brains and quick access to the rest of the world.There is a leading authority saying that if you want to do something positive on regional development get a good university and get an international airport. They are your two foundation stones for regional success. So what have we done in Western Sydney? We had a debate in the 1980s about whether we should have the multifunction polis, which would have been a research centre and investment opportunity of note. There was a knee-jerk reaction in the region, and it was sent off to Adelaide where it has been a bad failure. We should have grabbed that opportunity in the mid-1980s and taken the multifunction polis along with the Badgerys Creek airport. There would have been in Western Sydney an airport and in the surrounding region not only the development of the University of Western Sydney as a centre of excellence but the development of research and investment opportunities out of the multifunction polis.That was a lost opportunity from 15 years ago, a lost opportunity that has denied Western Sydney access to export markets through the international airport and denied Western Sydney the research and investment arm that would have been such a magnificent complement for the University of Western Sydney. The region ignored the Reich recommendation to take those two foundation stones and make good use of them. It was an act of folly to knock back the multifunction polis in the mid-1980s. Then, since the mid-1990s, it has been an act of folly to mount campaigns and hysteria trying to reject the Badgerys Creek airport site.The other night I was debating the Darwin to Alice Springs rail line—which I think the member for Dobell referred to as the `Darwin to Campbelltown rail line'; that would give it a better feasibility, there's no doubt about that, but it will never extend that far—and I said that in Western Sydney we have got a project that is ready for big capital funding. It has passed not one but two environmental impact statements. It has complied with the job generation forecasts of not one, two or three but four employment studies. Four employment studies have said you will get more than 30,000 jobs out of this over a 20-year period. The project is just waiting to go. It could not have received closer or more extensive scrutiny over a long period. But still it has not been built. In fact, this government is paralysed. It dare not make a decision about this, for the political reasons I mentioned earlier on.Still the story gets worse. Again, I saw a publication—I read these things just for recreation—from the Australian Industry Group, which produced their regional breakdown, a survey of leading industry houses in Western Sydney. They had to give their view about the infrastructure and business opportunities in our region and they stated: Firms cite the Western Sydney infrastructure and distance to major centres as the only main disadvantage.So infrastructure and distance are seen by industry houses as disadvantages in our region. What is the one thing that would correct the problem of inadequate infrastructure and long distances? An international airport. It gives immediate access to export markets and of course would be a wonderful catalyst for other transport projects such as the orbital highway. The business houses then went on to report that the air transport infrastructure is inadequate—51 per cent of the businesses in Western Sydney said that. Again, this is further confirmation of the sound economic reasons for the development of this airport site.I mentioned some related projects, and I will conclude on this matter. Earlier I pointed to the ignorance of Senator Payne. That is matched fully by the ignorance of Charlie Lynn MLC, who parades himself around as a shadow minister for Western Sydney. He was talking about one of the related projects—that is, the further improvement of the M5 Freeway. In that very reliable journal the Macarthur Advertiser on 1 March he said:It is ridiculous that the only set of traffic lights on a dual carriage freeway between Canberra and the end of the M5 in Sydney is at Moorebank Avenue ... “It is an unnecessary peak hour traffic obstacle for Macarthur motorists who have long distances to travel to and from work in the Sydney area. The Carr Government cannot blame anybody else for its ineptitude in addressing the chronic traffic problems on the M5.”Mr Lynn is trying to blame the Carr government for the traffic lights at Moorebank Avenue which lead to a traffic build-up on the M5. In fact they were the result of a decision by the Greiner and Fahey governments in the late 1980s. They signed faulty tollway contracts that left those traffic lights and missing links in place so that the M5 would not be a functional road. So I say to Charlie Lynn, `Grab a Gregorys and grab a guide to Western Sydney'—just as Senator Payne needs those items—`and take them to the now member for Cook, Bruce Baird, who was the transport minister, and shoot the blame home to him.' He was the person who signed the foolish contract to make the M5 less functional than it should be. There is a lot more work to do on these issues. (Time expired)11:45:0015248St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—Today I rise to support the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. This bill comprises two elements. The first element is the implementation of the government's decision to liberalise foreign ownership of Australian international airlines, except for Qantas. The second component of the bill would increase the maximum fine, as we have heard before, for breaching the Sydney Airport curfew from $110,000 to $550,000. The benefits of international air travel both for passengers and cargo are increasingly important to the Australian economy. Australia's largest single export industry is tourism, with export earnings of $16.3 billion in 1998-99. An overwhelming majority of our visitors arrive and depart on aircraft. International air services also carried over $53 billion worth of freight to and from Australia to the year ending December 1999.With the emergence in September 1993 of a second Australian based international airline, Ansett International, the Australian international aviation industry as a whole was strengthened. Six years on, the international market has grown by some 37 per cent, while the Australian market share has remained at 40 per cent. The tourism export industries in Australia have seen rapid growth, as we know, in the last few years. This has been made possible by the success of government efforts to negotiate passenger and freight capacity well ahead of market demand. The global market that the Australian industries operate in is regulated by a unique arrangement of bilaterally traded rights.As far as the Anderson-Howard government is concerned, if there are going to be restrictions they must not impede competition and innovation—this is in not only the airline industry but obviously other industries as well—to the greatest extent practicable consistent with our national interests. Since March 1996, the National-Liberal government has increased capacity available for passenger services to and from Australia by the equivalent of no less than 338 Boeing 747s per week. In addition the government has negotiated air service arrangements where freight capacity between Australia and 20 of our bilateral partners is not constrained by government regulation. The government has also increased the capacity available for freight services in our other air service arrangements by the equivalent of 129 Boeing 747s per week. The Anderson-Howard government believes that airlines should be given the best opportunity to get on with what they do best—that is, developing an attractive product for consumers based on their assessment of commercial demand. However, the system of bilateral arrangements between countries that govern international aviation acts is a serious impediment to this objective. Among other restrictions it imposes national ownership and control restrictions to regulate entry to the international aviation market. In principle at least an airline can be unilaterally barred from a route if either of the two countries that are parties to a bilateral agreement is not satisfied that the airline is substantially owned and effectively controlled by citizens of the other party to the agreement. To meet these international obligations Australian law contains statutory limits on ownership and control of our airlines. Necessarily, while most of the world's aviation is regulated in this way, Australia will keep the essential element of such a policy—that is, a 49 per cent limit on foreign ownership.For countries like Australia, this type of policy comes at a cost. This is due to the fact that Australia has a relatively small domestic capital market, and we have heard other speakers speak on that in this morning's debate. The ownership and control rules mean that expansion by our international airlines can be assisted by drawing on foreign investment to a limited degree only. In this most cyclical of industries, the bilateral rules encourage using high levels of debt, rather than obtaining equity, to fund long-term expansion. As a result, the Anderson-Howard government decided last year to liberalise access to foreign equity for Australian airlines. The 49 per cent ownership and control limit is, of necessity, something we will retain. The bilateral rules require it, and we prefer that Australian international airlines remain demonstrably Australian. But the subsidiary restrictions that exist currently in the Air Navigation Act 1920 are an unnecessary impediment to maintaining as large an Australian owned presence as possible in the international market.The current rules mean that no more than 35 per cent, in aggregate, of equity in an Australian international airline can be held by foreign airlines, with a limit of 25 per cent of equity to be held by an individual foreign airline. The Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 therefore simplifies the ownership restrictions in Australia's international airlines. Let me emphasise that, as far as ownership is concerned, the simple requirement will be that no more than 49 per cent foreign ownership in an international carrier will be permitted, with no distinction between foreign airlines and other foreign investors.The clear objective overall is that our international airlines remain clearly Australian. The government will still require them to be headquartered here and to retain the core elements of the international aviation business here in Australia. But the need for sustainable ownership structures, rather than ramshackle mechanisms designed to suit regulations from a different era, will be at the heart of these reforms. If we want to retain our substantial presence in international aviation, we are going to have to give our airlines every chance to attract long-term investors and partners. As I stated previously, the bill will not include Qantas. The reason for this is that, at the time Qantas was fully privatised in 1995, undertakings were provided to the Australian people by the previous Labor government that determined how the privatised entity would be owned. Accordingly, the National-Liberal government does not propose to change the ownership and control rules for Qantas without separate public consideration.The second function of this amendment bill is to amend the Sydney Airport Curfew Act. The Sydney Airport Curfew Act is fundamental to the management of the airport's noise. Sydney is Australia's busiest jet airport, and the surrounding suburbs are overflown by large numbers of aircraft during the day. However, the night-time is the most sensitive time for noise, and the government is committed to ensuring that the community is protected as far as possible from disturbance during this period. This side of the House is proud of its record on the Sydney airport curfew. Some members of the opposition may recall that the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 came into existence only because of a private member's bill introduced in June 1995 by the present Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, who forced the then Labor government to take some action. This act has proved very successful in controlling night-time aircraft movements over the suburbs. Due to this, we are not prepared to see these gains eroded by international airlines breaching the curfew laws. Last year, for the first time since the act came into effect, a company was prosecuted for breaching the curfew, and there have been three alleged curfew breaches since then. Evidence produced before the court indicated that the fines currently imposed by the act are not acting as a sufficient deterrent. It has become clear that, in some cases, it would be cheaper for an airline to break the curfew and pay the fine than to hold an aircraft on the ground overnight. For example, assume that an airline's daily 747-400 service from Sydney was not ready to leave until after the start of the curfew at 11 p.m. because the operating aircraft arrived late. The airline would have to find accommodation and meals for over 500 passengers, which could cost more than $125,000. The airline would also suffer the considerable cost of holding the aircraft on the ground overnight. In contrast, the maximum fine is only $110,000. The Anderson-Howard government is therefore proposing in the bill to increase the fine fivefold. The increase in the maximum penalty for Sydney airport curfew breaches would ensure that the penalty continues to deter airlines from breaking the law. This will bring the maximum fine for a curfew breach, at the current value of penalty units, to $550,000.I believe this will indicate to aviation operators the seriousness with which the government treats breaches of the curfew. The rules of the curfew are clear: if an aircraft does not have approval to undertake an operation during the curfew, it must not take place. We are committed to maintaining peace for Sydney residents at night. It should also be noted that the bill has no financial implications. The increase in the maximum fine for breaching the Sydney airport curfew is a deterrent, not a revenue raiser.Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, as you can understand, air travel in this vast country is imperative for travel both in and around Australia and internationally. I come from a rural and regional area of New South Wales, the New England. The gateway to the rest of Australia and the world by air is via Sydney. As I mentioned before, tourism is now Australia's largest single export industry, with export earnings of $16.3 billion. The overwhelming majority of our visitors arrive and depart on aircraft, and international air services also carried over $53 billion worth of freight to and from Australia last year. Of that, Sydney accounted for 49 per cent of total passenger traffic and for 52.7 per cent of total freight traffic in and out of Australia during the years 1998 and 1999. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would be more than aware, at the moment there is much debate on the issue of regional airlines and their access to Kingsford Smith airport. I would like to make it very clear that the people of New England require easy access to the Sydney CBD, which is provided through Kingsford Smith airport base services. Businessmen, businesswomen and travellers need to be able to catch their connecting flights without having to catch a bus, train or cab from one airport to another. I notice that the Minister for Trade has entered the chamber. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Ministerial Statements152501525012:01:0015250Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—by leave—I table the government's fourth annual Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement, or TOOS as it is commonly known. TOOS is a practical demonstration of the coalition government's determination to lift our trade performance and to keep the Australian people fully informed of trade developments. This year's statement paints a promising picture for Australian exporters. Exports recovered through 1999 from the effects of the East Asian economic crisis with total exports rising, in trend terms, in each of the last eight months of the year. The February 2000 trade figures released last Thursday confirmed what is now a 10-month trend, with exports 15 per cent above their level of February 1999. One of the things that helped us through a tough trading environment last year was the diversified base of Australian exports. As the TOOS outlines, Australian exports are now divided fairly equally across agriculture, minerals, manufactures and services. And while low commodity prices and a stronger Australian dollar took the edge off our traditional commodity exports in 1999, exports of services and manufactures were each up by six per cent.The international economic outlook described in this year's statement is the best we have seen since the start of the East Asian economic crisis. Forecasters expect a more balanced level of growth among the major economic regions, and a global economic growth rate exceeding three per cent. Growth in world trade is forecast to strengthen to over six per cent in 2000, up by more than two percentage points on the previous two years. All this is very good news for Australian exporters, particularly the boost from increasing demand in East Asia and recovery in the region's exports. Australia's exports to East Asia are now growing strongly, up 37 per cent on their level of a year ago. But to take advantage of these developments, Australia must maintain its competitive edge.The very fact that Australia was able to outperform almost every other OECD country during the Asian economic crisis shows just how far the government has moved our country towards the cutting edge of global competitiveness. The government will be looking to make Australia's competitive position even stronger through the introduction of the new tax system on 1 July. Our total reform package, including the GST and reforms to the business tax system, will stimulate stronger investment and boost growth in key export sectors. The abolition of the old wholesale sales tax and state taxes, as well as reform of fuel excises, will lift a $3.5 billion burden from the shoulders of Australian exporters.Our political opponents still have no policy alternative. For example, they have no alternative to offer the owner of Malibu Boats in Albury, who told me in February that, with the implementation of the GST on 1 July 2000, he will be able to sell his boats at 1997 prices.TOOS 2000 outlines how the coalition government will continue our highly successful, multipronged strategy of boosting the sales of Australian goods and services on world markets.The World Trade Organisation remains the primary vehicle for Australia to advance its broadly based and geographically diverse trade interests. The government remains committed to launching a new market access focused round of multilateral trade negotiations at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, we are pushing ahead on the mandated WTO negotiations on services and agriculture and will be working towards the incorporation of these negotiations in a broader WTO round. Our WTO agenda also involves improvement of our capacity to utilise the dispute settlement process and our negotiations on bringing new members into the WTO.Australia continues to actively pursue its rights and defend its interests in WTO dispute settlement processes. In 1999, complaints were initiated by Australia against US safeguard measures on lamb and Korean restrictions on imported beef. We now have a WTO panel established in the lamb case, and next month we will receive the panel report on the Korea beef case. We continue to work for mutually satisfactory outcomes on cases relating to automotive leather and salmon.Australia stands to reap big gains from the expanded membership of the WTO. Late last week, Australia reached an in-principle agreement on market access for Saudi Arabia's joining of the WTO. This deal provides the basis for export growth beyond the $1 billion per year mark achieved for the first time in 1999. It builds on our success in concluding market access negotiations with nine trading partners last year, most importantly China. Regionally, we also have a busy calendar in the coming year. APEC offers opportunities for rebuilding political momentum for a WTO round, and for advancing our business oriented agenda on such issues as reducing compliance costs, improving the ease of business travel, improving access to information and developing sensible and transparent regulatory environments. Australia will have an important opportunity to advance our Asia-Pacific trade agenda this year when I host the APEC trade ministers meeting in Darwin in June.The proposal for a free trade area by 2010 between the ASEAN countries and the closer economic relations, CER, partners—Australia and New Zealand—is a key priority this year. My predecessor, the Hon. Tim Fischer, is doing an excellent job as Australia's representative on the AFTA-CER task force, which will report its recommendations in October this year. I also welcome the enthusiastic endorsement this proposal has received from Australian business groups. This year we will continue the bilateral strategies to increase Australian exports that have been the hallmark of our government's trade policies. I have already led a successful visit by an Australian trade delegation to Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the Middle East, and visits to other key markets are planned for later this year. The Market Development Task Forcewill continue to coordinate a whole of government approach to areas of significant export potential for Australia and market access teams in the automotive, textile, clothing and footwear, information industries, processed foods and agriculture sectors will pursue new opportunities in 2000.Austrade continues to play a major role in promoting Australian products abroad, and in helping Australian companies identify and take advantage of international opportunities. In particular, Austrade has broadened its operations into rural and regional Australia through the innovative Tradestartand ExportAccessprograms, giving those outside metropolitan areas the chance to move their businesses into international markets. Austrade is also helping Australian firms position themselves for the growth of e-commerce. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, EFIC, will continue to complement activities of the commercial market by providing exporters with a range of internationally competitive insurance and finance products.The importance of international trade to regional Australia and of exporters in regional Australia to our national trade effort are key messages from this year's TOOS. Regional Australia has around one-third of Australia's work force, and generates more than half of our exports. One in four jobs in regional Australia depend on exports, compared to a figure of around one in five jobs nationally. To make this important information more widely known in our community, my department will be issuing a series of brochures for individual regions across Australia this year, which will highlight a number of successful exporters in each region. They illustrate the importance of exporters in local economies, as well as how the government's efforts to open up overseas markets can benefit individual regions.The 2000 Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement strongly reaffirms the government's commitment to an outward looking and internationally competitive trading position for Australia. The effort put in by our exporters, in the cities and in the bush, demands the recognition and enthusiastic support of all Australians. TOOS 2000 shows how our government aims to boost export opportunities for Australia, and to win greater market access at every level—multilaterally, regionally and bilaterally. The statement is an indispensable tool for anyone who wants to learn more about Australia's present and future trade environment. I commend it to the House, and I present the following paper: Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement 2000—Ministerial Statement, 5 April 2000.12:11:0015252McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—by leave—I would like to be able to stand up today and say that all is well with Australia's trade. I would like to be able to note that the thousands of businesses that export and the 1.7 million workers whose jobs depend on exports had been well looked after by this government. But I cannot. Australia's trade today is in a parlous state. Figures released earlier this year show that we actually exported less in 1998-99 than in 1997-98. The Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement says something similar. Exports dropped by three per cent or more than $2 million. This was the first fall in exports for at least 20 years—that is, the first fall in exports since the days when Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister and John Howard was his Treasurer. The result is a record trade deficit. In 1999, Australia recorded its biggest ever trade deficit by a substantial margin. The gap between our imports of goods and services and our exports has now grown to $16 billion. We currently have a trade minister who, last Thursday, put out a press release headed `Good trade figures' just because the monthly deficit had snuck below $1 billion. This is a government which prides itself on good economic management so-called, yet when it comes to trade its record is so woeful that it has to resort to moving the goalposts. Under the Howard government, apparently, good trade figures mean anything less an a $1 billion monthly trade deficit. When we look at the detail the problem becomes even more disturbing. In the case of our agricultural exports, processed food fell faster than unprocessed food. In manufactures, elaborately transformed manufactures fell faster than simply transformed manufacturers. Under the Howard government, our exports are being dumbed down. We are moving from the fastest growing areas of world trade, the elaborately transformed manufactures, to the more slowly growing areas of world trade, the simplify transformed and unprocessed areas. The fall in Australia's clever exports is hardly surprising when two other statistics are taken into account. Under this government, total Commonwealth spending on education has decreased by more than $500 million, down from 1.99 per cent to 1.9 per cent of GDP. Government and business expenditure on R&D, research and development, has fallen in absolute terms since the Howard government came to power. Australia's chief scientist predicts that, without a change of policy, our overall expenditure on research and development will fall further, from 1.7 per cent of GDP in 1998 to 1.4 per cent of GDP in 2002, whilst that of Korea, Finland and the United States will remain at 3.2, 3 and 2.8 per cent respectively. With diminishing spending on education, training, research and development, is it really any surprise that our smart exports are falling the fastest? Turning to the current account, the figures only get worse. Our current account deficit for 1999 was $34.6 billion—another record. Our current account deficit is not just a national record; this time the Howard government goes one better. Each week, as we all know, the Economist publishes a table on its second last page listing, amongst other things, the current account deficits for 15 developed countries. Australia's current account deficit puts us in last place. The Economist also includes a poll of its forecasters for 2001. Again, we are placed dead last. Our current account deficit is officially the worst in the developed world.I want to turn now to say something about APEC because we have a serious problem in this country, which is the Howard government's declining interest in APEC. It seems to have occurred largely because the government takes APEC for granted. A decade ago, it took a bold initiative by the previous government to create APEC, and the Howard government seems to have forgotten that, without APEC, Australia's economic and strategic future in the Asia-Pacific would be profoundly different. APEC demonstrates our commitment to our closest neighbours. It brings the region's leaders together each year, building the personal relationships that are so critical to creating a safer, more prosperous world. Perhaps most importantly of all, it commits APEC members to the path of openness. A critical step for APEC was the 1994 Bogor declaration, in which members committed to achieving free trade and investment. Under Labor the countries of the Asia-Pacific committed to economic integration, not isolation. But it is always important to reiterate that integration is not inevitable. It was a choice that our region made six years ago and one that can still be reversed. The Bogor declaration itself and the annual leaders meetings that drove that and that drive APEC are now in jeopardy. Australia used to be one of the key driving forces behind APEC; now we find the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade seem content to let it languish. Without new impetus from the nation that pushed for APEC's creation, the next few years may see member countries start to find excuses for not meeting the Bogor targets. Inaction could also lead to the cessation of the annual leaders meetings. After the failures of recent years, leaders may soon ask themselves, `Why bother?' A key question for Australia is: will the next US President—whichever of the two candidates is successful, George W. Bush or Al Gore—continue to devote two days every year to a forum that seems to have lost its way? It is vitally important to Australia that the answer to that question is yes. The other body of critical importance to Australia is the World Trade Organisation, and in the time available I want to focus now on that. It is worth noting how little this government did in the lead-up to last November's Seattle WTO meeting. Despite our key position as a permanent chair of the Cairns Group, Mr Howard rebuffed calls from President Clinton to travel to Seattle to help make the meeting a success. Mr Howard was so disengaged from the process that he did not publicly mention the WTO once in the whole week leading up to the Seattle meeting. Let us make it clear: this government, the Prime Minister and the trade minister are not responsible for the failure of Seattle to launch a new round—that is obvious—but they certainly did not do much to help it succeed. If it had succeeded, not much of the credit would have flowed to Australia.Following the shambles at Seattle, negotiations on agriculture and services began in early February 2000, but any substantial boost for our exporters will clearly have to wait until a new WTO round commences. Labor is again detecting a real sense of pessimism in the Howard government. In public, they proclaim that they are doing everything they can to initiate new negotiations, but it seems in private they are saying that there is no point in doing anything until after the presidential election in November. As much is clear from today's Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement, which provides commentary on Seattle but no plan for the future. This is a fundamental mistake. Whatever the complexion of the new president and the administration, they are likely to be favourably disposed to a new round. In reality, the biggest hurdle standing before a new round is coming to grips with the needs of the developing countries. They comprise around two-thirds of the WTO's 135 members, and their message at Seattle was clear: `No round until we are satisfied it will be on terms that provide us with a greater expectation of growth than did the Uruguay Round.'The Howard government needs to start urgently coming to terms with the developing country agenda if a new round is to be launched. This requires listening to leaders from Africa, Asia and Latin America. It means promoting plans like the one proposed in UNCTAD in February to remove all tariffs on exports from the world's 48 least developed countries. It means taking some serious steps, whether it is that step or some other, to build the capacity of developing countries to participate and conduct trade negotiations to see that there is benefit for them from a new global round.The other specific aspect of the WTO that is of importance to Australia is the question of China's entry. The government should be doing more to speed up China's entry into the WTO. Anybody who has studied it, including the minister and his department, knows that China's accession will bring direct economic benefits—perhaps as much as $10 billion per year—to Australia. Industrial tariffs will come down from an average of 24 per cent in 1997 to 10 per cent in 2004. Agricultural tariffs will fall from 31 per cent to 14 per cent. There will be better access in areas like banking, law, accounting, construction and telecommunications, and there will be intangible benefits as we integrate China with the rest of the world, strengthen the hands of the economic reformers and open up opportunities for more democracy and more freedom.Today's statement suggests that Australia's responsibility for bringing China into the WTO ended when we concluded our bilateral negotiations. This is utterly myopic. At a Chatham House meeting in London last Friday, my colleague Senator Cook said that the Howard government should be doing more to bring negotiations between the European Union and China back on track. The government needs to send this clear message to Europe through our diplomatic channels: bringing China into the WTO is too important to be left solely to the trade negotiators. We should be sensitive to the severe internal strains that China's domestic reforms are causing and do all we can to bring the world's most populous nation into the WTO as speedily as possible. In conclusion, the Labor Party and the opposition welcome this year's Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement. We hope that this will be the year when the government gets serious about turning around our record trade deficit and our current account deficit. The best place to start would be with the key multilateral bodies, APEC and the WTO. Let us hope that 2000 will be the year when APEC is brought out of the doldrums and new WTO talks are launched with China at the table. Perhaps then Australia will not break too many more records before next year's Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement. Motion (by Mr Entsch) proposed:That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned.Miscellaneous152551525512:22:0015255Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day, No. 33, government business, being called on forthwith. The motion is from the Senate and it deals with the question of the stolen generation. Motion (by Mr Entsch) put:That the member be not further heard. 12:27:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio) 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.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.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.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.65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.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.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.Wilton, G.S.Zahra. C.J.Kemp, D.A.Kernot, C.Hawker, D.P.M.Brereton, L.J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.12:31:0015256Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I second the motion. I do not know how he lies straight in bed at night. The Prime Minister should apologise for the trauma. It is a disgrace to the House. He should apologise for the past. Where is he?Motion (by Mr Entsch) put:That the member be not further heard.12:33:00The House divided.(Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio) 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.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.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.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.65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.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.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.Wilton, G.S.Zahra, C.J.Kemp, D.A.Kernot, C.Hawker, D.P.M.Brereton, L.J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Entsch) put:That the question be now put.12:35:00The House divided.(Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio) 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.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.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.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.65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.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.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.Wilton, G.S.Zahra, C.J.Kemp, D.A.Kernot, C.Hawker, D.P.M D.P.M.Brereton, L.J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.12:41:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio) 65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.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.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.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.Wilton, G.S.Zahra, C.J.73Abbott, 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.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.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.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.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Kernot, C.Kemp, D.A.Brereton, L.J.Hawker, D.P.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills15258The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill (No. 1) 2000.Bills15258R101115258Debate resumed.12:47:0015258St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—In support of the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, I say that businessmen and businesswomen and travellers need to be able to catch their connecting flights without having to catch a bus, train or cab from one airport to another. The people of regional New South Wales deserve to have the same access to Sydney as domestic and international travellers have. It is unfair to force them to bear the additional costs and inconvenience of using another airport, such as Bankstown. Rural and regional Australia is resentful of the withdrawal of services from their communities, particularly by state governments and others. Earlier this year the Prime Minister made a promise not to withdraw any more services from regional Australia. If regional airlines are pushed out of Kingsford Smith airport, then the communities of rural and regional New South Wales would consider this a breach of promise.However, this government has made rural and regional New South Wales a series of promises about retaining regional access to Sydney airport. In the 1996 campaign, there was a promise that special slots at Kingsford Smith airport would be set aside for regional airlines, to guarantee that the residents of country New South Wales would continue to have convenient access to Sydney airport. Again, in the 1998 election campaign we gave the commitment, and the coalition has ensured, that regional airlines would have access to Sydney airport. Only the coalition, through the legislated slot system, has guaranteed access to Sydney airport for regional operators, a pledge that Labor was never prepared to make, let alone deliver.It is interesting to note that the original suggestion that the regional airlines should move out to Bankstown did not come from this government but from the New South Wales Tourism Taskforce, a body of the New South Wales state Labor government. The Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd is the other body that suggested that regional airlines should be at Bankstown airport and not at KSA. They claimed that `regional communities have a genuine opportunity to turn a regional airport at Bankstown into a successful aeronautical and business facility that they can call their own.' My response is that we already have an airport that we call our own. It is Kingsford Smith airport. We have as much right to use it as anyone else has. Forcing regional airlines to Bankstown can have a disastrous impact on some air services. For example, Hazelton has pointed out that its routes are stagnant. The airline is concerned that a move to Bankstown would damage its passenger flows, that it would not be able to sustain the level of services that it currently provides.My view is that Badgerys Creek has to be built, and the sooner the better. I take comfort from the words of the member for Werriwa, who also stated that this has gone on for long enough. It is over a decade since Badgerys Creek was first talked about. The National Party is again leading the way on this very important issue for regionally based people. In conclusion, the aviation industry in Australia is growing at a rapid rate. It is imperative that we allow it to grow and encourage Sydney airport to become the gateway to the Asia-Pacific. However, in doing so, it is important that we do not push regional airlines out of Kingsford Smith airport and that the curfew at Kingsford Smith airport should remain in force.12:50:0015259McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—It is not often that I stand up in this parliament and agree with members of the National Party, but I found a lot of sense in what the member for New England said in some of his remarks on the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, in particular his remarks about Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and the curfew there. We are reaching now a very important phase of decision making on airports in Sydney and there is no doubt that, if the Badgerys Creek airport is not built, Sydney airport will become very constrained in its operations, that there will be problems for people from regional areas and the curfew will be put at risk. Those things would be most unacceptable. I will come back to that later on in my remarks.The bill that is before us today makes some sensible changes to Australia's international aviation policy. It will simplify the ownership rules applying to Australia's international airlines—that is, other than Qantas, which of course has its own legislation. The simple requirement will be that 49 per cent of an Australian international airline can be owned by foreign persons. Currently the law limits ownership to no more than 25 per cent for an individual foreign airline and no more than 35 per cent in total for all foreign airlines owning part of an Australian airline.The minister and the government claim that liberalising the foreign ownership restrictions will increase the freedom of Australian international airlines to expand and compete in international markets. We all hope that this happens, but it will also mean that there is a real possibility that up to 49 per cent of an Australian international airline will be owned by one or more foreign airlines. So, for those Australians who would like to see these businesses as Australian, there will be some disappointment. But, realistically, to compete internationally our airlines need to be able to access global equity capital, and even though the capacity for foreign ownership is being increased the minister has stated that the overall objective is that our international airlines remain clearly Australian. The minister has said that they still will be required to have their headquarters here and retain the core elements of the international aviation business here. We would all hope that that happens. Indeed, the opposition's second reading amendment expresses our concern about this aspect of the government's plans. We do not want jobs and services in Australia to be lost as a result of this legislation.I must say I am concerned about my own position in particular because a lot of my constituents work at Sydney airport and a lot of them work for Qantas's maintenance operation at Sydney airport. I well remember a meeting that I had some years ago with Qantas executives about the building of Badgerys Creek airport. The Qantas people expressed a strong desire that they should not have to go to Badgerys Creek and, indeed, that if they had to do that they might think about taking some of their maintenance work offshore. It struck me as rather bizarre that one of the strong arguments they were putting to me was that the reason that the government—and it was a Labor government at the time—should be supportive of them and not make them go to Badgerys Creek if the airport was built was that they were good Australians. But then they had the little blackmail trick: `If you do make us do that, maybe we'll have to take our maintenance work offshore.' So much for being good Australians. One of the concerns that we as the opposition have is that if the government does allow foreign airlines to own a larger slice of Australian international airlines there will be pressure for this to happen. Qantas and Ansett will be the two main targets—Ansett through Air New Zealand and Qantas through British Airways. We would be very concerned if, by giving airlines access to greater capital, we saw the movement of Australian jobs offshore. I think that goes a long way to ensuring that Australian airlines have a good safety record because the staff that we have here—the skilled technicians and tradesmen who maintain aircraft in Australia—maintain them to that very high international level. Except for Qantas's recent problem, they have maintained probably the best record of the flag carriers of any country in the world.Under this legislation Australian international airlines will be at least 51 per cent owned by Australians, so there is a balance to be struck between the desire to have our own industry and the industry's future viability. To be sustained into the future, airlines need the opportunity to attract long-term investors and partners from overseas. Let us hope that by increasing the percentage that foreign persons or corporations can own we will get the balance right, but with that strong interest in ensuring that the trade-off for the increase in foreign capital and equity is not that we export Australian jobs. There is a pressing reason for this legislation at the moment, and that is Air New Zealand's recently announced purchase of the News Ltd equity in Ansett. If the changes to the legislation are not made and Air New Zealand proceeded with its purchase, Ansett Holdings would have to divest itself of 24 per cent of its equity in Ansett International.The bill also proposes amendments to the Sydney Airport Curfew Act, which is a matter that is very close to my heart and, I was pleased to hear, the heart of the member for New England as well. It is obvious to anyone who represents an electorate around Sydney airport that for some time the maximum fines imposed by the curfew act were not much of a deterrent to airline operators. Airlines were happy to breach the curfew and pay a fine rather than be forced to meet the other expenses incurred by delaying flights, such as paying for overnight accommodation for passengers. It was obviously cheaper for them to break the curfew and pay the fine, so the imposition of a curfew was becoming useless. Those living under or near the flight paths still had to suffer the disturbance of noise, and there was a deliberate flouting of the rules by many of the airlines.I think we would all agree that it is pretty obvious that something needed to be done to give the imposition of the curfew rules some teeth; otherwise there is no point in having a curfew. Of course, the airlines would hope that we did not have a curfew. One of the problems with not building Badgerys Creek airport will be that Sydney will saturate and there will be a lot of pressure to bust the curfew. What makes living around the airport at least somewhat sane is the fact that we do have a curfew. If the curfew goes, life for people who live around Sydney airport—about 20 per cent of the Sydney population live in close proximity to Sydney airport—would become unbearable. If Boeing 747s are able to land at Sydney airport at two and three in the morning, hundreds of thousands of people will be greatly disturbed because, as members probably know, night-time noise is a lot more disturbing for people than daytime noise; the level of ambient noise in the daytime blocks out a lot of the noise. There is the well-known phenomenon that, if you live anywhere near a railway, you hear the trains in the night and wonder where they have gone in the daytime. They are there in the daytime but you do not hear them because of the ambient noise that is around. But you hear them a lot in the night-time. The landing of aircraft—particularly one that hits reverse thrust—late in the night or early in the morning will make life unbearable, so the curfew is one of the most important tools for the people who live around the airport. In relation to increasing the penalty, under the act a corporate operator of an aircraft which takes off or lands during the curfew without permission will now be subject to a fine of up to $550,000, which I hope will dissuade airlines from breaking the curfew. Only those who choose to breach the curfew will be affected by this measure. It will not be about safety. This will require a conscious decision on the part of operators; they will know the consequences of their actions in advance—and the persistent breaking of a curfew is not only a problem with Sydney airport. Sydney is our busiest jet airport. As I said earlier, it is going to become a lot busier. Can honourable members imagine what it will be like living around Sydney airport as we get closer to the Olympics? The strains on the airport will be immense and the strains on the people living around it will be even greater. It is timely that we consider the topic of Sydney airport and of another airport for Sydney. According to the reports in the media, cabinet is continuing to struggle with this issue. We have seen some outflow of that here today in that there seems to be quite considerable argument within the government among members of the National Party and also rural Liberals, those who want to see rural people have access to Sydney airport and those who have electorates around Badgerys Creek. What we should do about a second airport for Sydney and where it should be located are issues that have been around for 30 years. Any time I talk about the issue of Sydney airport, I am reminded of my first foray into public life, which was in 1971—nearly 30 years ago—when I was elected a councillor of Marrickville Council. One of the arguments in that local government campaign at that time was the reduction of aircraft noise from Sydney airport. This matter has been around nearly all my life. One of my colleagues once said to me, `There is always another election in Sydney airport.' Ten years ago I thought he was wrong. I am starting to think that there may always be another election in Sydney airport and that the only real constant of my public life will be the speeches that I have made about Sydney airport. However, it is reaching the point of scandal that we have put this off for so long. During the Fraser government years, the MANS committee report—on the major airport needs of Sydney—identified sites. The sites were jigged, rejigged, moved around and there were all sorts of arguments. Finally, a Labor government bit the bullet and purchased land out at Badgerys Creek. Interestingly, some of the people who are now opposed to that were the main proponents of that airport. I am very mindful of the argument put forward earlier by the member for Werriwa, who said that the important thing about another airport for Sydney out in the western suburbs is to provide employment. I have always had a view about Sydney airport which is a little bit different from those of some of the community activists out there. I want to bring Sydney airport under control. I most certainly do not want to have it closed. The bizarre idea that was floated a few years ago—that we should close Sydney airport and build some mega-airport somewhere else in New South Wales—was an absolutely ridiculous proposal. A great number of the people in my electorate work at Sydney airport. The jobs that a lot of those people have are such that, if the airport moved or closed, they would not transport themselves with the jobs. The greatest job magnet that the western suburbs of Sydney can have is an airport. The 30,000 jobs estimated to be generated by the Badgerys Creek airport is something that the people of the western suburbs certainly need because there is a high level of unemployment there. When we also consider the number of people who will be affected by the Badgerys Creek airport versus the number of people who are severely affected by aircraft noise at Sydney already, those numbers are minuscule. There will be very few people severely affected by noise at the Badgerys Creek airport. There are—not `there will be'—tens of thousands of people severely affected by aircraft noise at Sydney airport. It is also not reasonable to say that the people near Sydney airport knew this airport was there when they bought their houses. The week before last I received a phone call at my office from a pensioner in Bexley. She had lived in Bexley for about 60 years. When she and her husband bought their house, Sydney airport was nothing like the airport it is now and aircraft certainly were not flying what appear to be only 100 metres above her house. She is right at the end of the east-west runway. When I grew up in Marrickville, my wife and her family lived in Hanks Street in Ashfield, which is just at the top of the street from where we live now. She and my sister went to school together, so I used to see a lot of her before we even started going out together. Aircraft never flew over her place when she was a girl. But we live 300 metres from where she grew up and aircraft fly over our place all the time now. So it is an unfair proposition to say, as some people are saying, `The only people who are whingeing about Sydney airport are those who bought properties there recently.' There have been dramatic changes in the way Sydney airport has worked and there have been dramatic changes for the people who have been there for a long while.There is another dramatic change on the horizon—the precision radar monitoring system. If the Federal Airports Corporation gets the chance to install that equipment at Sydney airport—and that is still a little bit up in the air because there is an inquiry going on into that at present—and that system is implemented, it will have a twofold effect. It will allow a greater throughput of aircraft into Sydney airport but it will also reinstall what was claimed to be a very bad system, introduced by the previous Labor government, of flying on direct tracks into Sydney airport. Those people who want to look at the situation have to understand that you cannot share the noise and have a precision landing system; they are mutually inconsistent. I have been interested in this issue long enough to understand that the aviation industry and the aviation bureaucracy probably had their policies set in concrete when we had the precursor to the old Department of Civil Aviation. The one experience I have had with them is that, if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. They might say that this precision radar system will allow safer landings in bad weather, and that is true, but the other side of the coin is that it will allow more landings and it will direct those landings on a particular, narrow bandwidth. I have no doubt that, if the aviation industry is allowed this leg in the door, it will not be too long before the system that the current government put in place—sharing the noise—reverts to the old system of flying along the train tracks north and south of Sydney airport. People should take a lot of care about that.The two things that make living around Sydney airport bearable are the movements cap on Sydney airport and the curfew. The precision radar monitoring mechanism is one which will go some way towards busting the movements cap. There is no doubt that the increase in fines for busting the curfew might at least make operators think twice before breaking the curfew. But the only real solution to the aircraft needs of Sydney—and the aircraft needs of Sydney are very much the air transport needs of Australia—is another airport. Bankstown is not the solution—I have no doubt my colleague the member for Blaxland will talk about that at some length—and kicking the regional operators out of Sydney is also not the solution. The people from the bush have as much right of access to the CBD as do people from Melbourne and Brisbane. We need the government to bite the bullet and do it now. (Time expired)13:11:0015262Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I think that we need to recognise the benefits of this Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. Sure, we are increasing the level of foreign ownership to 49 per cent and there will be no restrictions on airline ownership within the 49 per cent cap, but this bill will also increase the maximum fine for breaching the Sydney airport curfew from $110,000 to $550,000. This bill will ultimately benefit Australian international carriers by enabling them to gain capital and negotiate alliances. This means that Australian airlines will not be in danger of becoming undercapitalised or losing market share. It means that Qantas is still protected by the Qantas Sale Act, and so it should be. My extensive involvement within the New South Wales tourism industry puts me in a position of recognising the massive benefits that tourism brings to Australia, with an export value of in excess of $16.3 billion. Our economy-contributing visitors overwhelmingly arrive here by aircraft and then depart by aircraft. It is this arrival and departure routine that requires this legislation. It is in the interests of an airline to break curfews. This is why we must increase the maximum fine for breaching the Sydney airport curfew from $110,000 to $550,000. This breach also applies to regional airlines that might think about breaking the curfew, even though their propeller aircraft really have no impact on the noise limits and levels. However, in order to provide a vital and critical service to rural and regional areas, our smaller regional craft comply with the curfew on which they really do not have any impact. It is no secret that there are those who would force our regional airlines out of Kingsford Smith airport in order to make way for more jet aircraft. It may be that they use the carrot of additional tourism dollars to substantiate these moves. However, to move our regional craft out of KSA would serve only to substantially reduce investment in Australia's tourism industry. It must have access to regional carriers to ensure long-term domestic tourism growth. In fact, most reports on the issue of curfews and caps at KSA have been compiled by those with vested interests. There has been little contribution from independent informants.Having looked at this legislation and at the increases in fines for breaches of the airport curfew contained within it, I have complete faith that in years to come noise levels at KSA will reduce substantially, given that with better technology we will have quieter aircraft and better climb rates. That is a better outlook than that for the regionals, who will be pushed out of KSA and will face a vastly reduced economic future—not to mention the impact on the lives of rural and regional people, particularly in New South Wales.Perhaps the opposition's acceptance of this Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) would be assisted by the installation of a parallel runway monitor. This would certainly assist by giving incentives to airlines not to break curfews. This in turn would assist the regionals in their fight to retain their slots at KSA as against being moved to Bankstown or any other option. The irony of this move is that we would have a substantial curfew fine applying not only to the suburbs around KSA; we would also need one around Bankstown. Quite clearly, regional airlines in the main do not want to lose their slots and be forced out to Bankstown. Bankstown residents do not want regionals at their airport. More jets will not be the ultimate benefit to KSA, as the curfew and the cap will prevent any additional noise, and we should remember that regionals and propellers do not create a significant noise factor at KSA. The future of regional New South Wales's economic development hinges on reliable and frequent access to KSA. Regeneration of rural and regional areas will not occur if this access to the KSA curfew is denied. There may very well be some carriers that choose to operate additional flights in and out of Bankstown that are not related to their current access. This is certainly an option open to them. Perhaps our legislation should be looking at gaining more efficiencies at KSA in order to relieve some of the financial burdens related to aviation that the government is currently grappling with. Convincing the passengers from rural and regional Australia that they should be relegated to a second-level airport in favour of metropolitan and international travellers is going to be enormously difficult, particularly when regional tourism is on the increase and its relationship with the domestic tourism dollar is undeniable. Just as this legislation is looking to protect the people of Sydney from excess noise levels, with the proposed maximum fine for breaching the curfew, others would look to increase this burden of noise on Sydney's people by relegating regionals to Bankstown, thereby opening the skies for heavier jets and much more noise. The simple fact is that more aeroplanes cannot be put into the Sydney basin without an increase in noise and without a greater risk of the curfew being broken. There has also been no consultation with the community and suburbs of Kurnell and others to the south of KSA as to the moving of regional airlines out of their living areas to allow even noisier aircraft to replace them. A recent survey that was conducted at the Wagga Wagga airport has concluded that at least 48 per cent of travellers would be disadvantaged by a move to Bankstown as they would then need to join another flight. Without some massive expenditure on ground travel infrastructure, the 62 per cent of travellers going to the city and eastern suburbs would have their travel time increased significantly, thereby again impacting on rural and regional people.The previous speaker spoke in significant terms of the curfew and the incentives to break the curfew. At the end of the day, there is a simple answer to Sydney's airport problems and curfew problems for the next 10 years to 15 years, and that is to allow the airport to operate at the capacity it is capable of handling and not to artificially constrain Australia's most significant national aviation asset. For the longer term, a new airport must be built and it needs all three areas of international, domestic trunk and regional services to be viable. I reiterate that there are no facts or proposals that are independent. We have studies paid for by vested interest parties; we have media leaks; and we have speculation, but never any facts. To ensure that our aviation industry maintains a strong presence, we must ensure that our airlines remain as competitive as possible.13:19:0015264Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—This government are red in tooth and claw on social policy but when it comes to matters that can be easily addressed, as are in the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, they are found extremely wanting. They are red in claw and tooth on social policy because they have attempted to make it their focus when speaking to the Australian people. Yet what is really important to them is effectively an American Republican agenda of social issues in which the Commonwealth parliament essentially plays no part; it is essentially state law and order issues. In the last few days of the parliament we have seen how the coalition have attempted to grapple with these issues and push these issues as if they were the main part of their agenda. Certainly, that has diverted their attention from what are critical matters of decision for the government. In relation to transport policy, and aviation policy in particular, the dilatoriness of this government is simply extraordinary. In the bill before us today, there are two key features. One is the ramping up of the penalties for breaking the curfew. That ramping up is almost five times—up to $550,000—for an airline that breaks the curfew. Since the original act came into place in relation to aircraft noise and the curfew, we have seen one transgression of the curfew. What came out of that was that $110,000 was not enough money to impose upon an airline to stop it breaking the curfew, because the airline took into account what it would cost it in accommodation for passengers, crew and so on.In September 1998, the Productivity Commission brought down a report which dealt with the matters that are germane to this bill. We have reached the year 2000 and we are well over 15 months from when that report was brought down. All we have seen with this legislation on aircraft noise—surely a simple decision for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to make and a simple bill to write up to put before this parliament—is more than 15 months of delay. That is not unusual with this government when it comes to aviation policy. In fact, it is almost four years since the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the former member for Hume, raised the whole question of trying to avoid building the second airport in Sydney's west by putting Holsworthy in as a proposition. Some 12 to 18 months later—I think it was 18 months all up—after community consultations and an EIS that cost the Commonwealth more than $12 million, the absurdity of that proposal was blindingly exposed.We on the Labor side had no difficulty with that outcome whatsoever. After I had been preselected for Blaxland, and almost the very day after that happened, there was the great announcement from the then minister that the government was going to look at Holsworthy despite the fact that it had been knocked out in 1985. For 18 months he followed a complete furphy, something that had no basis in fact. That proposition had been formed by a series of groups who were aviation junkies, who thought that they could come up with a way which meant the government would not have to spend significant amounts of money on a second Sydney airport. That finally folded when the minister had to walk into the Prime Minister's office and effectively say, `Prime Minister, the game's up. This thing can't go any further because it has been so comprehensively condemned by the EIS process.' That was a delay of 18 months, one that we did not need to have, in the determination of what should happen with aviation services in the Sydney basin. This government is now struggling—absolutely struggling, step by step—to come to a final determination in relation to what should happen with Sydney's second airport. In this debate today we have heard members of the National Party attempt one by one to put forward the arguments as to why there should actually be a decision on this issue, and they have argued that it is timely. They have picked up Labor's argument that we have been running for four years. They have also argued that the latest diversion we have had on these issues—the question of whether Bankstown airport should be expanded or not—is not really a good idea. But it shows us just where the National Party comes in this government's pecking order. The very last people to get access to cabinet to put an argument on these issues are members of the National Party. Liberal Party members in Sydney had their go some time ago. All of the vested interest groups have had the ear of the minister for transport for some considerable time.The minister for transport has been extremely slow to get this legislation, as simple as it is, before us today. On the one hand, the legislation increases the amount of curfew payments that have to be made by an airline breaching the curfew and argues quite rightly that it is extremely important to protect Sydney at night from the noise of jet aircraft coming in between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. and, on the other hand, deals with an issue that simply has to be dealt with now and which has to come forward in legislation: the question of what is to happen to Ansett Airlines in terms of its ownership. Instead of the 35 per cent cap on foreign ownership of Ansett Airlines and instead of a 25 per cent cap on another international airline owning it, the proposed legislation, based on the Productivity Commission report, says, `What we need to look at now is a redefinition from foreign airlines to foreign persons so that a foreign person or persons may own up to 49 per cent of an Australian international carrier.'What else has been put in train in this bill? What has been left out? Our shadow minister has indicated that the Labor Party, although we generally support the bill, consider that there are a number of things that the government has left out and that it should concentrate on what any good and responsible government applying itself directly to the tasks before it should concentrate on. In his amendment, the shadow minister asks that the government take into consideration the following:(1) Ansett Australia should remain headquartered in Australia— that is, if you sell up to 49 per cent of it off, you do not have it headquartered in New Zealand or Singapore or anywhere else—(2) a fair share of future growth in routes should be through Ansett International—so you do not lose the value of that—(3) high skilled, high value Ansett airlines jobs should remain in Australia—this is very important so that those jobs are not bleached out and taken to New Zealand—(4) Ansett jobs in regional and rural communities are not jeopardised by the sale; and—this bears on issues not really attacked by National Party members today in debate on the bill—(5) services to regional and rural communities should be preserved at current levels or improved.Having looked at the second reading speech by the minister, I find it passing strange that there is such a conjunction of jostling antipathies in the speech. What he is trying to do on the one hand is give bent to the essential ideology of the coalition that the whole of Australian aviation should be opened up to total, open competition. That is what it would prefer. That is what it would choose to do. In the international arena, if the Productivity Commission and this government had their way, there would be a wholesale dismantling of the present system of bilateral agreements. This is a government that is red in tooth and claw when it comes to the word `treaty'. The government does not like the word `treaty'. It does not like the word `treaty' when it comes to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. It does not like the word `treaty' when it has anything to do with mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory. It does not want to entertain any argument in relation to that. It is a government that, when in opposition, time after time attacked the Labor government for entering into treaties. This minister said, `We want to open the whole thing up, but the bad international aviation community simply won't let us do this because it has a series of regulations.' Those regulations essentially say that for an airline to be a national carrier it has to have at least 51 per cent national ownership. So if Qantas and Ansett as Australian national carriers do not have 51 per cent ownership, other countries can refuse to allow them to land. These are a series of binding international agreements. Why are these international agreements binding? We have not been able to get into the United States domestic market or any other domestic market around the world because those markets are regulated against an outside entrant such as Qantas. Equally, despite the clear thought that this government would actually like to do something different in its open skies approach, it has not yet allowed other airlines free entry into our domestic market, and I hope that it never does. However, the minister did say: However, the system of bilateral arrangements between countries that govern international aviation acts as a serious impediment to this objective. Amongst other restrictions it imposes national ownership and control restrictions to regulate entry to the international aviation market. In principle at least, an airline can be unilaterally barred from a route if either of the two countries that are parties to a bilateral agreement is not satisfied that the airline is substantially owned and effectively controlled by citizens of the other party to the agreement. I actually find nothing wrong with binding, bilateral or multilateral agreements with regard to the aviation industry. It is a set of constraints under which we have to work, and it has worked reasonably well in the past. It is open to modification and change but not to this government unilaterally selling Australia down the tube—and even it has not gone that far in relation to this—by simply saying that there can be open slather in the ownership of Australian international airlines, because under the system that is there we would not have entry to another single country in the world for our national airlines because they would no longer be national airlines.One of the key things that comes out of this, of course, is the impact on our domestic services, particularly in New South Wales. The minister is aware that there is a problem with the approach of this government. There is a problem with regard to regional services in Australia. Throughout a vast area of regional Australia Ansett provides services that Qantas does not. They are extremely important. The Labor opposition does not want to see those regional services imperilled. It is those very kinds of services that have brought people in the National Party into this parliament today to argue against the dopey idea the government has had of just loading up all regional services in New South Wales and whacking them into Bankstown. It is a dopey idea that has been used by the government, which has surreptitiously had the Sydney Airports Corporation and the Tourism Task Force and every odd bod it can find come up with arguments to say that Bankstown should be established as the regional airport for Sydney. This is an extremely stupid idea. This is as dopey as making Holsworthy the second airport for Sydney. That idea should have been knocked over in the first instance. It was only about a month ago in the parliament that I, together with the members for Grayndler and Watson, essentially knocked over the Sydney Airports Corporation and got it pulled back into line by this minister. It was actually trying to run aviation policy. With some assistance from members of the coalition who were directly affected by this and had some knowledge of it, we actually got him to confirm the 80-an-hour cap at Kingsford Smith airport, we got him to confirm the importance of the curfew and we got him to belt the Sydney Airports Corporation around the ears for more than a week because it had completely stepped out of line. The problem was that it had been caught out publicly. It had actually been doing the government's silly work. Conjoined with this the government, behind its hand, actually went out to the people who want to run a fast train from Sydney to Canberra. It went to that consortium and said, `You are working on this. What the government is essentially interested in here is not spending very much money on transport in Australia. While you are at it, will you please give us a study which shows how many more years it would be before we would need to build a second international airport in Sydney if the train ran between Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney, then added Brisbane in later on and all the configurations of that?' This is a dopey approach. It is entirely crazy and silly. A government that is red in tooth and claw on social policy has not been able to focus on sane and sensible solutions to Sydney's aviation problems. This is a crazy idea, as vigorously, clearly and concisely argued by the environmental impact statement brought down for Sydney's second airport. An airport with 12 million passengers a year cannot be serviced by a fast train system, which is not fast enough anyway and which would be based outside Sydney. That volume cannot be serviced, except with a train every 12 minutes. At the maximum of 30 million passenger movements per year there would need to be a double-decker fast train operating once every three minutes from Goulburn, Newcastle or wherever. There would need to be a service once every three minutes to pull those people out of the airport and then bring them up to Sydney or take them off to somewhere else. This government has been sucked in by the fast train group. First the group said that it did not want any public money. Then it said that $70 million would do, just to provide the corridors. It has now come to the government and said, `We will have to change things a bit. We actually need about $1 billion.' At least that is down on the $5 billion to $10 billion that another group thought it would need about a decade ago, but this government has been sucked in. The government has actually asked that group to provide it with the ammunition to say that there is no real need to build a second airport in Sydney. Every one of the National Party people belatedly speaking in this House on this issue, every one of those National Party people who were at the end of the queue to get the cabinet's ear on this, has been able to take their part in the debate directly from the arguments that the Labor Party has been putting forward for more than four years. Sydney needs a second airport. That second airport has to be where the people are. If we do not build infrastructure where people are and where it can be used, we end up throwing our money right down the drain. It is as simple as that. It is not just a question of providing jobs in Sydney's west and south-west; it is about actually putting the facilities where the demand is. What the government has been inexorably dragged back to—it has been diverted in its approach to social policy—is that, if we are going to spend a lot of money on infrastructure, whether it be $4 billion or more, we actually have to finally make a decision. Four years on from being elected, finally, screaming and kicking and trying to divert itself by all the noises it has made about everything else, the government actually had to come close to making a decision on this. One would hope that the infrastructure realities of Sydney have finally been hammered home to this transport minister and this reluctant government. It costs money to build a second Sydney airport. There is no use putting it where the people are not. There is no use in the government coming up with the Dodgy Brothers idea of off-loading all of the regional passengers that currently go to KSA, dumping them into Bankstown and hoping it can bodgie up the roads and install a bit of a rail connection, thinking that that will do the job. This bill comes more than 15 months after the Productivity Commission's report. It is well over time—years over time—for this government to stop looking for corners to hide in, for it to stop utilising the diversions of being red in tooth and claw on social policy and actually deal with the fundamentals of Australian aviation policy, make a decision about Sydney's second airport and make the appropriate decision that will be right for the future of Australia, right for the people of Sydney and right for the country as a whole. (Time expired)13:39:0015268Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—An internationally competitive and environmentally sensitive civil aviation industry is central to this country's future economic development. It is equally central to the legitimate needs of that large number of Australian communities who live in areas adjacent to the nation's airports. Both of those sets of interests are the subject of the legislation currently before the House, the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. It is for those reasons that I rise to speak in this debate and, in addition, because I represent in this place a community that is directly affected by the operations of the Brisbane airport and is, therefore, a community that has to deal with this daily balance between the broader economic requirements of the region and the state on the one hand and the direct impact on their social and environmental amenity on the other. This debate on the effect of airports on communities and on the future of the civil aviation industry in general is not unique to Australia; it is a global debate. It takes place in every large city in the world—in London, in Amsterdam and in San Francisco. That is because those local communities that feel the impact of airports are now exercising their legal rights and political power through the ballot box to maximise influence on governments to represent their interests in the `battle of interests' with the civil aviation industry. In such debates about the impact of airports on communities, often we are told—particularly those of us who represent constituencies who live in aircraft noise affected areas of the country—that anyone moving into such an area should employ the principle of buyer beware; that is, `Don't move there because it is aircraft noise affected and if you do so and you suffer some consequence in terms of social, environmental or financial amenity then tough! That is something that you brought on your own head. You cannot seek redress for that from government.' That is the overall logic of buyer beware. I suggest an alternative approach, which is not buyer beware but airlines beware. I say that in consideration of the history of the evolution of the major cities of this nation. For example, I represent a community that is affected by Brisbane airport. A large number of the suburbs that are affected by Brisbane airport were constructed, settled and developed quite some years before the Wright brothers ever took off in the first place. In fact, that development occurred not a large number of years after the Montpellier brothers actually went aloft in their balloon. So this whole argument about historical precedent and who was there first needs to be born in mind. For example, in my part of Brisbane the suburb of Bulimba was settled in 1850-60. The school at Bulimba has a shingle on it which says that the first class was attended there in 1861. Most of the other suburbs on the south side of Brisbane were settled some time before World War I, well before Qantas was even thought of. Practically all of the electorate I represent was well in place, well established and well developed before a decision was taken during World War II to establish Brisbane's principal airport facility at Eagle Farm. I think these questions of who was there first and the residual right of residents to express a legitimate view based on their long-term residence—and often that of their parents—is as relevant and germane to the debate as are the arguments advanced by the civil aviation industry about the impact of their operations on the broader economy. For the information of the House, I point out that Brisbane airport is this nation's second largest airport. In terms of the annual number of movements through that airport, it is already larger than that of Melbourne and is somewhat larger than half the size of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. Based on current growth projections, in seven to 10 years time Brisbane airport will probably have the same number of flight movements each year as occur today at Sydney airport. However, unlike Sydney airport, Brisbane airport does not have a curfew. For that reason, it becomes doubly important to ensure that we have a proper approach to noise management through the Brisbane Airport Corporation, the Department of Transport and Regional Services and Airservices Australia. At present, noise management at Brisbane airport is coming a poor second. Part of having a decent input from the community on these questions lies in having an effective mechanism through which the community's views can be obtained, through which the community can be consulted. When we look at the usual measures of aircraft noise which are used in the professional literature on aircraft noise and its impact on communities, we are invariably told that there is only one robust and reliable scientific measure, and that is the ANEF, the Australian noise exposure forecast. In terms of its measurement of actual noise impact on the ground, my advice to the House is that the ANEF is not worth a pinch of salt. The bottom line is that it might provide some annual average indication of where concentrations of aircraft noise and aircraft movements might occur, but as to its actual predictive ability to identify those houses, those streets, those suburbs, those localities, those schools, those churches, those nursing homes and those hospitals which are affected in a real way by aircraft noise, the ANEF system of measurement is next to useless. I draw to the attention of the House the professional literature on this subject under the name of Professor Ted Duhs, from the Queensland University of Technology, who has made a professional study of the scientific reliability of the ANEF system and its predictive capacity vis-a-vis the actual noise impact on the ground. In fact, in this country the civil aviation industry—or, shall I say, community—is equally alert to the deficiencies of the ANEF measurement system. Only last week I was advised that Airservices Australia has now circulated for public discussion a new technical paper on the question of a possible replacement to the ANEF system for how better to measure noise and its real impact on communities in the future. The fact that we have such an imperfect and fundamentally flawed system of measurement as the ANEF underlines the importance of having effective community input to the deliberations of government on noise impact on local communities—the real impact of standard instrument departures, the real impact of STARS, the real impact of ICOA A and B departure procedures and which particular areas are most affected at what times of day by the aggregate operations of an airport. In Brisbane, we have had a long history of establishing an appropriate mechanism through which the community's views can be obtained. This goes back some 10 years. Broadly, the convention has been this: at Brisbane, either side of the river, three elected members from the three levels of government—federal, state and local—each nominate their representative to be a member of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee. That body brings together the views of local residents on how noise is affecting them as well as providing a recommendatory body which can provide advice to the government on what specific noise management measures need to be introduced. This is not a recent innovation. This body has existed virtually since 1991. In that year, a report was prepared on `A Task Force to Review the Operations and Planning of Brisbane Airport and to Minimise the Impact of Aircraft Noise on Surrounding Communities'. That was its formal title. In fact, its formal title was so long it was never capable of yielding itself an acronym. So we simply refer to it as the 1991 noise report. Had an acronym been invented, it would probably have been somewhat longer than the average length of the name of a Welsh rural village. The 1991 noise report noted that `Community representatives were nominated by their respective members of parliament'—that is, community members participating in the task force which put together that report, the report in turn making fundamental recommendations about future noise management at Brisbane airport. The 1991 report also recommended the re-establishment of the Brisbane Airport Consultative Committee subcommittee, called the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee, which was to take on board specifically this mandate of future noise management at the airport. Again, the recommendation of the 1991 noise task force was that the membership of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee should be similar to that of the 1991 task force—that is, representatives from the three spheres of government. This resulted in the formal establishment in 1993 of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee, which has a current membership of six and in respect of which the three relevant members from the south side and the north side of the river have put forward their nominations. Mr Don Coulam has been the representative for the federal division of Griffith. He was nominated firstly by one of my eminent predecessors, Mr Ben Humphreys, and was retained as that electorate's representative during the period Mr Graeme McDougall, from the other side of politics, represented the electorate. The practice of federal, state and local government members nominating their representatives on this committee has been well recognised, well established and, until recently, well respected. Since this government has been in office, this practice has been reconsidered by the Brisbane Airport Consultative Committee, which confirmed the 1991 practice most recently in 1998. The minutes of a 1998 subcommittee meeting noted:On the issue of method of appointment, it was concluded that the best equipped people to make the selection of community representatives were the local members of parliament/council, who after all, have been elected by their communities to represent them.Those minutes reflect the meeting of the Brisbane Airport Consultative Committee in the period following the election of this government in March 1996. As I noted before, my representative on that body has been Mr Don Coulam. However, recently I notified the Brisbane Airport Corporation that Mr Coulam was interested in stepping down from that position, having served on the committee for four years, and I put forward the nomination of Ms Jackie Cann to replace him. However, when I advised the Brisbane Airport Corporation that this was my intention it did not accept Ms Cann's nomination and, instead, said that this was now a matter for the federal minister, not the federal member. This position is not only curiously inconsistent with the previous practice going back over some seven, eight or nine years now but also demonstrably inconsistent with professional deliberations by this airport noise body in the period since this government has been in office. It is also strikingly inconsistent with correspondence between the Chairman of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee and the previous Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mark Vaile, dated 16 February 1998, in which Mr Vaile was advised of changes to the terms of reference of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee. In that letter of February 1998 to Mr Vaile, the Chairman of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee stated: The essential elements of the revised Terms of Reference include ... that community members continue to be appointed by the local, state and federal members. The chairman's letter also stated in paragraph 3 that these revised terms of reference `have been reviewed and agreed by all members of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee'. Given that the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee includes representatives of the Brisbane Airport Corporation, it is even more curious that they should in late 1999 or early 2000 seek to dispute the local member's right to appoint a community representative to the environment committee. It should also be noted for the record that the Chairman of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee is an employee of the Brisbane Airport Corporation. Therefore, in this correspondence with the then transport minister, Mark Vaile, we have the stated view of the Brisbane Airport Corporation that the previous system of appointment whereby local elected representatives appointed community representatives to this paramount consultation body should be continued. The next development in this saga occurred when, as a consequence of having received a letter back from the Brisbane Airport Corporation that my nomination of Ms Jackie Cann was unacceptable, I chose to correspond with Minister Anderson in about the middle of last year on this question. Minister Anderson replied eventually in a letter dated 20 September 1999: Thank you for your letter of 23 August 1999 regarding the membership of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee.The Brisbane Airport Corporation is reviewing the structure and operations of the environment committee. The review is likely to result in significant changes to the committee. He went on to make some other observations about the individual whom I had nominated. The important point, though, arising from this correspondence is that suddenly we have emerging out of left field—or dare I say from right field—the sweeping away of the conventions adopted in the past decade when, in 1991, a broad based community task force recommended that the principal consultative body between the community, the airport corporation and the government should have six representatives put on it by the local community. The government is saying, `That is no longer our responsibility,' and that the Brisbane Airport Corporation now has the responsibility to bring about a fundamental change in the way in which this consultative mechanism is to work in the future. I question why my nominee to this body was so reprehensible. Ms Jackie Cann is from the local P&C of the Bulimba State School—a school which is directly affected by current and future levels of aircraft noise in my part of Brisbane. She is not exactly a representative of the Hezbollah. She has a degree of community support through her activism and knowledge of the issues associated with not just the airport but also its direct impact on significant local schools. So I could not see why her nomination would be unacceptable. This then evolved into a meeting at the end of November or early December last year at which the then members of the Brisbane Airport Environment Committee—Mr Don Coulam, as he then was, Mr Arthur Pearce and Sue Pook—were told unilaterally that they no longer had their jobs. They were told, `The committee is finito—the end. Thank you for your service for the last six or seven years. It's all over, red rover. We are designing a new set of consultative arrangements. We don't know what it's going to be and we don't know who is going to be on it, but bye-bye.' Apart from being summary in its method of execution, it was also just downright rude in the way in which it treated people who had given their best for their community over a long period. The fundamental public policy issue which arises is: who is now accountable to whom? The Brisbane Airport Corporation has now unilaterally gone to the Commonwealth and said, `We need a new set of arrangements.' I thought it was a responsibility of government to determine what those consultative arrangements should be, because it is the government's responsibility—not a private company's responsibility—for gathering public input into public decision making. We now arrive at a situation where we do not know—at least until today—what this new arrangement is going to be. While I gather correspondence has now taken place between the minister's office and the Brisbane Airport Corporation, I have not been provided with a copy of it. However, I have been advised what its content is likely to be. I am told that, whereas in the past we have had six representatives taken from the community, in the future there will be five community representatives. The community representatives will be appointed for periods of two years. The minister and the federal department are of the view that it is important, however, that these individuals be refreshed from time to time so that no-one gets stale in the job—I presume by that they mean become too activist and problematic. I am told that the public selection process which would be established for the appointment of these individuals would comprise an independent chair and panel and that, for this current term, four rather than five individuals are going to be called to become members of this committee. On the selection process itself, the independent chair is to be nominated by the Brisbane Airport Corporation—wait for it—to the minister, who would then have the right to say yes or no as to who this independent chair will be. It will be interesting to see who is on the panel. As for those members, the Brisbane Airport Corporation is currently writing to the city council and the state government asking them to nominate a person, but it is the expectation of the Department of Transport and Regional Services and the BAC that these folk will be—wait for it—bureaucrats and not representatives from the local community. What we have had, therefore, is an exercise which substitutes a process that for the last nearly 10 years in Brisbane has been one of community democracy, whereby local residents get to argue the case, with a bureaucratic process appointed by the Brisbane Airport Corporation and ratified by the department of transport and, as a consequence, denying local people of their say. This represents jackboot tactics. The minister has said that for a short period, for an interregnum, I am entitled to have a continuing nominee, but that does not answer the fundamental charge that what we have now is not a local democratic body but, instead, a body which denies local communities of their opportunity to select their people and have them arguing their case on this important community issue in Brisbane.13:59:0015272Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I rise to support this very important bill, the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. It is of great significance to Australia. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The parliamentary secretary will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice152721527214:00:0015272Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Given today's decision to raise interest rates—the third rate rise in six months—do you agree with the Treasurer, who said last Thursday:We've had interest rates moving up, but it's not an altogether bad thing.15272Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As always, comments made by us on this side are taken out of context. I have read the Treasurer's comment. What he was referring to as being no bad thing was the growing strength of the world economy, and the idea that that is a bad thing could only be generated in the mind of an economic spokesman for the Australian Labor Party, because you people were the kings of the depressed Australian economy. I want to make one other observation on the interest rate issue and to remind the parliament—and in particular remind those who sit opposite—of the level of interest rates that obtained under the former government. The combined effect of interest rate movements since this government came to office means that the average Australian homebuyer is now $250 a month better off than that homebuyer would have been if the interest rate regime that we inherited from you incompetent lot had continued.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the transcript in which the Treasurer said interest rates going up is not an altogether bad thing.Leave not granted.1527214:02:0015272Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen claims that today's interest rate rise is a consequence of the goods and services tax? What is the source of such claims, and how do they explain interest rate increases in the United States, Europe, the United Kingdom and New Zealand?15272Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his question. As the Prime Minister said, the Reserve Bank today increased official interest rates by 0.25 per cent to 5¾ per cent, which is a full one per cent tightening; as has been the case in Europe where there was a full one per cent tightening, in New Zealand where there has been a full one per cent tightening, in the United Kingdom where there has been a full one per cent tightening, and in the United States where interest rates have been tightened by 1.25 per cent. The Australian official cash rate stands lower than that of the United Kingdom and the United States.As the Prime Minister said, when this government was elected home variable mortgage interest rates were at 10.5 per cent. Even after today's movement, they would be at 7.55 per cent, meaning that on the standard Australian interest only loan you are saving today $250 a month on your interest bill, compared with the interest rates which applied when this government came into office, which is a $3,000 a year saving for the average Australian family over the course of the last four years since March 1996. In addition, unemployment has come down to 6.7 per cent, inflation has been low, Australia has survived the Asian financial crisis, and over the last 11 quarters the economy has grown at four per cent per annum, something that we had not done for 30 years. As the Prime Minister said, one of the consequences of a stronger world environment—which will be good for Australia—is that interest rates are going up in all countries around the world. As I said before, the main ones are the European Central Bank and the English speaking economies of New Zealand, the US and the UK. I have seen a claim made—and it was not a claim made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, but I have seen a claim made by a much lesser economic authority—that this is all a consequence of the Australian GST. Presumably, the US Fed is moving interest rates because of the Australian GST; presumably, Eddie George at the Bank of England is moving rates because of the GST; presumably, Mr Duisenberg of the European Central Bank is moving interest rates because of the Australian GST; and presumably, Don Brash sits down there in New Zealand and moves New Zealand's interest rates because of the GST. No, the Reserve Bank Governor said that the central bank in Australia was tightening, as was happening around the world. There is only one so-called economic authority, fired up by his pollster, who went out today to make the rather extraordinary claim that interest rates—which are rising around the world—are being caused by the Australian GST. I fully expect that, if there is an earthquake in Ecuador, according to the Leader of the Opposition it is the Australian GST and if there is a flood in Nicaragua, according to the Leader of the Opposition it is the Australian GST.He made inter alia this particular claim today, that a further impact was a substantial slash on the budget. Apparently he is also against that, because he believes that that will be bad for interest rates. What he calls a substantial slash on the budget is an income tax cut. That is what it is; an income tax cut. Here we have the Leader of the Opposition going out campaigning against income tax cuts, campaigning against the GST—which he is so against that, if he ever becomes Prime Minister, he wants to keep it—and adding to the net sum of economic wisdom around the world by saying that interest rates, which have risen in the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and Europe, are all caused by the Australian GST. It is totally poll driven and totally lacking in any economic credibility.The good news, to finish the quote that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition so wilfully tried to misrepresent, of a growing world economy is that a growing world economy will be good for Australia. It will give us additional export volumes, and it will give us additional export values. The consequence of that is that you will see growth moving out of consumer demand and into exports, something that was shown up by recent figures and we would expect to be shown up by figures on the trade front over the course of the next two years.1527314:07:0015273Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is to the Prime Minister. Can you confirm a report in the Australian on 24 March that you want the Reserve Bank to explain itself every time interest rates go up because:... it is the RBA and not the federal Government that is responsible for hiking interest rates ...Did you not also say on 26 May 1997:... we have cut interest rates a lot further than we said we would at the time of the election ...Prime Minister, if it was good enough to take credit when rates go down, why will you not you take responsibility when they go up?15273Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The elements of economic policy that the government put in place when it came to office included not only the concept but the practice of independence for the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank of Australia has a much greater level of independence to set monetary policy today than it had under any previous government in Australia. In that sense, it has followed the practice of other governments around the world. One of the first acts of Gordon Brown, I think, when he became Chancellor in Tony Blair's government was to hand over the control of monetary policy to the Bank of England. But one thing I can be certain of is this: no Treasurer in any government I lead, no member of any government I lead, will make the claim made by the former member for Blaxland—I do not know whether he was Prime Minister then or Treasurer—when he said that he had the Reserve Bank in his pocket. Nothing did more damage to the concept that there was some integrity in the conduct of monetary policy than making a statement like that. Can I say for the record that I believe that the current Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Ian Macfarlane, is doing a first-rate job. I think one of the things that has contributed to the economic strength and the great economic prosperity of this country over the last few years has been the skilful conduct of monetary policy by the Reserve Bank. I notice today that the Governor issued a statement. It was quite a lengthy statement, and I think it provides a very good explanation for the rationale of the decision taken by the Reserve Bank of Australia. Monetary policy is an important element of economic prosperity and economic stability, and it is inevitable that adjustments in monetary policy will take account of national and international financial circumstances. What the Governor has done today, very usefully, has been to put into full context the decision taken by the Reserve Bank of Australia. I congratulate the Governor on the contribution that he has made in that very senior and important position to the stability and the strength of the Australian financial system.Australia was able to stare down the Asian economic downturn, and the frantic prediction of the Leader of the Opposition on the AM program on 3 September 1998 was not realised. When the Leader of the Opposition criticised some growth figures, he said:These are not a beautiful set of numbers ... they're an indication of a substantial problem ...Then he went on to say, characteristically:And remember, we haven't really been hit by the Asian crisis yet. We don't get hit by the Asian crisis until these next two or three years.In other words, the Leader of the Opposition was desperately hoping that Australia might be hit by the Asian economic crisis, once again hoping for some bad economic luck for Australia. One of the reasons that this country was not hit by the Asian economic crisis was that we had a very strong, well-supervised, prudentially regulated, transparent banking system. The contribution that successive Reserve Bank governors—and particularly the current one—have made to the stability of the Australian financial system is something that deserves credit on both sides of this House.1527414:12:0015274Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. What is the government doing to ensure that rural, regional and remote communities in Barker and other electorates are able to secure the benefits of the telecommunications revolution? Is the minister aware of any alternative proposals?15274Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question, and I am delighted to answer it. In short, the $1 billion social bonus that the coalition has put together out of the partial sale of Telstra is now delivering some extraordinarily valuable initiatives in rural and regional Australia. A very large part of that is, of course, the $464 million Networking the Nation program. That is part of the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, and it has funded now no less than 235 projects across Australia. A vast array of rural communities really can benefit from more innovative approaches to telecommunications of a sort that were never possible under Labor and would not have been impossible without this initiative.I had the great pleasure of launching one of them the other day, Growzone. Growzone covers an area of 28 per cent of Queensland, much of it in the electorates of Groom and of Maranoa. It runs from Toowoomba right out to the Birdsville corner. There are no less than 37 towns there that will now have access to the Internet at reasonable rates. It raises the prospect, extraordinary as it may sound, of the producers of organically grown beef in the Channel Country—one of the most remote parts of Australia; indeed, of the world—being able to communicate instantly and on the spot with their customers in Japan, the sort of thing that would not have been thought possible at all a few short years ago and would never have been possible with the ALP's approach to telecommunications innovation in regional areas, with their constant obstruction of the machinery that we have put in place to allow these things to happen. The $2.6 million grant has been very well used by those who put together this program. They are already directly employing 15 people but, with the 37 towns across southern and south-west Queensland—including Charleville, Dirranbandi, Quilpie, Chinchilla, Roma, Cunnamulla, Goondiwindi and eventually places like Birdsville—that will now have such things as public access terminals, the employment prospects are really very serious indeed. These are the sorts of innovative approaches which are going to revolutionise the future for people living in rural and regional Australia. The member for Barker also asked whether I was aware of any alternative approaches. Yes, I am. The ALP have made it quite plain that they regard this as a hotchpotch approach which they would wind back or obliterate in government. They stand condemned. There is no doubt about them. If they see a good service delivery out there—whether, for example, it is Networking the Nation or closing down 270 post offices—they will roll it back.Distinguished Visitors1527510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Estonia, led by the President of the Estonian Parliament, His Excellency Mr Savi. Seated next to Mr Savi we have two former prime ministers from the Estonian parliament. I would like to extend to all members of the delegation a very warm welcome to the Australian parliament.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice152751527514:16:0015275Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Can you confirm a report in this week's edition of Inside Canberra that you received a letter from Doug McMillan, President of the National Association of Road Freight Operators?Government members interjecting—DT4Mr CREAN—I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he could confirm receipt of a letter from the President of the National Association of Road Freight Operators? It is no laughing matter for them, Prime Minister. Is it true that Mr McMillan rejected as tenuous claims by the government that the new tax system will generate significant freight decreases after July 2000? Did he go on to say:The plight of operators will ... be compounded by ... prospective increases in interest rates and in the CPI.Deputy Prime Minister, isn't Mr McMillan right?15275Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The proposition that the reduction in fuel costs of around 23c a litre that we will be putting in place from 1 July and the proposition that the abolition of the wholesale sales tax on trucks, parts and tyres and all the equipment that goes with that will not deliver substantial benefits is absolutely absurd. It is just a total absurdity. I note, and I am sure that all members would note this, that regrettably the rise we are seeing in crude oil prices—which the government has absolutely no control over—is something that we hope will not last indefinitely. We look forward to an easing of those crude oil prices, which I acknowledge are putting pressure on transport operators at the moment. But to somehow extrapolate from that that the benefits from our tax reforms for transport will not be huge is absolutely extraordinary.It is interesting that the member for Hotham asked this particular question, because we now know what the opposition's attitude is towards reductions in fuel excise. We have, of course, had previous indications from the member for Dickson, who described them as nothing more than a multibillion dollar boost to pollution, a view not repudiated by the new spokesman for regional areas. But more recently we had—and I cannot help reading this into the Hansard—an interviewer asking Mr Crean about fuel excise. `What about fuel excise, Mr Crean?' the interviewer asked. `That causes a lot of problems, too. What sort of commitment can Labor make regarding fuel excise?' The response from Mr Crean was, `Basically our position has been that there needs to be this mix between indirect and direct taxes. We always had fuel excise in that mix'—and here is the cut-through line—`and we were not proposing to make any changes to the fuel excise regime. That wasn't the issue.' DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the letter from Mr McMillan, which says that your claims are tenuous, Mr Deputy Prime Minister.Leave not granted.1527614:20:0015276Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Is the minister aware of the Federal Court's recent judgment and order that the Commonwealth pay costs for legal proceedings involving the member for Fremantle relating to her term as Western Australian Premier? Minister, in respect of that order, what action is the government taking?15276Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I can inform the honourable member for Sturt that on 25 February the Federal Court delivered a final judgment requiring the Commonwealth to pay some $761,594.13 for legal costs incurred by the member for Fremantle in connection with the Marks royal commission and her related court challenges in respect of that royal commission. The judgment makes it clear that staff members of the then Prime Minister and the then health minister had bound the Commonwealth contractually to payment of such legal costs. In fact those commitments by such staff members were subsequently ratified by the then Labor cabinet on 8 June in 1995.A number of members of this House, past and present, have served at various levels in state governments prior to entering this parliament, and I am indeed one those. I would believe the majority of us, while serving in this House, would not have the slightest expectation that, should proceedings be instituted in respect of our former administration in a state government, the Commonwealth budget would be required to pay the legal costs in respect of those proceedings. The role of any minister in this parliament has absolutely no relevance to the previous responsibilities of a minister in a state parliament.A few weeks ago, the Attorney-General called upon the trustees of the Carmen Lawrence defence fund to provide approximately $100,000 that was collected in that cause towards the payment of legal costs. The Attorney-General has received a response dated 22 March from Mr Gray, indicating that no contribution would be made. This whole episode, which now requires the Commonwealth taxpayers to pick up the tab, is new territory. It is not only unprecedented; it is also a shameful step in public administration. But I can inform the honourable member for Sturt and members of the House that I will shortly introduce a special appropriation bill into the House to meet the Commonwealth's liability under the Federal Court judgment. In other words, the Australian taxpayers will pick up the bill. I repeat: this is a shameful episode in public administration. It demonstrates to the Australian people once again that Labor operates under the principle of whatever it takes. Of course, Labor has nothing but contempt for the Australian taxpayers.1527614:25:0015276Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his admission yesterday that the assessment `there was never a generation of stolen children' was prepared in his department and cleared by his office. Do you stand by this assessment, Prime Minister, in the light of the view of Michael Long of the Essendon Football Club that the separation of indigenous children was:... like dropping a rock in a pool of water and it has a rippling effect, so don't tell me it affects only 10 per cent.Prime Minister, do you still assert that there was never a generation of stolen children? 15277Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have already, in the course of the past few days, answered a number of questions and made a number of comments about this issue, both in the parliament and elsewhere. If the Leader of the Opposition seeks to further pursue the argument, I would simply say to him that what I have said represents my attitude. It acknowledges gross injustices having been practised in the past against indigenous Australians. It also recognises that the overwhelming desire of the Australian community now is to see all Australians working together on a basis of equality of opportunity and a recognition of the particular place of the indigenous people within our community. The Leader of the Opposition may, for his own purposes, seek to pursue the issue in particular. He is welcome to do that. I can do no more than draw his attention, which I do, to the remarks I have made in the parliament over the past few days and the remarks I have made elsewhere.1527714:26:0015277Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister advise the House of the success of the Australian workplace agreements? Is the minister aware of policies which threaten the existence of this initiative?15277Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Forde for her question. The Australian workplace agreements, which can be either individual or collective, were introduced in the Workplace Relations Act in 1996 and started in early 1997. As of the end of March, 98,699 have been approved. We are well on the way to reaching a milestone in the development of this new option for people, with the approval of 100,000 in the next week or so. They have been a very successful option for people. They have allowed for new productivity flexibility, they have allowed for family friendly work practices, they have allowed for rostering flexibility and they have allowed for performance pay, just to mention some of the new features which are part and parcel of this new form of agreement.They are under threat—there is no doubt about that—even though the concept is well entrenched now and is being taken up right across the Australian community. They are under threat from the former trade union officials who sit opposite. I have read a report in the last few days that the issue of Australian workplace agreements and individual contracts would be up before the federal executive of the Labor Party on Friday this week. The report was to the effect that Labor's attitude to individual agreements is in the balance. We know it is a question mark as a policy issue.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—AWAs are out!WI4Mr REITH—Thank you. This is exactly the point I am making. I was going to quote Doug Cameron saying the other day that you cannot have AWAs. It must be that the Leader of the Opposition read it, because he has announced his policy already—no AWAs. So you are going to deny tens of thousands of Australian workers the right to have an agreement that suits them. This is ideology at its worst, taking Australia back into the sixties and the seventies. You already have the unions giving you your public marching instructions. When you go down to your federal executive on Friday, as soon as you walk in, the first bloke you will meet will be Joe de Bruyn. He is from the shoppies.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: in defiance of your consistent previous rulings, the minister has today used the pronoun `you' repeatedly and continually and this practice shows no signs of abating.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith may well be right. I am not disputing that. The response on both sides of the House has left something to be desired.WI4Mr REITH—When the Leader of the Opposition fronts up on Friday to the ALP executive, he will be met by Joe de Bruyn from the shoppies union.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—These are the members of your executive. These are the people who tell you what your policy is. These are the people who dictate policy to you.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister is, as he knows, obliged to refrain from using the term `you' because it is of course an unintended reflection on the chair. WI4Mr REITH—You, Mr Speaker, will not be at this meeting, I can assure you of that. He will meet Janice Mayes from the Australian Services Union, Margaret Sexton from the CPSU and Greg Sword from the National Union of Workers. Out of the 21 people on that executive, two-thirds are from the unions. You are going to the unions to ask them what their policy is on AWAs.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPWI4Mr REITH—We have now flushed out a policy from the Leader of the Opposition. He is opposed to allowing people to have Australian workplace agreements. I appreciate that we now have a clear difference. We are prepared to give people an option. The opposition are going to say that for the 100,000 people who have AWAs, they are out. They are going to deny them the option that any Australian ought to have.1527814:32:0015278Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall saying the following at the launch of the National Indigenous Literacy and Numeracy Strategy:I see today's strategy, which represents a firm commitment of resources from the Federal Government, as well as a commitment to better direct existing resources ... as a very important element in the reconciliation process.Were you aware that all of the money for this strategy will come from the existing pool of funding available for indigenous students? Why did you seek to portray this launch as a new announcement of new money when not one extra dollar is being allocated over and above existing allocations for indigenous students?3K6Cameron, Ross, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta!MG4Mr LEE—Finally, Prime Minister, why should Australians trust your commitment to practical reconciliation when you have been prepared to mislead indigenous Australians in this way?3K6Cameron, Ross, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta is warned.15278Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Regarding the remarks that I made at the launch, that is certainly not my understanding. It was not the advice I had. I stand completely by the remarks I made because there was absolutely no intention on my part to mislead. The program represented, on my understanding and on my advice, the commitment out of the overall literacy and numeracy program of specific resources to lift the standards of indigenous literacy and numeracy within the Australian community. That was the advice that I had from both my own department—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have already said that the money came out of the overall literacy and numeracy allocation. There was absolutely no deception at all.1527814:34:0015278Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—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 the benefits of the government's approach to aviation reform?15278Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his very real interest and considerable background in aviation. We are pressing ahead with modernising Australia's air safety systems in a measured and sensible way. I would in particular like to draw the House's attention to the fact that the airspace reform program is scheduled to be completed in June 2001. The government, having learnt various lessons, including those that could be drawn out of the G airspace demonstration, are continuing to modernise Australia's airspace—it is an important part of our national transport infrastructure—and we are doing so in a staged way to ensure that industry can handle appropriately the changes as they are made. Airservices has phased out the manual traffic information or DTI arrangements that we used in the low level airspace between Bass Strait and Ballina. It has replaced, too, the 1950s vintage procedures with air traffic controllers using the award winning system, TAAATS. TAAATS is now fully operational. I have drawn the attention of the House to this matter before, and I reiterate that we all ought to be very proud that this is quite simply and without any doubt the most advanced air traffic control system in the world. That is something that we can all be very proud of. The new arrangements increase the safety of air travel in regional Victoria and New South Wales. Under the procedural arrangements in times gone by, the flight service officers did not use radar to provide information to pilots, even in areas where there was radar coverage. In contrast, the air traffic controllers now use radar where it is available to provide better and more accurate traffic information. Airservices will phase out the last of the manual traffic information systems used in Australia by December of this year. The final stage of the airspace reform program is scheduled to be completed by June 2001.There are other important reforms going on. I have recently appointed a new consultative body, the Aviation Safety Forum, and it will provide strategic advice direct to CASA. It will, I believe, act as a useful and, I have to say, needed bridge between CASA and the industry. We are pushing ahead with regulatory reform. For example, we have announced the new rating for private pilots—the private instrument flight rules rating—which will reduce accidents caused by light aircraft attempting to dodge around clouds. AOPA, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, has actually commented that `the whole concept is quite revolutionary and the development team have done a great job'. Of interest to people in rural and regional areas is the fact that we have reduced the duty on fuel used in small planes by 85 per cent since we came to power in 1996. Under Labor, the duty on Avgas was 18½c a litre. It is now 2.8c a litre, a reduction of 15.7c a litre. We slashed the duty in 1998. We made a modest increase of 9.77c last year to ensure a very important service delivery objective—that was that Airservices Australia could maintain affordable tower service provisions at 15 regional and general aviation airports, including centres like Tamworth, where, if we had not taken that action, the landing fees would have increased from under $7 a tonne to nearly $40 a tonne. We are pressing ahead in a sensible way with aviation reforms that will benefit the travelling public in this country in a very real way. 1527914:39:0015279McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Is it not a fact that the Productivity Commission has noticed that people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds are significantly under-represented in nursing homes? Can you confirm that while making up 2.3 per cent of a target population for nursing home care only 0.8 per cent of people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds are in nursing homes? Do these figures not represent the discrepancy between this government's policy on indigenous issues—you are happy to have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders over-represented in our prisons, but you do nothing to ensure they have equal access to our nursing homes?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—When the House has come to order, I will call the minister.15279Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The member has asked a detailed question. I will examine the contents of the question and report back to the House at an appropriate time. Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—This cross-chamber chat is not tolerated. 1527914:41:0015279Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House how the government's tax reform package stands to benefit Australian export industries? How does this build onto the government's overall strategy for export growth? Are you aware of any alternative policies in this area? 15279Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge the importance that the honourable member places on the prosperity of the exporters from has electorate and the one in five jobs that Australia's export effort provides to rural and regional Australians. I know this is a message that the honourable member, as well as all members of the government, is going to continue to provide. Today I presented to the parliament and released publicly the government's Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement—the fourth in the series. Since we have been in office we have continued to release details of what has been achieved in trade in the previous 12 months and the objectives for the upcoming 12 months. An integral part of what we are doing as far as our export effort is concerned in the year 2000 is improving Australia's taxation system—improvements that all Australians, particularly the business community, have been calling for. Changes in the taxation system will see more than $3.5 billion a year worth of indirect and embedded taxes carved away and taken off the backs of Australia's exporters. It is a policy that has been continually opposed by the Labor Party. They have continually opposed and talked down the benefits of tax reform as far as Australia's exporters are concerned. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPSU5Mr VAILE—Everybody except the member for Fraser. The member for Fraser is the only member of the ALP who has acknowledged the benefits for exporters of the GST. He said, `Well, the GST overall should be good for exporters.' He was being quite honest when he went on to say, `I'm not a fan of the GST, as you might imagine, but if there is one thing that is a plus for it, it should help our exporters.' Indeed it will. I agree with the member for Fraser—it will help our exporters. Over the last couple of years we have managed the economy of Australia through very difficult international circumstances, such as the economic downturn in South-East Asia and East Asia, and our exporters maintained a level last year of $114 billion in exports. They have done that carrying the burden of the embedded taxes that the Labor Party wants to keep and that the Labor Party kept on increasing. We all remember the budget of 1993. We want to remove that burden, and we are going to do that on 1 July. The manufacturer of Malibu boats in Albury indicated to me in February this year that, as of 1 July, because of the GST, he is going to be selling his product at 1997 prices. He is going to get a net reduction in the cost of producing that product. He cannot wait for 1 July to arrive. He is asking the question, `Why is the Australian Labor Party opposing a policy that is going to see that happen?' Where is the policy from the Labor Party? All Australian exporters are asking, `Where is the Labor Party policy?' At the moment the shadow spokesman for trade is on a five-week tour through Europe. While he is in Europe, he is announcing policies on China as far as Australia's trade circumstance is concerned. I suppose he will go to China and announce their policy on Europe, but he will not announce any policies back here in Australia and we have not heard from the Leader of the Opposition how the ALP propose to improve the circumstance for Australian exporters and make them more competitive, as we will as of 1 July.Distinguished Visitors1528010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the National Assembly of Vietnam. On behalf of the House, I extend to our guests a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear! Questions Without Notice152801528014:45:0015280Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister explain that, according to the report tabled by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on Monday, of the $11.25 million committed in 1997 to the government's flagship program to assist separated Aboriginal families to reunite, only $3.7 million has been spent? How does he explain that, of the $16 million committed in 1997 to fund specialist indigenous counsellors, only $1.7 million has been spent? Do the same excuses for these abysmal underperformances apply to the government's record on the emotional and social wellbeing regional training centres, for which program the minister's report reveals an expenditure over the past two years of only $865,000 of a total commitment of $17 million? 15281Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Given the detailed nature of the question, I would have to take on notice the specifics raised, but it gives me an opportunity to remind the House that there was a commitment of $63 million made I think towards the end of 1997 within about six or seven months of the publication of the HREOC report. I do not think under any circumstances that could be seen as unreasonable or unfair, given the character of the report and the particular recommendations that were made. The honourable member knows, as do all people in this House who have sat in government, that there are reasons why, after a commitment of money is made, you do not expend every last dollar of it within the first few weeks. It does take time. As to the particular reasons, I do not have them in mind. I will find out, and as appropriate I will come back to the House.1528114:48:0015281Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister outline the government's initiatives to promote mental health and wellbeing amongst young people, particularly school children?15281Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question, and I commend him for the leadership he has shown in his local area on this issue. We have had a concerted effort to address mental health matters over the last four years and Australia has had very significant international credit for it. Last week I launched a program that we have called MindMatters that we use amongst secondary school children in Australia. It came out of a national schools audit in 1996 that showed there were very significant barriers to dealing with mental health problems in Australian schools. This is an innovative resource for teachers to address and promote in the classroom mental health and suicide prevention. It is a sad reality that up to 20 per cent of Australian children may experience a mental illness in their teenage years; the most common of these is depression. It affects people particularly up to 18 years of age. Students may feel that there is no way out, that there is no light at the end of the tunnel.The materials that I am talking about were developed by a consortium. We tested them in 24 Australian schools in 1998 and 1999, and they have tested extraordinarily well. They relate to a range of materials for teachers and schools and are particularly designed to help increase the resilience of children and to give them skills to cope with challenges, change and stress. They also show how a school may take a whole of school approach to issues of harassment, understanding mental illness and helping students with loss and grief. It is a truly national project that is being coordinated by the Australian Principals Association and the Curriculum Corporation. There is no easy solution to the issue of suicide. The member has raised with me the issue of a summit in Frankston in May, and I hope materials such as these that have been thoroughly tested do give people at that summit some hope for the future.1528114:50:0015281Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall your Minister for Employment Services saying that Australia risks breeding a generation of job snobs? How do you respond to recent criticism of this low-grade labelling by at least two of your senior Liberal Party colleagues? Given that Senator Newman was prepared to distance herself from the minister's label, are you prepared to do the same thing? If the member for Adelaide was prepared to attack the minister for his appalling comments, do you have the courage to repudiate the minister and demand that he call off his divisive campaign against the unemployed? ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would have thought the worth of a Minister for Employment Services to his government would be the contribution that minister makes to reducing unemployment. In the end what this minister as a member of this government and what all of the men and women who sit in this parliament behind me are about is generating jobs for Australians. You can play your funny word games as often as you like, but in the end what really matters— CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—6.7 per cent is what counts.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—You know what really counts? It is not your funny word games but, as the Treasurer said, the 6.7 per cent level of unemployment. What counts is that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Minister for Employment Services have presided over generating the best job figures this country has seen for a decade. They have introduced a world first as far as a modern competitive approach to labour exchange policy is concerned. The Job Network has been an unqualified success. The Job Network has outpaced the Commonwealth Employment Service. R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Grayndler!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I want to thank the member for Chifley for asking me this question. I cannot delay the House for all the time that I would really want to to extol the virtues of the job that this government has done in reducing unemployment. In the end, a judgment will be made about the performance of this government in relation to the unemployed by what we achieve. And we have the runs on the board. We have the jobs available to Australians of all generations. We have 653,000 more jobs as a result of the policies of this government over the last four years. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—That's absolute rubbish. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!ZD4Mr HOWARD—We have a strong labour market. We have a flexible, competitive, compassionate Job Network. We have opportunities available in this Job Network which were undreamt of under the old Commonwealth Employment Service. I want to congratulate the minister.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Wills is warned. ZD4Mr HOWARD—I want to congratulate the other minister. I want to congratulate everybody on this side of the House for the contribution that they have made to reducing unemployment in Australia. 1528214:54:0015282Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister inform the House of the progress being made by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service in negotiating market access for Australian farmers to key regional markets? Further, in particular, would the minister advise of any recent market openings for our important horticultural exports? 15282Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Hinkler. Honourable members would know that the member for Hinkler represents one of Australia's foremost horticultural regions. Indeed, I was happy to join him for a dinner last Saturday night near Bundaberg to celebrate the achievements of the horticultural industry. 4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—Was it is a fundraiser, was it? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Banks. That sort of outburst will not be tolerated.GT4Mr TRUSS—Indeed, the horticultural industry has a lot to celebrate, Mr Speaker, as you would well know. It has been one of the real success stories of Australian agriculture, with tremendous boosts in exports and considerable growth in employment in the industry. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service has put a lot of effort into opening up new markets, and the rewards for its science based quarantine system have been significant. The House would be interested to know that since 1993-94 AQIS has succeeded in having technical barriers to our exports removed in 275 commodity market combinations. That represents significant new marketing opportunities. AQIS has improved conditions for export access in 96 cases and in a further 257 cases where our exports have been put at risk because of threats from other countries they have been able to negotiate continuing access. So there have been some really significant breakthroughs, which have helped our horticultural industry in electorates like Hinkler and right around Australia to expand their exports and to develop job opportunities and build regional economies. I am particularly pleased to report to the House today that Australia is at the point of a major breakthrough in relation to exports of citrus. Mr Speaker, this would interest you particularly because the citrus growers of the Riverland have the potential to be major beneficiaries of a likely agreement with South Korea to allow access for Australian citrus into that very important market. This will be the first time that fresh Australian fruit has been allowed into Korea. The citrus industry has also been one of the great successes of the horticultural sector. Their exports have tripled since 1994-95 and are now worth almost $150 million. Soon I expect the people of South Korea will have the benefit of being able to enjoy citrus produced in the Riverland—and hopefully my own electorate, because we do produce some of the very best citrus in the world. It is great to have these new market opportunities available to our producers. 1528314:58:0015283Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why have you compromised the independence of the Welfare Review Committee by arranging for the chair, Mr Patrick McClure, to attend a Liberal Party national convention later this month? Also, Prime Minister, who was responsible for the hiring of Jackson, Wells and Morris to handle the public relations for the launch of the welfare committee's interim report? R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned.15283Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Perhaps I could answer the question in two ways. The first way I can answer the question is in five words: Rod Cameron and Bill Hunter. The second way I can answer the question is in a slightly more detailed fashion, and that is to refer to the question of who hired that particular firm—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What review did they head up? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! ZD4Mr HOWARD—which is made up of three principals—one of whom, Mr Jackson, was the Labor candidate for the seat of Mackellar in 1983, and in fact at the show down the road he was accompanied by his good friend Kerry Sibraa, regardless of stories of meetings of the Narrabeen branch of the Australian Labor Party. The other two principals of course are well known. If that firm gets some contracts on a proper basis, like any other firm it has a right to.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He has persistently interjected today.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I do not run away from my association with Graham Morris and I never will. I never run away from associations with people who have demonstrated a loyalty and commitment to me on a personal basis over the years. I make it very plain that—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I do not quite know where the opposition believes this fascinating line of questioning is going. I think, like somebody said, this is character assassination. This idea that somebody, because they have worked for, and had an association with, a Prime Minister, is denied the opportunity of making a living—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance: I asked him who was responsible for hiring them, not the composition.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is being relevant to the question asked.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The member for Lilley asked me about how a particular firm was engaged and he named that particular firm. The whole purpose of naming it was to invoke the association between me and Graham Morris. That is why he asked the question. He sought to smear Graham Morris—a decent person who has a right to make a living. As far as I am concerned, I am proud of my friendship with Graham Morris. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I warned the member for Lilley that there was a short answer and a long answer. On the engagement of the firm, I know nothing of the processes whereby the firm was engaged—nothing at all. As to the question of whether Mr McClure can come along and address a Liberal Party conference, I do not think that in any way compromises his independence. I am quite certain he would be happy to go along and address the Labor caucus. I do not think anybody has suggested that, for example, Stuart McIntyre's independence as an Australian historian of note was compromised by the fact that he gave some kind of centenary address to a meeting of the federal conference of the Australian Labor Party. This idea that somebody cannot preserve their independence just because they address a committee is absolutely ridiculous.1528415:03:0015284Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Would the minister inform the House how the government is expanding Centrelink services in rural and regional areas such as my electorate of Robertson? How does this expansion of services help deliver the government's new Family Assistance Office? What alternative policies exist that aim to improve delivery of services to families in rural and regional Australia?15284Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I am pleased to advise the member for Robertson that an additional 767 Centrelink call centre staff, both permanent and temporary, will be recruited up until July as part of the government's new tax system. These people will be placed in Centrelink call centres and Family Assistance Offices right across urban and regional Australia. They will provide a vital service to Australians who are seeking more information about the new taxation system. The changes to income assistance will help families and people receiving pensions, other payments and allowances. The changes to family assistance payments will provide more help with the cost of raising children. Twelve complex payments now will be reduced to a simplified three new payments. Not only is the coalition government increasing income support payments, but it is introducing more generous income tests for more families. Families now will be able to choose to receive their payment either as a lump sum or as a reduction in their tax instalments.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—Just table it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison is warned.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Retired Australians will also benefit under the new tax system with the one-off savings bonuses. On 1 July, the age pension savings bonus will provide up to $1,000 to Australians over the age of 60. For self-funded retirees aged 55 and over, the supplementary bonus of $2,000 will also be provided. Importantly for pensioners and low income retirees, until they start paying tax, the tax thresholds will be $14,500 for single people or $24,500 for couples, and this is extremely significant. These are real benefits under the taxation reform system. The government is committed to protecting the living standards and the financial security of all Australians.Let us look at the record of our opponents over here. In the good old days when Labor was in government, when wholesale sales taxes were jacked up consistently, of course there were no compensation payments to pensioners or retirees. The ALP still has no plan. Where is the ALP's plan? Their only plan—aside from rolling out ex-ACTU boys club members—is a scaremongering campaign with no policy.But there is one question I would like to ask the member for Lilley: will you keep all these generous compensation payments to families and pensioners or will you support a repeal, just as you said in your newsletter:It could be repealed today. We will support a repeal. 83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the minister to table the script from which he has just read so that we can see the stage directions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston will resume his seat. Was the minister quoting from a confidential document? The minister has indicated that he was.1528515:08:0015285Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why is no red light flashing in your office over the government's proposal to deregulate Australia Post when you cannot guarantee, in breach of your own Nyngan declaration, that Australia Post services to rural, regional and remote Australia will not fall as a consequence of deregulation?BV5Adams, Dick, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister does not have the call, and he is being denied it by the behaviour of the member for Lyons who, as an occupier of this chair, should know better.15285Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am reminded, as I get up to answer this question, of the enormous number of post offices that were closed during the time that the Labor Party was in office. Let me assure the House that the government's policy in relation to Australia Post will not result in a reduction of services to the bush. That remains our policy, and nothing the member for Perth says can alter that.1528515:09:0015285Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, what action is the government taking to reduce the queue of aged parents of migrants who want to migrate to Australia themselves? Would the minister inform the House what the government is doing to reduce this queue without placing undue burden on the taxpayer?15285Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for her question. It is a proper question to ask, because there is a significant degree of interest among some sections of the Australian community about the possibilities of having parents join them in Australia if they have come to Australia as migrants themselves. The fact is that we do have a limited program of 500 places for aged parents and we have a considerable queue of people who seek to access those places. It is in response to that that during the consultations I had recently in relation to the migration program I took the opportunity of discussing at public meetings and in more informal meetings with particular interest groups their view about the way in which we should proceed to address this particular dilemma—and that is the dilemma of how you can bring people to Australia in their more mature years and not impose a significant financial burden upon the whole of the Australian community for their support.I spoke to many people at those public meetings, but I can remember only one occasion when somebody said they had an expectation that if their parents were allowed in they should be supported by being able to access benefits almost immediately after entering Australia. Most people said to me that if they were given the opportunity to bring their parents to Australia they would be more than happy to support them, to ensure that they did not claim benefits in Australia and to meet a reasonable cost of providing for private health insurance.83KRoxon, Nicola, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Gellibrand!0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Knowing that the health costs for people over the age of 65 years are around $6,000 per year or, for an estimated life span of 20 years, $120,000 and that welfare costs for special benefits and age pensions are of the order of $160,000 over a remaining life span of 20 years—that is a total lifetime cost of $280,000—the government has proposed a contingency reserve measure of 4,000 additional places for aged parents on the basis that there be private health insurance for a 10-year period taken out on behalf of the aged parents before their arrival or that, if they cannot arrange such health insurance, they meet an up-front health services charge of $25,000 per person. That represents about 20 per cent of the potential cost. There would also be an increased bond of $10,000 for the main applicant and $4,000 for other people, and it may be refundable after 10 years if no benefits are accessed during that time. That is not an unreasonable request and, if people were coming to Australia and disposing of property interests, very easily obtainable. The comments that came to me at public meetings— 6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—In marginal Liberal seats.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—They were not in Liberal seats; they were in a cross-section of seats across Australia.83KRoxon, Nicola, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Gellibrand is warned.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—People said that if the opportunity was there many people would seek to access those places.I note that the opposition seems to object to that measure, and that suggests that the comments of the member for Bowman, when I see them reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, may have some validity because he is out there saying that Labor is opposed to a scheme which would favour those with money. That is what he is saying: `We are opposed to a scheme that would favour those people with money.' He is really saying, `We are opposed to those people who have the funds to support their parents using those funds and taking their parents out of the queue for the places that are available on a fully subsidised basis.'Five hundred places would move a significant number of people off the queue, if that measure were to be supported. I suspect that is why the Australian Democrats are saying that they will seriously look at this proposal. But let me make the point that, if the opposition is saying that 20,000 parents should be allowed into Australia on the basis of those costs being fully met, in the context of the charter for budget honesty, they ought to be prepared to go out and argue that case and put it to the Australian taxpayers that their responsibility should be to support those sponsored parents where families were saying that they have no intention of asking the taxpayer to pay.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice PaperQuestions Without Notice152861528615:15:0015286Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—To add to an answer, during question time earlier this week the member for Perth asked me whether I was 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. I am advised that Ms Bennett is participating in a rural GST start-up assistance campaign being conducted by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The advertisement is aimed at encouraging farmers to take steps to prepare for the GST by attending a free GST workshop, consulting their accountant, applying for an ABN and reviewing their financial and business systems.The person in question, a Tasmanian farmer and the ABC radio Australian Rural Woman of the Year in 1997, was one of 10 farmers auditioned by the department, after consultation with the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association. She received a $200 audition fee and, as she was selected, a talent fee of $1,000. Payments were consistent with those to other participants. The advertisements were filmed about a month ago. There is nothing in her involvement in the advertising campaign that conflicts in any way with her role in the telecommunications service inquiry. She will bring to that inquiry the benefits of her extensive public and community experience and her understanding of the needs of rural communities. This is just another cheap attempt to smear a decent person.1528615:17:0015286Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—Very briefly, during question time I answered a question in relation to aviation reform. I made the comment that the duty under Labor on avgas was 18.5c per litre. It is now 2.85c per litre—a reduction of 15.7c per litre. I made the comment that we slashed it in 1998 and then modestly increased it in 1999. I wanted to clarify this because I understand from someone who made a comment that I may not have clearly pronounced it. The modest increase was 0.977c, not 9.77c. Questions to the Speaker152871528715:18:0015287Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Mr Speaker, I refer to the fact that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs continues to wear an Amnesty International lapel badge in the chamber.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will hear the member for Grayndler, but I have difficulty seeing what business it is of mine at this stage.R36Mr ALBANESE—Mr Speaker, you might not be aware that the minister has been formally requested by Amnesty to remove his Amnesty International lapel badge when speaking in his capacity as federal minister.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler must be aware that the badges worn by members in this place are no business of the chair. There is no standing order that suggests that they should be worn on a particular lapel or in a particular way. I do not intend to take any action on a matter which is entirely the business of the minister for immigration.1528715:19:0015287Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 150, I ask that you write to the Treasurer concerning question on notice No. 955 concerning his promise to not introduce new taxes or increase existing taxes and whether he kept that promise—a question he has not been able to answer even after six months.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I will take up the matter, as I would normally do in the usual course of events.Personal Explanations1528715:19:0015287Mr SWAN,MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?2V5Mr SWAN,MPMr SWAN—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.2V5Mr SWAN,MPMr SWAN—During question time, the Prime Minister said that I said that the firm Jackson, Wells and Morris should not have been hired because Mr Morris, the principal of the firm, was a former staff member of his. That is simply not the case. I have the highest regard for Mr Morris, as indeed I do for other members of the Prime Minister's staff. The point that I was making was very simple: who hired the firm—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. He has made the point where he believes he was misrepresented.15:20:0015287Mr McMULLAN,MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5I4Mr McMULLAN,MPMr McMULLAN—I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.5I4Mr McMULLAN,MPMr McMULLAN—During question time, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business claimed that the government had discovered a new Labor Party policy which is to abolish Australian workplace agreements. This significantly misrepresents the policy which I took to the last election which quite explicitly stated that we would abolish Australian workplace agreements.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane! The Manager of Opposition Business knows that he must indicate where he was personally misrepresented.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is warned!7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—What about standing order 55, one might remind the member for Prospect?7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is warned! Documents1528815288Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Matters of Public Importance152881528810000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The social and economic consequences of the Prime Minister's failure of leadership and the resultant divisions within the government.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:23:0015288Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Those who witnessed question time today will have seen an interesting psychological study on the part of the Prime Minister, the psychological phenomenon called `projection', that followed a question that I asked him—and we have asked him quite a few this week—related to the issue of the stolen generation and specifically the comments by our Essendon footballer friend. The point about it was that he wanted to say, `Why are you keeping this issue going? Aren't you playing wedge politics?' The simple fact of the matter is this: this government, to protect itself from the consequences of its policy and the impact that that is having on most Australians now, decided to play wedge politics. They have had out there the principal culprits: the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is out there with every conceivable immigration issue he can raise, but most of it targeted to feed or tweak the tails of any concerns, any worries or any upsets in the community about either the race or the origins of immigration to this country. The second one is the Minister for Employment Services, who is out there with comments like `job snobs', who is out there attacking the unemployed. Then we have the minister for social security out there putting forward propositions in relation to supporting parents and those on disabilities. The point of all this activity being the erection of a smokescreen in general political debate and the driving of wedges into the community.The Australian public is to some extent now being educated by the debate in this chamber about what wedge politics means. There is always a danger that they will not comprehend what is essentially a cliché that circulates amongst those who spend their life in the profession of politics and those who comment on it. But it is quite a simple phenomenon, really. It is a product of a special campaigning technique developed by the far right in the United States during the course of the 1980s and entails this: when confronted with a majority of the community badly affected by one of your policies, and the consequences of your policies benefiting a small section—generally speaking, the wealthy—the best way to deal with that problem is to drive a wedge by coming in on top of what were generally class issues with a set of propositions to attempt to force the majority of the population to look downwards for their grief and not upwards to you, the true source of it. That was the point of wedge politics. That is what wedge politics means. On other occasions, however, those who are perpetrators of it get either a guilty conscience about it or get shot by their own design. I read in an article by one of our correspondents, Laurie Oakes, today about the last-minute contrition of the inventor of wedge politics, Lee Atwater, at the time he was dying of a brain tumour. He expressed regret about some of the things he had done in the name of wedge politics. The correspondent goes on to say, `There is a lesson there for others.' That `lesson for others' the Prime Minister has begun to learn.The effect that he has had in playing wedge politics in this place this week has not been to weaken the target—which happens to be us—it has been to divide his own party, who are through and through fed up with this; through and through fed up with the way in which this Prime Minister is choosing to play politics in this country now. That reached fever pitch yesterday in what clearly was a revolt in his party ranks; a revolt against what ought to be absolutely fundamental to Liberal principle, that is, the separation of the activities of the judiciary and the state or the government. It is important to those of us who are social democrats that that should be observed. But if the Liberal Party does not support that sort of proposition they have no reason for existence, because that is their fundamental ideological commitment. One or two of their number—at least in their party room, though not in here—had sufficient courage to stand up and draw attention to the hypocrisy and the damage that they were doing to ordinary people in this country. Indeed, the Prime Minister was tumbled as far as that was concerned. He has also now recognised, as he has faced rotten headline after rotten headline, that there are an awful lot of people out there who feel that the government ought to address this issue and move on. While people may be sick of hearing about issues related to the stolen generation and issues related to reconciliation, they are not sick of hearing about it because they object to the Aboriginal community; they are sick of hearing about it because they think the government should by now have dealt with the issue and moved on. That is what they think. The Australian people crave a government that will address these issues, which now have been on our agenda for some considerable time, and finish them. That is what people want—and so, apparently, do one or two members of the backbench on the other side of the House, at least in private. The Prime Minister has, nevertheless, persisted in that, and he himself is now paying some penalty for it.It is evident, too, that, while one would expect to see in the Liberal Party—given their ideology—some concern in that regard, we also see that they are objecting to one or two other things as well. They are actually objecting to the targeting of other weak sectors in our community. One of their number got up to object to the notion of job snobs that has been put forward as yet another characterisation of the unemployed: yet another piece of demeaning—another piece of wedge politics. To those who are concerned about their level of income, those who are concerned about what is going to happen to them in the new tax regime that has been put in place as families carry all the burden of tax in this country—those people with a genuine concern—the Minister for Employment Services is trying to say `Look, don't think about what is happening to you and your family. Think about how unfair it is that your taxes are going to these people whom we characterise as job snobs.' That was the point of what is continually being engaged in by that particular minister, who has a burgeoning record of failure. It was laughable to hear those employment services defended by the Prime Minister so resolutely in this place, but there will be opportunities to deal with that in future question times.But that is not the employment services minister's role. His role in this government is not to develop employment services that get the long-term unemployed into work. His role in this government is not to get into the work force people who are on disability benefits or who are out of the work force because they are supporting children at home. It is not his job to get them into the work force. That would actually cost some money. That would actually require some attention by government. His job is to characterise them, categorise them, demonise them and use them as the wedge by which families in this country cease to focus on what the government is doing to them when they seek to put their aged parents into nursing homes; when they confront the price rises on all their goods and services; and when they confront the consequences, if they happen to be in regional Australia, of a loss of services with the full privatisation of Telstra. `Do not think about that', says that particular minister, following his Prime Minister's direction, `Think about what may be happening to a bunch of people whom your taxes are being spent upon.'That is what this government are doing, and the result of that is social collapse and the destruction of decent social policy. It is necessary for them to do that because community concern about the botched taxation system that they are putting in place is beginning to reach fever pitch. People in voluntary organisations, people in small business and people in families are trying to get answers as to what all this means for them, and getting instead propaganda—$100 million worth of propaganda—but no answers; plenty of argument, but no answers. More and more they are putting pressure on this government for those answers and when they get those answers, more and more they are putting pressure on for different ones. `If that was the answer, I want to rephrase the question, and if he could not possibly develop for us a different answer, we would be very grateful if you tried.' We see another consequence of what the government has done in the interest rate rise today—duck shoved over to the Reserve Bank neatly by the Prime Minister. But, make no mistake about it, while the RBA did not mention the GST, in the form of not mentioning the war, they said this:The RBA clearly indicated that the interest rate rise is because the balance of risk in the economy is now on inflation.Of course, what is happening is that the price of money globally impacts upon the price of money in Australia. That is obviously the case. But every treasurer and every finance minister knows that the fundamental issue in movement in interest rates is inflation domestically. That is the fundamental issue, and we have a threat to inflation emerging domestically from one source and one source only—the goods and services tax. So that that limited compensation for families, that generous compensation for the wealthy, is being clawed back by the impact of the goods and services tax on the rate of inflation.What the Reserve Bank knows is what every Australian family knows, and that is that the government's inflation estimates are ludicrous. As a result of that, psychologically there is an anticipation in the community of rates of inflation which are driving themselves now into community behaviour and, what the Reserve Bank will fear, driving themselves into wages as a result of that. It is in anticipation of that that the Reserve Bank is now acting. It has other problems to deal with as well, but it is acting primarily because of what they are anticipating in that regard. They do it in an environment in which they know two other things. Private savings in this country—in part, at least, courtesy of this government—have collapsed. That is the first thing that they comprehend about that, and the second thing that they also comprehend is the impact on the budget. Mr Costello was saying here, after one of the remarks I made earlier today about the impact of the budget, that he is opposed to income tax cuts. That is what has dented the surplus. No, not income tax cuts; the total compensation package for the GST is what has whacked into the surplus. It is the total compensation package related to the GST which is obliging the government to make decisions in relation to the budget, which, in the circumstances that they now face in the economy overall, they would not normally make. But, because the government are making that decision, because they have botched financial administration in this country, the Reserve Bank is acting to deal with it. But, just as the ordinary family carries the burden of their botched GST, so, too, does the ordinary family carry the burden of what is happening in regard to interest rates.That is why wedge politics are becoming vital to this government, because the one mantra that they have chanted since they came into office—`We know how to manage the economy'—is the mantra most under threat from the experience now in the administration of this economy, from the situation now in the budget, from the reputation that this government is building for a botched implementation of this tax, and from the damage that they have done with small business and others by what are now revealed to be lies about both the simplicity of this tax and its impact overall on prices including, effectively thereby, the cost of doing business in this country.So in these sets of circumstances somebody has to be out there to blame. And I do believe the reason it has blown up so monumentally in the face of this government—in the party room of this government as well as in the community generally—is that so overwhelming is this damage that no wedge can provide the smokescreen to overcome it. So overwhelming is this damage that they cannot do that. The second reason is there is an assumption there about the decency of the ordinary Australian which is misplaced, an assumption there about the willingness of the ordinary Australian to see the weak demonised. You have got to remember that if you asked the average Australian what they felt most summed up his or her idea of life, they would use an expression like `fair go'. There is virtually no other country on earth where you would elicit that response. And that fair go attitude will often subsume a whole range of prejudices that in the end people will be prepared to dismiss. This government has been tumbled, and we have tumbled them. (Time expired)15:38:0015291McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I have one question to ask of Labor members as they depart the chamber: who amongst you understood what the Leader of the Opposition was saying? Who could make any sense of that totally incomprehensible linking of long unstructured questions together? There was no rhyme or reason to that contribution. It did not make sense. Most of you were bored and uninterested, as was made obvious by your reactions. It is very hard for me on behalf of the government to respond to that contribution, because it is like wrestling with mercury. It did not make sense. There was no consistent line. It was a trip around the world. We heard fleeting references to aged care, Telstra, GST, compensation package, budget surplus.I tried to make a note of them as the Leader of the Opposition was going. I will give him credit: he can certainly spew forth the words, but there was just an avalanche of them, these long 60-word sentences that were—until you read the transcript—utterly incomprehensible. He made no sense. He would occasionally throw in the word `wedge' and think that somehow that was the linking theme to his contribution. He got to interest rates, inflation. He threw away sort of generalised vague insults against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Minister for Employment Services, the minister for social security and, of course, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. There was just everybody covered and everything, but none of it stacked up. It was totally incoherent. If I were a member of the opposition I would be genuinely worried about that performance, because the MPI promised so much. I remind members of the House of the challenge thrown down by the opposition, by the Leader of the Opposition, today in this matter of public importance:The social and economic consequences of the Prime Minister's failure of leadership and the resultant divisions within the government.We got none of that. We had no case made out about social and economic failure of leadership, let alone divisions within our own ranks. Really, it is very hard. I am going to have to junk my preparatory work for this debate. That MPI was a complete red herring. But I will say there was one serious aspect to the Leader of the Opposition's contribution. In the first three minutes he made a deliberate calculated accusation that the government is practising wedge politics. The media, to the extent that they are prepared to scrutinise the Leader of the Opposition's inconsistencies and hypocrisies, must hold him to proving his case. That is a damning, serious allegation to make. He made it at the beginning, cited the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Minister for Employment Services and the minister for social security as deliberately pursuing a policy of wedge politics—never substantiated it, never proved it, never asked questions of them in the House; just a generalised, vague, unsubstantiated insult to fill in time or to test the water. The Leader of the Opposition fails.I believe the Leader of the Opposition should be held accountable. He has made that allegation. Where is the support for it? Where are the questions to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, whom he accuses of `tweaking the tail of prejudice', or words to that purpose? To the minister for social security he made a quick unstructured sentence about single mothers. Again: ask the questions, make out the case. Do not spend three minutes quoting from today's Bulletin edition about an American practitioner of wedge politics and somehow link or assign that to the government. It is cowardly to make that charge without evidence, without any convincing case, within—I timed it—three minutes and then scamper from the chamber. He should be held accountable for what he has tried to do today, and that is slur the members of the government and a number of ministers very personally. I think it is pure cowardice on his part. As I best understood the Leader of the Opposition, after all of the rambling and the stupidity of his crazy thought processes, towards the end of his 15 minutes he alleges that there has been social collapse caused by the government's practice of wedge politics. RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr Nelson—Social collapse?XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—That is his claim: social collapse. But, again, it is at the end of his contribution. What does he mean by that? What is his argument? What is the purpose of making such an allegation as he is about to conclude, other than to leave it hanging in the air because he has no evidence. He is misleading the Australian public with allegations of that kind. It does him no credit. He does not have the courage of his convictions to come in here and pursue us at question time on these issues or to make out his case. He knows they are false allegations of the worst kind. And he has a lack of conviction, which is very worrying, on this whole issue of mandatory sentencing. Did he say anything as the Western Australian and Northern Territory governments introduced mandatory sentencing? He is fond of quoting newspaper articles, as we saw just now. As we know, Alan Ramsay, in the Sydney Morning Herald only two weeks ago slammed the Leader of the Opposition and said that it took some 24 days—if my memory serves me correctly—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Thirty five.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—It took 35 days before publicity forced him to raise the issue of the tragic death in custody of a young man who was subject to mandatory sentencing—35 days. It is not serious to him. The Leader of the Opposition's cowardliness is further proved by the fact that he does not tackle the Western Australian government. Why doesn't he do that? Because it is an election year. I might have missed something—and I am happy to stand corrected—but has the Leader of the Opposition gone to Western Australia and, in front of Dr Gallop, the state Leader of the Opposition, said, `I will use the powers of a Labor government at the Commonwealth level to overrule the Western Australian parliament'? Will he do that? No, he will not. He always attacks, criticises and mocks the Northern Territory government as an easy target. Again, during that by-election for the seat of Shane Stone some three or four weeks ago, where mandatory sentencing was an issue and the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party won that seat in an absolute majority, did the Leader of the Opposition have the courage of his convictions and the strength of principle to go to Darwin and campaign on the issue of mandatory sentencing against the CLP? Of course he didn't. He is totally led by certain columnists, certain people in the media, and by a number of people from the left-wing within his own party.When are we going to see the Leader of the Opposition take centre stage with his own views, his own beliefs and his own policies? All of this is a distraction for somebody who is utterly incapable of preparing policies on all of those issues across government administration that, in the short and long term, daily affect and impact on the Australian people. That is the sadness of this whole issue. Through all of the noise and the screeching of the Leader of the Opposition just now and over the past 48 hours on the issue of mandatory sentencing, one telling point has been very much lost in all that debate—that is, that the range of views on the issue within the coalition government is very much reflective of Australian society. There is no getting away from that. Just as there is a range of opinions and views that are deeply held and sincerely believed by people at different ends of the debate in the community, so there is in our own ranks. I am not apologising for that.The problem for the Leader of the Opposition is that towards the end of his contribution he said, `Australians know what a fair go is and that is what they want from a government on social and economic policy.' We agree with that, but the Labor Party do not because they will not allow dissent or a range of opinion within their own ranks. I would never argue that any view or any belief expressed by anybody in the community should be allowed, but I know that the Australian people instinctively or inherently know what is a point of view to be tolerated in a liberal democratic society. The David Irvings of the world have no place in community debate, as an example of somebody whom the Australian community will not accept. But, as somebody who was as much seared by the white-hot Hanson phenomenon as anybody, I have always been convinced that one of the major causes of the Hanson phenomenon was the Labor Party because they so extinguished any different point of view. They are so used to doing that within their parliamentary ranks that they think they can do that within the community. The Australian people will decide fairly and equitably what opinions are totally out of line and off the wall and what opinions are semi-racist or what are not. The point is: let them decide. On these complex, difficult and sensitive social issues there will be differences of opinions within our ranks, but we stay united. Within the Labor Party there is no hope of expressing a different point of view. The Labor Party are therefore making the same mistake now that they have made before, especially during the Keating years. They will not allow a diversity of opinion in the community. They misread the ability of the Australian people to reach objective judgments on an issue such as mandatory sentencing. They are doomed to repeat the mistakes of their own very recent history. Their intolerance of different points of view in the community did more to fuel Hanson than anything else ever did.You would never really know, would you, what Labor members of parliament believe on the issue of mandatory sentencing, any more than you would on other issues? If they are controversial and complex issues, you will not hear different points of view. That is why the Labor Party are not representing the Australian community. We know that from those who make up the frontbench. Correct me if I am wrong, but two-thirds or three-quarters—it was one or the other—are paid-up union officials. Two former leaders of the ACTU populate their front bench. So you are never going to get a proper understanding of individual enterprise and the need for reward in return for risk or for support for small business. The Leader of the Opposition is off to his national executive this Friday for a discussion or even for a policy formulation meeting, because in effect that is what it will be: a one-liner. What did the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business tell us today? He told us that something like 17 members of the national executive of the Labor Party are union officials. Again, that reflects, in almost exact percentage terms, the number of union officials who make up their frontbench. So no wonder you are getting an almost totalitarian handling of these issues. We are proud on our side of politics that people freely and indeed courageously put their points of view so that we can reach a united position.Allegations made in the matter of public importance, which was written by some clever press secretary or speech writer in the Leader of the Opposition's office—but they were not mentioned here today, so the promise of the debate was so much more than the actual delivery—suggest that there have been social and economic failures of leadership on our part. Any way you look at it, that is not the case. In health there has been a seven per cent increase in rural doctors in two years. Private health insurance has increased—we have just had the fourth quarterly increase—and it is more inclusive of and more accessible to ordinary Australians, especially those with families. Look at the im-munisation efforts of the Minister for Health and Aged Care. In terms of employment issues managed by the Minister for Em-ployment Services, mutual obligation is widely accepted by the Australian people.The attacks on him are unfair and inaccurate. On behalf of the Australian people, he is implementing Work for the Dole, Green Corps—that volunteers program—and Job Network, all of which the Labor Party skirt around. They support them. They know they are proper public administration policies so as to get jobs, but they do not have the courage to support them, because their union mates do not want them to. We can look at industrial relations. The unemployment figure is the key figure here, and it is so important. It is 6.8 per cent, down from Labor's almost 12 per cent. We can look at small business. We have reduced inflation to the lowest level in 20 years. We have given small business protection under the Trade Practices Act, and we have brought in the franchising code of practice. In summary, the Leader of the Opposition gave a very worrying contribution to the parliament. He made a grave allegation and then passed over it. He did not substantiate it and, in a coward's fashion, he ran away from it. He has totally failed to appreciate the Australian people's endorsement of government policies both economic and social. 15:53:0015294Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise to support the matter of public importance, and I ask: where is the Prime Minister? I also ask: how could the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation ramble on for 15 minutes but spend only two talking about the leadership of his government? I think that says it all. I join with my colleague and leader in condemning the abrogation of leadership the Prime Minister has displayed in his handling of sensitive social and economic issues. I would like to quote from the immortal Bard:Let me not to the marriage of true mindsAdmit impediments.What a magic concept—the marriage of true minds, the union of heart, soul, understanding, acceptance, tolerance, love, compassion and kindness. These are concepts the government has no hope, or indeed desire, of emulating. The government is not interested in bringing the people of Australia together. It has failed to live up to its election promise—as slurred as it was—of governing for all of us. It has no desire to unite the heart and soul of those we are privileged to represent—no, it seeks to drive a wedge of division between them. The latest round of government shame is a prime example of the Prime Minister's pandering to the lowest common denominator and his failure of leadership. The people of Australia cry out for their leader to rise above politics on matters of principle, on issues which demand `ticker'—whatever the hell that is. Our Prime Minister has shown time and time again that he has no heart.The recent examples of the Prime Minister's failure on leadership are about dividing the nation. It is classic wedge politics where issues are used to split the people—as Laurie Oakes has said, creating resentment in a large group against a smaller one, whether whites against blacks or ordinary workers against people on welfare. How ironic that the Prime Minister tries to portray himself as a compassionate conservative—an oxymoron, I think—in a caring government in a caring society. I think not. The government is destroying the notion of Australia being a caring, tolerant, democratic society. It has destroyed the notion that Australia is a bastion of egalitarianism. The social vandals who sit opposite can only destroy and divide. The government cannot hide behind a smokescreen of grubby wedge politics. The people are not stupid: they know the GST will hurt them, they know the sale of Telstra will not bring advantages to the bush, they know the Minister for Aged Care has failed in her duty of care towards nursing home residents, they know there was a stolen generation, they know mandatory sentencing is not the answer and they know the Prime Minister cannot even lead his own party.There is no greater test of the maturity of a nation than how it deals with its past wrongs. We have seen apologies from the Canadian government to their indigenous people and, most famously, we have seen the recent apology issued by the Pope. But there is still no official apology from the Australian government. The Prime Minister is reluctant to say sorry. This appears to be driven by his fear that an apology will encourage legal claims and his earnest belief that he is supported by the opinion polls. He may even be right, but is this a way to run a country? Australians have a right to expect their government to act in the national interest and to do what is right, even if it is not always popular. On top of this failure to issue an apology, the Prime Minister's weakness over mandatory sentencing is a pathetic attempt to play down the devastation caused by the forcible removal of children from a family. These three issues have done enormous damage to the reconciliation process between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, undermined Australia's reputation as a progressive egalitarian society and unleashed the simmering divisions that lie within government ranks as many members on the other side of the chamber struggle to resolve their consciences with the poll driven ramblings of a cowardly Prime Minister. The mandatory sentencing laws that apply in the Northern Territory and Western Australia should be vigorously opposed. They undermine a fundamental tenet of our justice system: that the punishment must fit the crime. In addition, Australia has legal obligations as a member of the international community, something the government also wants to ignore. Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. They both contain provisions relating to the treatment of juveniles in detention. CROC article 3(1) states:In all actions concerning children ... the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.And CROC article 37 states:... The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be ... used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time ...The basis for all decisions affecting young persons should be that they should be made in the best interests of the child. In view of the age of many of the young people and of their developmental needs, it is important that they be dealt with in a manner that focuses on how to assist them in gaining skills and which supports and corrects behaviour. In many cases, this will be the last opportunity to steer a young person in a different direction. The major focus of a juvenile justice system should be early intervention and prevention so that these people do not enter the criminal justice system. Where they have committed an offence, the emphasis should be on diversion rather than detention.There is a need in the juvenile and magistrates courts for judgments to be made on all the relevant facts. That is why we have judges—to make judgments. To remove judicial discretion in relation to sentencing reduces the role of a judge to that of a cipher. The logical extension of the policy of the executive removing judicial independence is that judges are dispensable and all criminal matters may be dealt with by mandatory sentences. It takes wisdom and experience to make judgments that take into account the needs of all parties. Very little responsibility is taken for crime prevention. While more interest is focused on the punitive side of the criminal justice system, we are doomed to see young people inappropriately jailed with tragic, sometimes fatal, consequences. Let's consider the statistics. Aborigines in Western Australia are 21 times more likely to be jailed than non-indigenous people. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for the December 1999 quarter released yesterday show that WA, which introduced mandatory sentencing legislation in 1996, saw a 25 per cent increase in indigenous prisoner numbers over the past year and had the highest rate of indigenous people in jail in the country. The average number of indigenous people in Western Australian jails increased from 785 in 1998 to 977 last year. So much for deterrence.The Northern Territory, which introduced mandatory sentencing in 1997, recorded the highest proportion of indigenous prisoners—67 per cent. Indigenous people make up approximately 28 per cent of the Northern Territory's population. Again, these laws are not having the impact that this government say they will. To always jail every child with this background for often trivial, victimless property misdemeanours is literally a criminally negligent act, and this pathetic, listless, heartless, pitiless government do nothing when they have the power to intervene. John Howard is the Pontius Pilate of Australian politics, but he cannot absolve himself and his government from the consequences of their actions or, in this case, their culpable inaction.The third act of reconciliation vandalism executed by the Prime Minister and his government has been the submission to the inquiry into the stolen generation, where Senator Herron, supported by his leader, tried to deny the existence of a stolen generation What constituted a generation? A life span of 30 years, 10 per cent, 30 per cent? Who cares! Playing with semantics and statistics is a horrendous thing to do when you are talking about people's lives, people who are still living with the open wounds caused by this dislocation. I am sure many members have read the poignant contribution to the debate made by the Essendon footballer Michael Long in the Age today. I would like to read from it. It says: How do I tell my mother that Mr Howard said the stolen generation never took place?How does he explain to me why none of my grandparents are alive?How do I tell my mother that her grandchildren were never affected by the stolen generation, that they don't know their aunties and uncles, their people?Does Mr Howard understand how much trauma my grandmother suffered? It ripped her heart out, what she went through. Even when she died, her baby was never returned home.How do I explain to my children I don't know a lot about my culture, the history of my people, because my mother was taken when she was a baby, taken to Darwin and put on a boat—she had never seen the sea before—screaming and yelling, not knowing what was happening and then crying herself to sleep. I call that trauma and abuse. I am so angry anyone could do this to a child just because their skin was a different color.I have a child. She is up two flights of stairs. I know it would be heart-wrenching to have my six-month old child taken from me. I do not think I could live with that, but we ask these people to actually wipe that away and say it never happened.All that indigenous Australians are asking for is an acknowledgment of past wrongs, a commitment to fixing the horrendous social problems that bedevilled Aboriginal people and a genuine attempt to advance the cause of reconciliation. Too much to ask? I do not think so, Prime Minister, and if your backbench is a judge I think we can safely say that your wanton cowardice on these issues will be remembered bitterly by your party room, by all fair-minded Australians and, most importantly of all, by the thousands of indigenous people desperately in need of some compassion and positive action from this government.16:03:0015296Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—Firstly, anybody who needs to rediscover some of their own humanity need only read a few pages of the report of the inquiry into separated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. I confess that the first time I read it I was in tears myself. I think everybody, including any member of the government and the Prime Minister, has in some way been touched, if not moved, by this. Apart from anything else, the Com-monwealth government has committed over $63 million to try to do what it can by way of reparation for the people who were affected.What the debate is about and what has brought it on—and this is not to suggest that there is insincerity on the part of any one of the individuals who might contribute to it—is, as I said yesterday, politics. As evidence of this, I will demonstrate a couple of things to the House. The first thing is that in question time the member for Canning asked the Minister for Aged Care why, despite being about two per cent of the Australian population, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were significantly under-represented in Australian residential nursing home facilities. The answer to that question principally is that indigenous Australians do not live long enough to get to them. Half of the males are dead before they are 50, and four in 10 females are dead before they are 50. The second reason is that, unlike people in Anglo-Celtic culture, indigenous Aus-tralians prefer to be in their own com-munities. They do not like to be placed in residential care facilities away from their com--munities. The second point that I will use to illustrate the fact that this is about politics, for the members of the Australian community who are listening to this, is this: if, for example, any member of the current federal government, including the Prime Minister, were to say this, what kind of reaction do you think it would evoke from the Australian Labor Party? I quote:I am attacking negative welfare—that is, the provision of income support to able-bodied, working age people without reciprocity. It is this that is poisonous and socially corruptive. The provision of income support to able-bodied, working aged adults without reciprocity is the source of our social problems and the starting place for any solutions.Imagine what sort of reaction we would get if the Prime Minister or any member of the government's frontbench were to say that. I can tell you that those words were said by a great Australian, Noel Pearson, on 26 July 1999. Apart from other things, Mr Pearson himself—and I criticise him in no way for doing this—has indicated that at some point he would like to be a candidate for the Australian Labor Party. In fact, I think he would benefit the federal parliament. Amongst other things in the parliament, I am the co-convener of the all-party group on population, planning and development. In 1998, I was convening a seminar in this place on population, development and reproductive health issues. About 12 kilometres out of Alice Springs there is an Aboriginal birthing service called Alukra. It is run by a congress, the Central Australia Aboriginal Medical Service. The representative from Alukra said in the course of speaking to the conference, `You know, we've actually got the best health minister for Aboriginal people that we have ever had in the form of Dr Michael Wooldridge.' She went on to say, `More has happened in the last three years for Aboriginal people and Aboriginal health than has happened in the past 30.'I remind the House again, in terms of pointing out to the Australian community that what this debate is about is politics—it has nothing to do with the human beings that underwrite the issue—that in January 1994 then health minister Graham Richardson, one of the fellow travellers of the member for Watson, took Charles Woolley and a 60 Minutes crew to the Top End and Charles Woolley said to him, having surveyed the devastation, despair and existential demoralisation of indigenous Australians, `Why after 11 years in government is the situation still so bad?' Richardson said, `I've spent a lifetime reading polls and concern for Aboriginal people is not in the top million issues worrying the voters.' Mr Richardson was one of the key policy, if not political, strategists for the Australian Labor Party and it is quite clear that those kinds of values still underwrite what drives the Australian Labor Party. In other words, if there is not a vote in it, they are not prepared to support it. Beneath the matter of public importance that has been brought on today are real issues about people who die from diseases that the rest of the country forgot even exist. They are sadly not the topic of what is being discussed today. What this country needs is a deficit reduction strategy on premature Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander death, a deficit reduction strategy on prejudice, ignorance, intolerance and political opportunism—the sort that we have seen here today. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The Chief Opposition Whip will cease interjecting. RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—When I was in Cairns in 1995, I asked the great Rose Colles, who spent her whole life as an Aboriginal woman working with alcoholism in indigenous com-munities, `What does reconciliation mean to you?' She said, `I've spent my whole life trying to reconcile this.' What she meant by that is that reconciliation is not a process where you can say there is an end point and it is going to be 31 May 2000. Reconciliation is about all of us, all Australians, indigenous and non-indigenous, understanding in unembellished ways what happened to those people who are Aboriginal Australians—the impact it had on children who may or may not have been taken from their families, the impact of European settlement—and those of us who accept the legacy, the good and the bad, understanding the impact that it had on our own society and then, together, at some point, as Australians, acknowledging that we have a common and shared future and shared objectives. It is not about political point scoring in the parliament. It is not about trying to draw points off what are legitimate points of view that many Australians hold that I may not personally happen to agree with. Reconciliation has a spiritual component; there is no denying that. But, if it is going to be more than label badges, nice posters at ALP conferences and glitzy dinners at which average Australians will never be, but certainly pay for, then these are the issues that have to be discussed—education, health, housing and employment programs; the sorts of things that have happened under this government. If anything is going to be delivered for people in this country who have neither power nor influence, people who live in poverty, not just Aboriginal people, you have to come into the parliament and support those things that are necessary to sustain high rates of economic growth. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Why don't you sit down, humbug. RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—You cannot, for example, argue about a goods and services tax on the one hand and then argue about increases in interest rates on the other and not say a damn word about the CFMEU's claim for a 36-hour week and a 15 per cent pay increase. You want to talk about interest rate increases; that is what is doing it—a wages push from militant unions that you represent. The second point that needs to be made is that $185 million has been committed by this government this year for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. That is a 67 per cent increase since coming to government and it is up from $85 million in 1994-95. It is a 23 per cent real increase per annum since John Howard became the Prime Minister of Australia. Another 43 new Aboriginal controlled medical services have been created. Some 103 Aboriginal communities now get access to Medicare benefits that they were not able to get access to when you were in government. An evidence based data system has been established so that what we do in terms of Aboriginal health matches with the scientific veracity of what we were intending to achieve.The most important point that needs to be made, Mr Deputy Speaker—and thank you for maintaining order in the House today—is that all Australians need to understand that if we are going to progress our nation we need to ensure that Australians understand the truth, the facts and what happened. Apart from anything else, I am not one to get caught up on semantics, but I did not hear the Labor opposition criticising the Race Discrimination Commissioner in 1997 when she said it was 10 per cent of indigenous Australians who were removed. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Parliamentary Zone152981529816:13:0015298Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—On behalf of the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, I move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 13 March 2000, namely: Old Parliament House gardens reconstruction.The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government referred the plans for work on the Old Parliament House gardens to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories on 21 October 1999. The committee considered the matter and a number of members viewed the area where the improvements would take place. The committee expressed support for the proposal.The works comprise demolition of the squash court and the garden maintenance shed; replacement of the hedges, rose gardens and lawns and placement of trees and shrubs in accordance with the original design from the 1920s; construction of pergolas, formal entry points and a tennis court shelter with toilets and a kiosk for the provision of services in a style sympathetic to the design of Old Parliament House; provision for seats, gravel paths and new irrigation services; and, finally, replacement tree planting in Magna Carta Place and Constitution Place, which are public reserves at each end of the area where Old Parliament House is situated.The Australian Heritage Commission has been consulted, as has the management of Old Parliament House. Both support the plans, in particular because they will not only preserve the historical nature of the area but aid interpretation by future generations. I commend the motion to the House. 16:15:0015298McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I might just intervene in the debate for a couple of moments. I support the proposal that the parliamentary secretary has just read out; I think it is a very good idea. I always thought the squash courts that legend has it Bill McMahon had built were a bit of an eyesore in the gardens, as was the temporary office building that was put in the gardens in the eighties, I think, to accommodate the expanded membership of the House and the Senate. To turn Old Parliament House and its surrounds back to the way they were from 1927 to the war is very laudable and it is something that we all should support. I did not hear whether the parliamentary secretary said they were going to do anything with the bowling green that was there. I hope that will not be ripped out because I think it was an integral part of what that area had been used for. The squash court was a bit of an eyesore, as was the garden shed, but I always thought the bowling green—and I have never been a member of the parliamentary bowls group so I can speak without any interest in this—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, I actually think you should have put the member for Batman out before when he was causing all that noise. In fact the only connection I ever had with the parliamentary bowls group was when I was the Speaker and I refused to allow them to get some more money to run the place. But the bowling green was rather sympathetic to what was there and had a lot of links with what the building itself was used for. I think, in all of the things we do with Old Parliament House, we should always try to keep some sympathy for what the building was. It might be a museum now, but the building was the provisional Parliament House and a lot of the constitutional and parliamentary history of this country is bound up in that building. I just wonder if the parliamentary secretary might be able to indicate whether there are intentions to dig up the bowling green and the reasons behind that. I can see why the other things should be done, and I think most of the enhancements that are going to happen will make the place more sympathetic to what it was between the wars, but I would be interested to hear what the parliamentary secretary has to say.16:18:0015299Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I have even less knowledge of the parliamentary bowling green than does the honourable member for Watson, but I am advised that the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government will contact the Chief Opposition Whip to advise him of the fate of the parliamentary bowling green.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills15299The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2000Bills15299R101115299Debate resumed.16:19:0015299Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. In summing up, I make the point that this bill implements a key part of the government's international aviation policy which the Treasurer and I announced in June last year. International airlines require very large amounts of patent capital. The existing foreign ownership restrictions on Australia's international carriers reduce their ability to access the foreign investment that they need to remain fully competitive.This bill, I should say, is not just about Ansett, although understandably the ownership of Ansett has been the focus of the debate, particularly today. The liberalised foreign ownership restrictions—49 per cent—will nonetheless benefit every Australian company that seeks in the future to operate international services. The bill does not represent government approval for the Air New Zealand takeover of Ansett. The government is considering the bid through a parallel process under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act.The opposition has moved a second reading amendment to the bill. We will be voting against the amendment for procedural reasons. I want to say, however, to my opposite number, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the government is comfortable with the views that the opposition has put forward in the amendment. My understanding is that you understand that we respect your position but for procedural reasons we feel that we cannot actually support it in terms of a vote in this place. But I do thank the spokesman opposite for his cooperation and constructive attitude in progressing this legislation. I just make the observation in passing that it is a pity that the broader community do not see the times when we work things through sensibly. They get a bit cynical sometimes because we seem to be at loggerheads, but the reality is that more often than not we are able to work things through sensibly. On that note, we are considering the headquarters issue and the future of Ansett International. We are of course—and it behoves me always to do this—considering the regional implications of the bid. The member for Batman raised the possibility of the government funding an insulation program around Adelaide airport. I can say to you that the government is keeping this matter under active review. I commend the bill to the House. Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. 15300Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Anderson) read a third time.Bills15300R100715300Bill returned from Main Committee with an unresolved question; certified copy of the bill and unresolved question presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Unresolved question—That further proceedings be conducted in the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.15300Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony)—by leave—read a third time.Bills15300R101515300Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)16:28:0015300McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I indicate my appreciation to government members who assisted in my making this presentation at this point in time. The Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 involves relatively complex legislation. It arises from a decision of the High Court of Australia in re Wakim. The High Court in that case struck down cross-vesting legislation in the area of the Corporations Law to the extent that the High Court held that the Federal Court could not exercise state jurisdiction. That has created complications not only in the area of the Corporations Law but also in a number of other areas where there have been cooperative schemes developed to overcome problems of constitutional limitations. I will go through some of those schemes that are addressed in the bill. Each of those schemes has in common a situation where the federal parliament will legislate as a model and the states will reciprocate by implementing their own legislation replicating that; or, indeed, there have been some models that have arisen from the states such as in respect of gas pipeline access.Invariably these codes have as their enforcement mechanism, through either the judicial review process or actual enforcement of either prosecutions or general civil enforcement measures, the use of the Federal Court system. That is important because it has enabled the Federal Court system to develop a national expertise and of course apply uniform principles right across the nation as to how these codes operate. Regrettably, as a result of the High Court case, it will be necessary, in some instances, for the power to resolve back down to the state level or, as this mechanism in this bill proposes, to have a situation where for federal officers who have the job of administering and, in some instances, policing these schemes—even in respect of policing the operation of state legislation—this bill will create a situation where they will be deemed to be exercising special federal powers, even though they may be operating under the area of state law. Because they are officers of the Commonwealth, albeit in some instances operating under state law, they will then be amenable to the federal judicial review process. That is the underlying rationale of this bill: those two instances of resolving the power back to the states or clarifying that, when federal officers or officers of the Commonwealth are exercising powers either under the federal part of the scheme or the state part of the scheme, they will be effectively deemed to be exercising their role as federal officers and hence amenable to this federal jurisdiction. Before going through the bill in detail, it is appropriate that I provide some background to the cross-vesting schemes. As members are aware, we have a federal system where the states have their own legal systems and, indeed, according to authorities before these cross-vesting schemes came into being, the states were effectively regarded as foreign jurisdictions one to the other. Even though they were administering justice on behalf of all Australians, matters relating to the transfer of jurisdiction and the interaction of jurisdiction which frequently arise in the federal system were dealt with according to principles of private international law. To think that in the one nation those complex arrangements prevailed in our legal system is quite disturbing, but fundamentally that is the underlying structure we have. It is to the credit of the Commonwealth and state legislatures of all political persuasions that they have adopted mechanisms to get around those arrangements.Increasingly the state boundaries that we have are presenting an impedient to the development of national schemes, whether they be in the area of Corporations Law, trade practices law, even law enforcement or the delivery of natural resources, such as natural gas. Particularly in this era of globalisation, it is vitally important that we work together as a nation in these very important areas. In that context, the outcome of the decision in re Wakim was regrettable. I do not think it would have been intellectually dishonest for the court to have arrived at another conclusion, but again it is not for us to make the decisions of the High Court but really to react, in the legislative sense, to the outcome of those.I think it is fair to say that one of the reasons that we are successful as a nation has been that, in recent years, we have developed these cooperative arrangements. If I could just go through the more significant ones, firstly, in respect of the area of administrative appeals, in 1976 the Fraser government established the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which has been extremely successful in providing a means for Australians to seek redress in respect of both the merits and legality of administrative decisions—initially of course at a federal level—of federal public servants. That scheme has been so successful that many states adopted the legislation as state legislation and, in so doing, bestowed on the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal the power to adjudicate in respect of state officers. That is a tribunal, not a court, so that would withstand Wakim. But the trouble is that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal itself is subject to the right of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia which cannot happen through Wakim. This is the reason why this bill will be necessary to confirm that officers of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be exercising their office, even in considering state legislation, as officers of the Commonwealth. Similarly, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, which provides a more formal context for review of administrative decisions before the Federal Court of Australia, has also been extremely successful, but the very nature of the reviews being in the Federal Court of Australia means that review of state matters arising under state legislation cannot occur.Then we move into a particularly topical area with the Olympics coming, and that is in respect of the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act. That establishes the Australian Sports Drug Agency as a Commonwealth statutory authority which primarily focuses on the conduct of comprehensive drug testing in competitive sport. There are various state acts which form part of this drug testing code and they in turn refer enforcement powers to various federal tribunals, including the Federal Court of Australia. To get around that situation, this bill proposes to invest the ability of judges and officers of the Federal Court to review aspects of the legislation but acting in their private capacity. The next major area is vitally important to the economic wellbeing of this country—the Corporations Law. This is the most commonly discussed issue in the media because of the economic significance of it. The Corporations Law is a system of uniform national laws—again federal and state models replicating each other—to achieve uniform national corporations legislation. Each of the states has conferred their enforcement powers in the federal area, both with respect to administrative judicial review and with respect to the operation of the Federal Court of Australia. Again, that legislation needs to be now repaired as a result of the re Wakim decision, again by this mechanism of clarifying that when federal office holders exercise power even under state legislation they are nonetheless operating as federal officers and hence amenable to federal jurisdiction.But the paradox of re Wakim, as it has construed our Constitution, is that whereas the federal parliament can invest state courts with federal legislation the reverse cannot occur. So what is occurring in this bill is that administrative judicial review proceedings will be also divested back to the state systems. So, again, it is going to be a partial solution but only a partial solution because there will still be many non ADJR matters which will arise in the state arena which cannot be dealt with at a federal level. Indeed, since Wakim we have seen a significant reduction in the number of Federal Court cases considering these Corporations Law problems. That is a real problem. Just evidencing the significant role of the Federal Court, in a recent report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on Australia's federal justice system, handed down in January 2000, the commission commented: Australia's legal system plays a crucial role in the nation's economy, with law and legal services a key export and effective dispute resolution a selling point to the international community. The independence, integrity and quality of the federal justice system gives Australia a competitive advantage in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond, so we should be pushing this message to the international business community. Unfortunately, as a result of the re Wakim decision and the sucking away of matters from the Federal Court, that reputation is now in jeopardy.I move on to an issue of natural resources, the natural gas pipeline, which again is vitally important and in the future has perhaps even greater potential importance for Australia, given the price fluctuations we have seen in crude oil in recent days in the context where Australia has an abundance of natural gas. A cooperative scheme has been developed—again, under the former Labor government and the states—to enable third parties who have not been part of the pipeline construction process to nonetheless access the transmission facility of the pipeline. But, again, disputes inevitably arise, and they have had a federal focus. So it has been necessary to amend that area.With respect to the administration of justice generally, one of the most effective and efficient measures introduced, certainly in my period of legal practice, was the jurisdiction of courts cross-vesting legislation, which enabled parties to overcome a ridiculous situation where you had to determine whether matters had to be commenced in the state arena and related proceedings commenced in the federal arena or, if there was a competing choice between jurisdictions, just which one you chose. As a result of the cross-vesting legislation, you were on pretty safe ground wherever you commenced because of the ability to get all the matters relating to the common substratum of fact under the one roof for final determination. Of course, that avoided duplication of legal resources and avoided duplication of court time—and hence saved the public purse. Unfortunately, as a result of re Wakim, the ability for state courts to refer matters to the Federal Court has been disrupted and it has been necessary to make amendments in that area.Another very important area for Australia is the National Crime Authority Act. That was established in 1984. It is underpinned by legislation of all the states and territories and is effectively a creature of all the states and territories and the Commonwealth. The National Crime Authority has power to compel a person to furnish information or produce documents or attend hearings. There are abilities for private citizens who are aggrieved by the actions of the National Crime Authority, or indeed the National Crime Authority wishing to enforce its orders, to take proceedings sensibly in the federal area but, again because of re Wakim, that has also been affected. One of the significant economic areas is the Trade Practices Act. Under the Trade Practices Act, a national competition code has been developed to literally regulate fair competition throughout the nation. That has been prejudiced by re Wakim, as indeed has been the government's attempts to establish—and I understand there will be a bill in tomorrow—a code with respect to policing the goods and services tax. That also has many inefficiencies in it now as a result of the re Wakim decision. I am not sure that these measures have anywhere near completely overcome the problems but there is an attempt.In respect of the area of workplace relations, there are also areas where the states have referred powers to the Federal Court for enforcement. One particular area is in respect of section 5 (7) of the Workplace Relations Act, which gives the Federal Court power to enforce awards, certified agreements and instruments in the area of the coal industry. Those provisions need to be repealed and must be conceded as a result of re Wakim, as is another section relating to the Federal Court exercising unfair dismissal jurisdiction in respect of a state context. We put the government on notice, however, that while these provisions have been repealed, we think there are mechanisms which could be put in place to overcome the re Wakim effect. We are in the process of giving consideration to those and we reserve our right to move appropriate amendments in the Senate.In summary, a quick walk through those relevant areas points out how significant they are to our national economy, to criminal law enforcement, to natural resources and indeed, in this year dear to everyone's heart, sport. They are matters which fundamentally affect the efficient operating of all these things that affect our daily lives, and so it is vitally important that they be overcome. We have real concerns that, whilst this legislation is an attempt to overcome some of the worst aspects of re Wakim, it is nowhere near the perfect solution.We note on the horizon two substantial tidal waves building. One is a challenge which will be heard in the High Court in May, I understand, to the legislation of state parliaments validating decisions which have been effectively overturned as a result of the High Court's decision in re Wakim. If that succeeds, it may be necessary for those cases to be relitigated, which would be a massive drain on the resources of the litigants and the community.The second wave on the horizon is a High Court case of Hughes v. the Queen, which was heard in Perth on 20 October of last year. The decision has been reserved. But that involves a challenge to the operation of the Corporations Law and, in particular, to whether Commonwealth officers are empowered to prosecute corporate offences in the states. If that is set aside, then the decision itself will have great significance for this bill because of the fact that this bill is so focused on empowering officers of the Commonwealth to take action under state legislation. So they are two significant warning signs on the horizon.In any event, there are other areas where we point out where the bill just cannot address the problems. Obviously, it is impossible for federal officers to be involved in all aspects of these codes. There will, of necessity, be state officers involved; and you will still have a dislocation as to whether you take action against the federal officers and whether you need to simultaneously take action against the state officers. That is a problem. I have pointed out a problem in respect of the Australian Drug Enforcement Agency and whether they are able to bestow power on Federal Court judges in their personal capacity. That is something that we have our doubts about, but the government, no doubt, has its advice. There are also other schemes which have not been addressed by this bill. I understand the government is bringing in the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act as the subject of amendment, and we would be agreeing with that. But I draw the government's attention also to the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act and the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act, which we believe also warrant consideration.There is also a problem in that there will still be identified special federal matters, such as appeals in the area of family law matters. The problem there is that, if you have a state Supreme Court, for instance, hearing a matter under state jurisdiction with related Family Court proceedings, an appellant against that decision would have to take the family law aspect to the Federal Court but would not be able to drag with it the associated state proceedings. So these dislocations are already in existence.We also give the government notice that we are concerned with item 67 of the bill, which appears to us to remove an entitlement to legal aid. We are giving further consideration to that, and we reserve our position on it.I should also indicate some concerns the opposition have with schedule 2 of the bill, which essentially attempts to restrict a person the subject of a federal prosecution from taking administrative review proceedings concurrently with the criminal trial process. Having expressed our reservations, we are prepared to substantially support the government's direction, subject to amendments we will be moving. We have had regard to the fact that these issues regarding the prosecution process—such as the issuing of subpoenas, the issuing of warrants or, indeed, the decision to prosecute itself—can be the subject, and inevitably would be the subject, of argument in the criminal justice process itself, where the trial judge has a discretion as to whether or not to admit evidence. We are also mindful that there will still be the avenue for prerogative relief either in the High Court or in a state Supreme Court. These things are factored into our agreeing to these amendments, subject to those areas where we say they will operate too harshly. That is, with respect to the situation where there may already be an ADJR application on foot when the prosecution is commenced, we say the judge should have a discretion as to whether or not to continue to hear that. We also have concerns with the retrospective operation of the legislation.That essentially deals with the subject matters of the bill itself. I wish, in the final parts of this speech, to discuss more general matters regarding perhaps longer term solutions to these problems. In that context, it is probably appropriate if, at this point in time, I move the opposition amendment to the second reading motion. I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes the consequences of the decision of the High Court of Australia in Re Wakim;(2) recognises that the Commonwealth has a leadership role in consultation with the States and Territories to achieve a long term solution to the problems created by the decision;(3) calls on the government to urgently obtain an appropriate referral of power from each of the States and Territories to ensure that co-operative and cross-vesting schemes are based on a valid exercise of Commonwealth power;(4) in the event that such referrals do not occur, calls on the government to give serious consideration to holding a constitutional referendum in conjunction with the next federal election to ensure that Federal Courts can exercise jurisdiction referred by the States thereby delivering cheaper and more efficient justice to Australians; and(5) further notes that this Bill will have the effect of overriding specified laws of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory and that action of this kind by the Commonwealth Parliament is appropriate and necessary when fundamental issues of justice are concerned such as in respect to the operation of the Northern Territory's mandatory sentencing laws.The significance of the early part of that second reading amendment underlines just how important these matters are to the economic prosperity of this nation in the areas of the Corporations Law, trade practices law, criminal law enforcement and also—of lesser importance, perhaps, but of considerable interest—sport and also, vitally, in the delivery of natural resources. We have a fear that anything short of a very comprehensive referral of powers by the state governments in these respective areas will not be sufficient to properly address the problems. If a comprehensive referral of powers is not forthcoming, we would urge the government to give consideration to a referendum to address this issue. We think that a referendum would be relatively straightforward and would confirm that, in addition to the federal parliament being able to bestow federal powers on state courts, our federal courts are able to exercise state jurisdiction when that has been referred by the states. The government has expressed some reluctance to consider a referendum in light of the expense. However, if such a referendum were held at the time of the next election, that expense would be minimised. I point out to the government there really needs to be a process of engaging the Australian community in how our system of government works and how matters such as these which we have discussed are so vitally important to our national economic wellbeing, hence their wellbeing. We need to take action to re-engage Australians in our systems of government. I think research suggests only about 18 per cent have any worthwhile knowledge of how our system of government works and the difference between federal and state powers and the like. A referendum such as this one which enjoys bipartisan support is, I think, a means of re-engaging Australians in the process of considering the issues and seeing the merits of enlivening our Constitution to make it a living and modern document so that our structural settings are in place as we compete in the global environment. I indicate to the government they would have our full support in considering that matter in greater detail.The final point I would like to make in this speech is in respect of the final paragraph of my second reading amendment, that is, that this demonstrates again that there are many instances where this federal parliament legislates in the area of territories, and we should do so when fundamental issues of justice, fundamental issues of structural dysfunction, arise. In respect of the Northern Territory's mandatory sentencing regime, a fundamental dysfunctional issue has arisen. You will see statements by the Chief Minister, Denis Burke, to the effect that because he is part of a democratically elected government he has the call on what laws to introduce. We all accept that part of a democracy is the election process, but that is only one part. Yes, democracy reflects the will of the majority, but we can have an effectively working democracy only when at the same time the fundamental human rights of minorities are protected. That is not the situation in the Northern Territory. The facts of the matter are that the will of the majority can be just as oppressive as any tyrannical government, and it is fundamental that this parliament expresses to the Northern Territory that it is part of our democratic system; that while we respect and indeed implement the will of the majority, we have to respect and honour the fundamental rights of all Australians. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the amendment seconded?LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—I formally second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.16:59:0015305Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The federal nature of our nation gives rise to levels of cooperation between the Commonwealth and state governments in a range of political and economic activities. This is a matter of necessity as the Commonwealth government has limited authority to govern the whole of Australia and state governments are limited to their respective jurisdictions and to the powers that have not been transferred to the Commonwealth government. The need for what has been termed `cooperative federalism' has been highlighted by the federal nature of the Australian court system. Each of the nine governments in Australia—the Commonwealth, six state and two territory governments—has its own court system. This has over the years exposed some gaps in the governing process. This has also over the years given rise to jurisdictional disputes between the courts and court systems in Australia. It was not always clear which court had power to determine a dispute. There were occasions when no single court had authority to determine the whole of a dispute. It was deemed necessary to invoke what is called cross-vesting. It is not an inconsistent concept, embracing both federalism and cooperation. The Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Acts of 1987 of both the federal and state parliaments were complementary laws, vesting, with some exceptions, all of the jurisdictions of the several state and territory supreme courts, the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court in each other. In effect courts could consider matters irrespective of the jurisdiction of the laws affecting the matters. Matters could be transferred to courts considered best able to deal with them. So, in general terms, a cross-vesting scheme enabled participating courts to exercise jurisdiction with respect to civil matters within the jurisdiction of other participating courts and to transfer matters to another of those courts where it is more appropriate that the matter be heard by that court.Essentially, the cross-vesting of jurisdiction required, first, the Commonwealth parliament vesting jurisdiction on state courts. This is possible as the Commonwealth has powers under section 77(ii) of the Constitution to make laws to invest federal jurisdiction in any state court and the state constitutions do not prevent state parliaments consenting to the investing of federal jurisdiction on their courts. So far so good. But the cross-vesting of jurisdiction in the manner anticipated by the 1987 acts also required the state parliaments vesting jurisdiction on federal courts and, as a next step, the Commonwealth parliament consenting to the conferring of jurisdiction by the states on federal courts or conferring the judicial powers of the states on federal courts.It was in these two areas where the problem for cross-vesting arose—but not before other legislation was passed in the wake of the cross-vesting acts of 1987. Following on from these acts, a separate cross-vesting scheme was established for matters arising under the Corporations Law. Although the Corporations Law is agreed upon by the federal and state governments, it is in fact, in legality, a series of state acts of parliament passed in like form. The Corporations Law as state law vested jurisdiction to hear matters under the Corporations Law in each state and territory Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Australia. This scheme included the Australian Securities and Investments Commission as national regulator and produced over the years a stable and nationally regulated corporations scheme with uniform regulation and national enforcement.Other cooperative schemes came into existence—the competition policy scheme, the therapeutic goods scheme, the National Crime Authority scheme and the agricultural and veterinary chemicals scheme, amongst others. For some 10 years or more these schemes worked well. They were in the main welcomed and applauded by participants in the court system—the litigants, practitioners, court administrators and judges. But, as has been attributed to Chief Justice Spigleman, tongue in cheek somewhat, it was too good a scheme to be legal. Indeed, there was always a problem inherent in the Commonwealth Constitution, which established our federation. While cooperation between the Commonwealth and state governments can achieve objects which are beyond any one parliament to achieve, each parliament must have the constitutional power to participate. The first challenge to the constitutional validity of the cross-vesting schemes came in 1998 in Gould v. Brown, but that case resulted in a three-three split of the High Court. On 17 June 1999 a differently constituted High Court handed down judgment in four cases, deciding by a majority of six to one, that key provisions of the cross-vesting schemes under consideration were invalid. The judgment is cited as re Wakim ex parte McNally, but in fact there were four separate and distinct cases argued together. Three concerned the power of the Federal Court to deal with matters under the Corporations Law generally and the fourth concerned the power of that court to deal with Corporations Law matters that arose in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The issues before the High Court were constitutionally complex and will no doubt exercise the minds of constitutional lawyers for some time yet. But the consequences of recent High Court cases testing the validity of these schemes is a far broader matter. It is because of the High Court judgment in re Wakim that this proposed legislation, the Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2000, and the foreshadowed government amendments to the bill have been introduced, in the main. For the purposes of the debate and to put in context what the particular legislation is able, and conversely not able, to achieve in terms of the previous cross-vesting regime and any future direction, I will consider some of the elements of the decision of the majority of the court.In essence, the High Court decided that the federal courts could not be given a general power to hear state matters and, consequently, the provisions which attempted to do so were invalid. Specifically, the court found that state legislatures have powers to invest state jurisdiction or judicial power in federal courts but this will have no effect unless the federal courts can give effect to it. This depends upon what the Commonwealth law provides. The Commonwealth Constitution does not permit the Commonwealth parliament to consent to the vesting of state jurisdiction in federal courts. Chapter III of the Constitution exhaustively defines—according to the High Court—the matters that may be the subject of the judicial power of the Commonwealth and exhaustively defines the matters that the parliament of the Commonwealth may invest in the federal courts it creates. The majority said, and I quote from the reasons of Justices Gummow and Hayne:It may be right to say that there is no reason why the Parliament of a State cannot pass a law that provides (in effect) that the courts of another polity within or outside the federation are to have jurisdiction over certain kinds of matters. But the law will be of no effect unless the courts of the other polity give it effect. And that directs attention to what the law of the other polity provides.Their Honours went on to say:But whatever may be the content of any legislative power implied from the creation and exercise of the Commonwealth as the national polity, that power does not authorise the Parliament to consent to the vesting of State jurisdiction in federal courts.The Chief Justice said:The Parliaments of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories cannot by cooperation amend the Constitution.And even more pointedly, Mr Justice McHugh said:Where constitutional power does not exist, no cry of cooperative federalism can supply it. If the object lies outside the reach or effect of what a State or Commonwealth can constitutionally do, the subject matter is beyond the reach of the legislatures of Australia.So the majority concluded:The Commonwealth legislation that purports to confer State jurisdiction on Federal Courts is invalid.Questions that arose for determination from the four cases included: can states confer jurisdiction on federal courts in any circumstances? According to the majority, no. The only matters which federal courts can be given jurisdiction to hear are those set out in chapter III of the Constitution. It was said that, if sections 75 and 76 of the Constitution impliedly forbid the Commonwealth from adding to the original jurisdiction of the federal courts, those provisions must also logically forbid the states from doing so. I do not happen to think that this is an inevitable conclusion, but were it otherwise we could have the curious result that the states would have greater power to confer functions on the federal courts than the polity that created them.Can the Commonwealth confer state jurisdiction on federal courts? Clearly, the Commonwealth has no express power to do so, according to the High Court. The judgments of their Honours is quite illuminating insofar as they went to the very heart of the notion of cross-vesting schemes, schemes that were designed to increase the efficiency and convenience of the Australian court system overall—an entirely justifiable aim. There were arguments that sought to invoke the express incidental power, but the High Court rejected that provisions conferring state jurisdiction on federal courts were incidental to the power to create federal courts or, indeed, the power to confer federal jurisdiction, and these arguments were rejected. It held it could hardly be incidental to the power to confer federal jurisdiction to confer state jurisdiction as well. I must say that, despite a spirited argument that the cross-vesting schemes conferred only sufficient state jurisdiction to avoid jurisdictional disputes, the court found that conferring power on federal courts to exercise state jurisdiction did not make the exercise of federal jurisdiction more effective. At best, it made the exercise of state jurisdiction more effective. This line of reasoning rejected any consideration of the overall benefit in increased efficiencies and functioning of the Australian court system or any consideration of the global market in which Australia now operates, which of course impacts on our Corporations Law.This approach is reminiscent perhaps of the cases determining whether a law affecting intrastate trade and commerce is incidental to section 51(i) in those airline cases when the court rejected arguments that economic efficiency was sufficient to justify regulating or engaging in intrastate trade or commerce—rejecting it because to do otherwise would be to erase the constitutionally mandated distinction between interstate and intrastate trade or commerce.Similarly, in Wakim's case it was immaterial to the court's reasoning that all the governments of Australia were of the opinion that cross-vesting achieved a desirable outcome for the court systems in Australia. And there had been over the past decade a significant growth in national cooperation between the states and between the states and the Commonwealth by virtue of the cross-vesting arrangement—particularly necessary, I suggest, in the Corporations Law context. Those who take an interest in the perceived activism of the High Court in recent years might be interested in the statement of Justices Gummow and Hayne, who said:The court is entrusted with the preservation and application of constitutional distinctions. Were the court to discard those distinctions, on the ground that at a particular time and to some minds they appear inconvenient or otherwise unsatisfactory, the court would not only fail in its task but would exceed its authority.All laudatory words in the context of strict and complete legalism, but I doubt that I will be the last person to draw upon those words in analysing or interpreting the direction of the current High Court in terms of activism versus strict legalism—certainly shades of Sir Owen Dixon, although Mr Justice McHugh did comment that the judiciary had no power to amend or modernise the Constitution to give effect to what judges think is in the public interest. That course is preserved for the people of Australia by way of referendum. In pursuing the restoration of cross-vesting schemes, that is no easy solution—the opposition's proposed amendments would otherwise suggest—in terms of convincing a majority of voters in a majority of states of the benefits of cross-vesting in the context of the court system. Again, it would involve that vexed question of the balance of Commonwealth and state powers.Where did Wakim leave the cross-vesting schemes? The provisions empowering federal courts to transfer matters to state courts was not affected, nor was the power of one state supreme court to transfer cases to another state supreme court. But now state Corporations Law matters must generally be heard by state supreme courts rather than the Federal Court. This undermines significantly the Federal Court's involvement in the Corporations Law scheme, which had been regarded as fundamental to a fully integrated system of state, territory and federal adjudication, as contemplated by the corporations agreement.In light of the Wakim decision, the federal government has acted to do what it can to make sense of the cross-vesting scheme, following this constitutional interpretation. The findings on the limitations of Commonwealth parliament means that not all of the elements of the cross-vesting schemes can be restored by legislation. The parliament lacks the constitutional power to do so. But what this parliament can do and seeks to do by this bill is, first, repeal the now invalid provisions of the Commonwealth laws that purport to consent to the conferral of state jurisdiction on federal courts. The bill also seeks to confer jurisdiction on any court to review decisions made by Commonwealth officers. Commonwealth officers and authorities are invested with powers by state law under various cooperative arrangements whereby the Federal Court is given jurisdiction. So post the Wakim decision this legislation will amend the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to bring the decisions and actions of Commonwealth officers and authorities made under state acts within the scope of these Commonwealth acts. What that will mean is when the Federal Court exercises its jurisdiction in relation to the review of these decisions and actions it will be exercising federal, not state, jurisdiction. That will allow the Federal Court to continue to be the primary forum for the review of actions and decisions of Commonwealth officers and authorities.While addressing the role of the Federal Court, the other provisions in this bill include a schedule 2, which deals with judicial review of the decisions under federal laws in federal, state and territory laws but in the context of criminal prosecutions, in effect restricting a defendant's access to collateral federal administrative law procedures and remedies. I note the reservation of the member for Barton, but what this in effect means is that defendants will not be able to access the AD(JR) Act to challenge decisions to prosecute, nor will defendants in state and territory courts be able to rely on section 39B of the Judiciary Act to bring an application in the Federal Court to review decisions of Commonwealth officers made in the prosecution process.The Corporations Act 1989 will also be amended in this context. This means that all decisions in the prosecution process will be made within the system that the prosecution is brought and so ensure that these federal acts are not used as an avenue to a different court system, in this case the Federal Court system, for the purposes of delaying, frustrating or disrupting the proper progress of a prosecution in the court system in which it was initiated. This will and must improve the efficiency of the criminal justice process. As is apparent, the provisions of this bill do not and cannot reinstate the pre-Wakim cross-vesting schemes in their entirety. The provisions, including the foreshadowed amendments, go some way to restoring clarity to the role of the Federal Court, but the fate of the cross-vesting schemes lies with the states to some extent.Legislation has been passed in the states to overcome some of the effects of Wakim, to in effect declare that the rights and responsibilities under a current judgment of the Federal Court or the Family Court in purported exercise of state jurisdiction are the same as if it had been a valid judgment given by the Supreme Court. This state legislation also provides a mechanism for the transfer to the Supreme Court of current proceedings in the federal courts relating to state matters where a federal court determines that it has no jurisdiction to hear it. But this goes part of the way only. In the future the opportunity to restore the cross-vesting schemes in their entirety, should future state, territory and Commonwealth governments believe that to be still desirable, lies with either a referral from each state under section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution or a change to the Constitution. Both will require a transfer of powers between the states and the Commonwealth. Neither path is an easy one, but both are worthy of consideration. I commend the bill to the House.17:17:0015309Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 proposes four disparate administrative amendments to federal legislation. These amendments are: (1) cross-vesting legislation between the Commonwealth, states and territories of Australia in schedule 1; (2) restrictions of access to administrative law remedies in criminal matters in schedule 2; (3) clarifications to the role of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and amendments to the powers of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, particularly the right for the DPP to institute appeals under state laws; and (4) mandatory sentencing laws.I turn first to the issue of the bill's impact on cross-vesting legislation. I acknowledge the excellent summary of this legislation contained in the explanatory memorandum on this bill, circulated by authority of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams. Schedule 1 of this bill deals with the various impacts of the High Court's decision in R v. Wakim, ex parte McNally (1999) HCA 27. In Wakim's case, the court decided that chapter III of the Constitution precludes the conferral of state jurisdiction on federal courts. Schedule 1 of the bill repeals the relevant provisions of Commonwealth laws that consent to the conferral of state jurisdiction on federal courts. Schedule 1 also confers federal jurisdiction on federal courts to review the decisions of Commonwealth officers and bodies made in the performance of functions conferred on them by specified state and territory laws. Prior to the Wakim case, federal courts exercised state jurisdiction to review these decisions. Wakim makes invalid state jurisdiction of review decisions. The decision is regrettable because the cross-vesting scheme was a plausible and working regime, but the decision has compelled this government's intervention. Wakim has no effect on the conferral by territories of jurisdiction on federal courts. However, for the purpose of achieving uniform coverage of decisions of Commonwealth officers the bill treats the territories and states in the same way. The reverse is also true—the bill enables the supreme courts of the states and territories to exercise federal judicial review jurisdiction in limited circumstances. These amendments cannot be opposed as they are technical in nature and will remove from Commonwealth legislation those provisions that depend on the validity of the exercise of state jurisdiction by federal jurisdiction.However, while cleaning up the Commonwealth laws, the bill does nothing to address the fundamental problems which have arisen as a result of the decision in Wakim. Moreover, the anticipated decision in the case of Hughes, which deals with the issues of constitutional aspects of the Corporations Law cooperative scheme, is likely to create additional problems. I will not elaborate on the implications of this on Australia's reputation as an internationally acclaimed centre for legal administration. In short, I note that the effect of Wakim is to make our judicial system less efficient. While the Attorney-General is on record as saying that a referendum would probably be required to properly fix the breakdown of the cross-vesting system, he has been advised that it would be hard to justify a referendum on cross-vesting, partly because of cost considerations.The alternative, which is presently under discussion, is for each of the states to provide an equivalence in their respective legislation to the powers held by the Commonwealth to legislate to provide the Federal Court with jurisdiction over corporations matters. While it may be possible to address some of the problems by such a reference of powers, the only long-term solution is for constitutional amendments. This is because a referral of powers by the states under section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution could be withdrawn and it would not allow the Commonwealth to circumvent the High Court's interpretation of chapter III of the Constitution, upon which the separation of judicial power from legislative and executive power is based. The government is reluctant to suggest a referendum because of the poor history of prior attempts to alter our Constitution. However, one method of engaging the community in the need for constitutional reform is to submit easily understood and practical changes which will be better received by the community.It is submitted that a second reading amendment be moved to highlight the government's necessity to address this jurisdictional anomaly which has been flagged by our courts. I say again that the only long-term solution is for constitutional change; however, this constitutional change will challenge the powers of the states and territories and, for this reason, may come up against considerable opposition from the states and territories.I therefore join the shadow Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert McClelland, in supporting his second reading amendment as follows: whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House (a) notes the consequences of the decision of the High Court of Australia in re Wakim; (b) recognises that the Commonwealth has a leadership role in consultation with the states and territories to achieve a long-term solution to the problems created by the decision; (c) calls on the government to urgently obtain an appropriate referral of power from each of the states and territories to ensure that the Corporations Law is based on a valid exercise of Commonwealth power; and (d) calls on the government to give serious consideration to holding a constitutional referendum in conjunction with the next federal election to permanently address the underlying problems created by the decision in re Wakim, to restore the cross-vesting scheme and to deliver cheaper, more efficient justice to Australians. I turn now to the second provision of this bill with respect to the review of decisions in the criminal justice process—schedule 2. Schedule 2 contains amendments to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977—the AD(JR) Act—the Corporations Act 1989 and the Judiciary Act 1903. These amendments restrict the access of defendants in criminal matters to administrative law remedies. This part of the bill is aimed at preventing the use of delaying tactics in the criminal justice process by removing the collateral access of defendants in federal criminal matters to federal administrative law procedures and remedies. The bill prevents defendants in criminal matters from using the AD(JR) Act to challenge administrative decisions taken during the criminal justice process, such as the issuing of search or interception warrants and the making of a decision to prosecute.The resolution of administrative review proceedings initiated by defendants in criminal matters often causes delays to the main criminal action, which must be stayed while the administrative proceedings are completed. In the time it takes to do this, witnesses can disappear and evidence can be lost. The Constitution gives a right to administrative review of decisions of Commonwealth officers in the original jurisdiction of the High Court. This right cannot be displaced by legislation; however, proceedings may be remitted to another court exercising federal jurisdiction for hearing and determination. Under section 39B of the Judiciary Act, applications for administrative review of a decision to prosecute made by a Commonwealth officer are currently determined by the Federal Court. The bill amends section 39B of the Judiciary Act with the effect that, where the prosecution is commenced in a state or territory court, the state or territory court will have jurisdiction to hear such applications for administrative review. The bill also amends the Corporations Law so that applications for judicial review of administrative decisions connected with prosecutions under the Corporations Law are treated in the same way as applications for judicial review by defendants in other Commonwealth criminal matters.While any restriction of rights available to accused persons is a matter for concern, it is submitted that these amendments should be supported, with two exceptions that I will address shortly. Parties will continue to have access to administrative review in the original jurisdiction of the High Court that is guaranteed under the Constitution. If parties wish to commence proceedings relying on the original administrative review jurisdiction, these matters will be remitted to the Supreme Court of the same state in which the substantive criminal proceedings are taking place, rather than the Federal Court located in another state or territory. This is more efficient and less likely to lead to extensive delays which may jeopardise the fair resolution of the substantive criminal action. The reasoning for the amendments is as follows. The amendments will impact more significantly upon well-resourced defendants. The amend-ments are expected to impact primarily upon defendants in drug matters where evidence is obtained by telecommunications interception warrant, and corporate fraud where, for example, there is involvement by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—for example, the Alan Bond case. Other parties do not have the substantial financial resources required to carry on lengthy proceedings in the Federal Court challenging administrative action associated with the prosecution.The real protection for accused persons lies in the criminal justice system itself rather than in administrative law proceedings, where the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt—a much higher standard than the civil standard applicable to administrative action—and trial judges have considerable discretion to rule as inadmissible any evidence which has been obtained improperly by law enforcement authorities. This protection will remain, and it is the most appropriate mechanism by which evidence which is brought to the trial by law enforcement agencies is scrutinised and dealt with. In considering the admissibility of evidence, the trial judge is best equipped to consider whether any administrative deficiencies in the collection of evidence are mere technicalities rather than a substantial infringement of the rights of the accused. I note that evidence, even if improperly obtained, is still admissible in certain circumstances, and this is needed at times with the very difficult task that is entailed in the collection of evidence by law enforcement agencies. The opposition notes two areas of concern. Firstly, the amendments are expressed to apply retrospectively to AD(JR) Act proceedings that have already been commenced. It is submitted that it is inappropriate that parliament legislate to prevent the hearing of any matters which are already before the court. While it is appropriate on occasion for legislation to have retrospective effect, justice requires that persons who have already commenced proceedings be entitled to have those matters heard on the merits. It is also arguable that parliamentary termination of proceedings already on foot may offend against the separation of powers. It is submitted that, for this reason, new section 9A inserted by item 1 of schedule 2 should be amended by adding at the conclusion of the section the words `except any application commenced prior to the date of commencement of this section' and new paragraph (x) of schedule 1 be amended by adding the words `in respect of which an application under this Act has been made prior to the date of commencement of this section'.Secondly, the amendments provide that administrative decisions connected with the criminal justice process may not be heard while a prosecution is on foot. Prior to a prosecution being commenced, parties may still commence proceedings seeking AD(JR) Act review of related administrative decisions. However, the amendments provide that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to continue to hear such applications once a prosecution has been commenced. I believe this may be unduly harsh on those persons who have commenced applications for administrative review prior to the initiation of a prosecution. Instead, the Crown should be able to apply to the court for a stay in proceedings on the basis that matters the subject of the application are more appropriately dealt with in the substantive criminal proceedings, and that a stay of proceedings will not be substantially prejudicial to the applicant. Accordingly, new part 9A inserted by item 1 of schedule 2 should be amended by adding at the beginning of the subsection the words `Subject to subparagraph 9A(M)' and inserting new subsection (1A) and (1B) as follows:(1A) Subsection 9A(1) does not apply where an applicant has commenced an application under this Act prior to the commencement of a prosecution for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.(1B) Where subsection 9A(1A) applies, the Crown may apply to the court for a permanent stay in proceedings in the hearing and determination of the application and the court may grant such a stay if the court determines that:(a) the matters the subject of the application are more appropriately dealt with in the criminal justice process; and(b) a stay of proceedings will not substantially prejudice the applicant.I turn now to the third element of the bill—that is, clarifying the power of the Commonwealth DPP. This bill restores what had been understood to be the situation before the High Court's decision in the case of Bond v. the Queen of 9 March 2000. The High Court decided that the appeal brought by an officer of the DPP to the Western Australian Court of Criminal Appeal against the sentence imposed on Mr Alan Bond for breaches of the WA companies code was not authorised. Under this bill, the DPP will be authorised to institute or carry on an appeal relating to a prosecution for an offence against the law of a state or territory that is conferred on the DPP under a state or territory law. The amendments will also expressly allow the right of appeal in cases where the DPP has, with appropriate authorisation, conducted the prosecution. I am pleased that the opposition raised with the government the matter of the loophole created by the High Court for the government to urgently introduce amendments to the DPP Act 1983 to close the loophole exploited by Alan Bond. I want it noted on the record that the decision of the High Court in Bond has severely shocked the sensibilities of public morality. I cannot understand how the High Court could ignore public policy considerations in a situation of such high public profile as the Bond case—a matter where so many people's lives were ruined—and that the court could not find it in itself to permit the appeal, forcing the issue back on this parliament. Again, I find myself struggling with the role of the judicature in this instance in its clear misleading of public morality by choosing to hide behind the thin veil of legality in permitting Alan Bond to walk free, when we all feel in our hearts that he has not repaid his debt to society for the estimated $1.2 billion in losses he incurred. It is outrageous.Can the High Court really believe that justice was served in its decision? Can it really rely on interpretational law to derive justice from its assessment of the situation? There is no justification for its decision. The necessity for this House to rescue the situation with one-off legislation is repugnant to the core, as the High Court cowers away in allowing another big fish to swim away. Skase is still free and now so is Bond, living a life of luxury that few of us will ever see and holding more money than even fewer of us will ever see. How can this be so? Because we as a culture, including our illustrious courts, have permitted this thoroughly unethical behaviour of mere legality to veil our vision to wilful blindness to what justice demanded. It is time the High Court and all courts made a conspicuous and deliberate commitment to ethical determinations. The public is disgusted with the Bond decision, it is disgusted with the High Court and the judiciary, and I obviously feel the same way.I turn to the fourth area of this bill: mandatory sentencing. Over the past three days in this House, we have heard considerable speeches from the Prime Minister and others about mandatory sentencing. We have also been privy to substantial media coverage on this issue. My only additional comment on this issue is about the use of international instruments in the formulation and direction of government policy. I am outraged with the unethical nature of this government in its selective use of international instruments depending on the policy subject matter. In particular, this government has repeatedly demonstrated that it will pull in and push out the application of international instruments to which Australia is a signatory whenever it suits it. It has done so with international instruments concerning the environment and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. They are just two examples.On the issue of mandatory sentencing, the Howard government has snubbed suggestions that the mandatory sentencing provisions are not consistent with Australia's international obligations. The Prime Minister cannot have his cake and eat it too. He cannot choose to ignore his international obligations on some issues, then rely on international obligations on others. I call upon the Prime Minister to declare once and for all his government's position on the use of, and policy towards, international instruments. He cannot simply push and pull in his unpredictable ways. How many times have we heard the Prime Minister threaten to use international instruments to achieve one end, then ignore them to achieve another? It is time the Prime Minister came clean on this issue. As I have said, I call on him to declare the government's position as to what reliance it will place on the use of international instruments, in particular the relationship among international instruments, the original jurisdiction of our parliament and courts, the sovereignty of Australia and the source from which our positive law flows. At the moment, the government is all over the place. This schizophrenic approach to policy making is both dangerous and deeply disturbing for the future zeal of our Commonwealth.On a personal note, I am uncomfortable with these amendments in general. My discomfort lies in the reliance on the procedural nature of these amendments in seeking to redress excesses and abuses of constitutionally administrative rights. The nature of administrative review is a function of the executive. It is the executive that is acting within its powers of review of the court process. This is clearly what is meant by `judicial review'. At the risk of making too technical a point on this matter, let us review what is really happening. First, we have a constitutional guarantee of rights of administrative appeal. Those rights are currently being trammelled by capricious litigants who, as I have previously noted, are typically well-resourced litigants, usually with a profile in drug related and Corporations Law related criminal offences. Second, all four segments of this bill relate to profound amendments to our federal criminal jurisdiction through its relationship to administrative remedies flowing from the judicial review powers of the executive. Why have these amendments been so necessary? We have one case in Wakim, we have another solitary case in Bond and we have one or two species of criminal actions in drugs and Corporations Law which are being used to justify the very foundations of our jurisprudential relationships. Have we reached the point in this legislature where the executive is so driven by statutory imperatives and so directed by the legislature that statute alone directs what is a proper use of administrative review power and what is not? I do not believe that our legislative forefathers ever contemplated that administrative procedures guaranteed in the Constitution would be abused in this way. Moreover, I cannot believe that our forefathers would have ever foreseen the day when this government was reduced to making procedural amendments to thwart the operation of procedural fairness. It is no remedy to simply divest administrative review to the states and territories either. Will this not just transfer the problem to the lower courts—the supreme courts of the states and territories?I hold the view that we must in turn flag the issue of judicial review and administrative review for closer examination so that we as a legislature do not become enmeshed in a game of cat and mouse with litigators who are too clever by half. These litigators conspire to abuse the noble rules of procedural fairness, natural justice and the rule of law in ways that wreak havoc on our courts. But the equally irresponsible approach will be to react to such wrongs by making the exception the rule. I clearly have in mind the Skase amendments to Australian taxation laws as I say this. It is appeasing to our souls, but it does not add to the jurisprudential weight of a well-measured and balanced administrative system. Rather, it is a symptom of government reacting retrospectively to individual cases rather than looking at the totality of the administrative system. If we persist on this administrative path, we run the risk of being an administrative system of exceptions and of marginalised and particular cases rather than a law based system on the jurisprudential principles of universalism, natural law and paramount ethics founded on our common law, the Roman law and ecclesiastical heritage. (Time expired)17:37:0015314Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I wish to add my comments to those already made in the debate on the Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. I apologise to the House that I will not give as wide ranging a contribution as my learned colleague the honourable member for Lowe. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, I am particularly interested in the family law implications of the re Wakim case. I thought you might have sympathy if I, in a most circumspect way, was highly critical of the High Court. This is now the second decision that I think has very tragic consequences. The first one was the Brandy decision. I have read very clearly the judgment of the learned High Court judges. Whilst I think there is some wriggle room in the distinction between administrative and judicial decisions, as outlined in their reasons, the practical implication of the Brandy decision was tragic. It was tragic because it ruled out in Commonwealth sphere of jurisdiction the possibility of setting up no-frills tribunals. It means that, if you want to set up a tribunal in the federal sphere, you need to appoint a judge to preside over that tribunal. The states have tried to address this issue of people being unable to access justice because they cannot afford it by setting up a series of tribunals which, I believe, work very well. That, in the main, precludes the legal profession, but that may be one of its reasons for success. I think that is a virtue, not a deficiency. Now we have re Wakim. I acknowledge my indebtedness to Mark Tapley, from the Parliamentary Library, who has provided some useful material. This case was decided by the High Court on 17 June. It declared the cross-vesting scheme component of the Corporations Law to be constitutionally invalid. By a majority of six to one, the High Court ruled that the Constitution, in sections 75, 76 and 77, exhaustively sets out the matters that a federal court can deal with. The decision has implications for the administration of family law. It is my understanding that those who have examined closely the decision believe the High Court has made a very technical decision in its determination—more is the pity. The Family Court is a federal court created under chapter III of the Constitution. The Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987, amongst other matters, purports to vest the power of state supreme courts in the Family Court. However, in re Wakim the High Court held that the cross-vesting legislation is invalid, to the extent that it purports to allow federal courts to exercise states' jurisdictions. The Commonwealth does not have exclusive power in relation to family law. Section 51 of the Constitution provides that: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:- (xxi) Marriage: (xxii) Divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants Thus, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews—and I know this is well known to you so I apologise—the parliament has been able to make laws governing such things as child custody and access as part of legislation relating to divorce and matrimonial causes. The power to settle the property of parties to a marriage is justified as an implied incidental power attached to section 51(xxii). Broadly speaking, where there is no connection to the marriage or divorce power, family law is the responsibility of the states. Historically, the main areas of state responsibility have been in relation to exnuptial children and the division of property of de facto couples. Between 1986 and 1990, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania referred their powers over guardianship, custody and access to and maintenance of exnuptial children to the Commonwealth. As a result of the cross-vesting scheme and the state referral of power, the Family Court could hear disputes between couples, whether they be married or de facto, in relation to property and/or the custody of children. However, as a result of Wakim, the Family Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings in relation to the property of a de facto couple. De facto couples will have to go to a Supreme Court to deal with the property issues and the Family Court for child custody orders. The family court has also lost the jurisdiction to award damages for assault. The cross-vesting legislation enabled the Family Court to award damages to victims of domestic violence in the process of settling property disputes. Now such victims will be required to initiate a separate action for damages in the state courts. There is nothing in the High Court's decision which prevents the Commonwealth from conferring jurisdiction on the states. In fact, section 77(iii) of the Constitution expressly authorises such action. Therefore, state supreme courts can continue to exercise jurisdiction in respect of all family law matters. A problem may arise, however, in relation to appeals. Section 7(4) of the various state jurisdiction of courts cross-vesting acts and section 7(5) of the Commonwealth act require any appeal involving a matter arising under the Family Law Act to be determined by the full court of the Family Court. It is still possible that the full court may then be unable to determine any state law aspect of the appeal by virtue of an absence of cross-vesting. This is, I think, a most unfortunate decision, but perhaps, in family law at least, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. You may recall that from time to time I have advocated that we need to allow people to make a choice of approaching a no-frills family tribunal. The only way we could do this prior to Wakim was to set it up in Western Australia where the family court is still a state Family Court of Western Australia and comes under the state jurisdiction. If honourable members are happy that family law matters involving assault or exnuptials use a mixture of jurisdictions—that is, that we should force people to go to a state court for certain matters and the Family Court for others—I have no avenue to advance my case. But it may be the case that we ought to really rethink our whole approach to family law. Maybe re Wakim is the opportunity to say whether the Family Court has been a success in its 20 years of operation. Or perhaps, in recognition of so much outrage in the community about the Family Court and the criticisms of its Rolls Royce nature and its approach of one size fits all, we should be starting to contemplate whether or not we can have a unified system of family law where the operation and administration of family law become a matter for state courts. We have heard the expression `cooperative federalism', usually from those on the other side of the House, and I think it is something we can embrace on our side of the House. But this would overcome the implications of the Wakim case. I think there is a certain efficiency about it. We might even want to, as has been suggested by the Australian Law Reform Commission if we were to go down that path, contemplate giving family courts other matters to consider as well as family law—maybe care, maybe protection. It is something that I hope to investigate quite closely over the next few months and then come back with a firm proposal.I think there is a much greater likelihood of us being able to make a decision like that than us contemplating a referendum. I know the Attorney-General has suggested that a referendum may be the only real and long-term solution to this problem, but we all know how difficult it is to get referendums up, even as non-controversial as this one mostly surely would be. If we are to put our faith in a referendum being the solution, that solution may be many years away. I just wonder, when the learned High Court judges were contemplating this decision, whether they contemplated what the repercussions of their decision would be and how the parliament and the people of Australia who need to respond to the decision would be in a position to react. Any decision that is brought down that contemplates referendums as the final arbiter and solution to these difficulties is a very naive approach.If we did transfer these powers to the states, we could also address the issue so that Supreme Courts would not have to handle family law matters. We could be like New Zealand, where rather than have a superior court handle the matter a district court could handle the matter. To those on the Labor side who constantly advocate serious inertia in family law and Family Court matters, let me say that I was staggered to learn from the Australian Law Reform Commission that the income of the average client before the Family Court was $26,000. I mean no offence to you, Mr Deputy Speaker—we have known each other too long—but I suspect the client of the Family Court is more likely to live in my electorate than your electorate. I recognise that there are some prominent families, even billionaire families like the Morans, who like to slug family matters out in the courts and who would even use the Family Court. But when you get a figure that says that the average income is $26,000, you really understand that we are forcing ordinary people through this mincer of a court and maze of a court. I say that because I think something like 20 per cent of the people visit the court on a matter on about five instances, and the percentages go up. I apologise but the exact figures have just slipped my mind. It is not a once-only visit is the point I am trying to make.You can actually introduce a brand new mechanism into family law—that is, the no-frills tribunal. You do not go there with solicitors and you do not go there with judges. Under state constitutions, you do not even have to have legal people as presiding officers of a tribunal, but you can have processes where people are allowed to get their angst out of their system and they are able to sit down and talk about their problems, and the process of resolving their problems is either conciliation or, when the parties cannot be brought back together, arbitration. I know some would say, `But look what this government has done in mediation.' I think the more choices we give people the better. But we have to recognise that some processes do not suit some people. Mediation is making a minimal impact in my electorate, yet I would concede that there are other electorates that could take full advantage of mediation. What I can say is that the ordinary people in my electorate—they are proud to be called ordinary people—would take advantage of a no-frills family tribunal. It is not a substitute for the state Family Court or District Court. It does not replace them. You still have those mechanisms. You still have magistrates. But this provides a new avenue where people are not going to be spending thousands of dollars on legal fees and still feel that they are not getting justice. Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, you know and I know that we have to find better ways of dealing with family law, that we really do need to reform family law. What I am saying is that re Wakim is an opportunity to rethink the revolutionary reforms that were supported by both sides in 1975 and whether now it is better to revisit the issue of still preserving a unified system but having the states do the administration of justice. I am in the process of having a private member's bill drawn up in relation to family law, and that is to remove section 121 from the act. Under the provisions of section 121, as you know from when we took evidence in Perth from journalists, it is impossible to report a case in the papers. Members of this House have to believe that in our justice system either we need the full scrutiny of the media, that it needs to be open, or we follow a star chamber model. We have a rich history of the star chamber model from the United Kingdom. I have said time and time again that I think the greatest victim of section 121 is the Family Court itself. There is no way that it would be able to get away with some of the actions or statements made by learned judges were the press reporting. It gives rise to the question of why there is this injunction against publication of names of parties to a family law matter. The private member's bill I am proposing does not prohibit names being suppressed. But like in any other court in the land, except the Children's Court—and here the children are not the guilty party, by the way; the children are, I think, in a way the victims—any party before the court is free to make an application for suppression of names as decided on merit. It is not decided on whether you are a member of parliament or a judge or Mr Moran or a little Aussie battler like Kerry Jones. The court would then be required to make judgments for suppression based on merits. I say that we need to lift the iron curtain of the family law court—we have to open the curtain. DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—On a point of order: as much as I can understand the genuineness of the comments of the member for Chifley, may I urge him not to reflect on individuals who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves in the parliament. QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I am suitably admonished. 10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—I was about to say that there is no point of order. QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—It is a serious point I am trying to make—that is, in other courts we allow judges to make the decisions. I say: let them make the decisions. The irony of this private member's bill is that there may be no change whatsoever, but at least we are making the decision on a consistent basis rather than having blanket legislation that prohibits it. This is a very small change, I admit, but we need to begin the process of reform and change to the family law court. Maybe Wakim, for those members who are concerned—and I know there are a lot concerned about the family law court—is the opportunity to take a fresh look at it, to find a fresh direction, maybe to make sure that the states are the ones that administer family law within a unified Australian system of family law. 17:58:0015318Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The fact that we have to address the substance of this legislation, I believe, is very unfortunate. It is unfortunate because the decision in re Wakim has unravelled the substance of what I think was one of the most significant legal advances in the Commonwealth since its foundation in 1901. Ever since the Commonwealth was established, litigants have been bedevilled by in which jurisdiction they should pursue their action. I recall that in the early days when I began to practice I found that those cases most litigated in the higher courts of Australia were those touching upon whether or not a matter was properly prosecuted in state courts or federal courts and which of those forums were appropriate for the resolution of disputes. Because of the way in which there was no consistency allowing a single matter to be fully litigated in one particular forum, it meant that some components of actions had to be dealt with in one court and other components in others. It also led to a complexity and morass of legal red tape, higher costs, greater inefficiencies and a situation which I think could be only accounted as a public disgrace.In response to that, the parliaments of Australia ultimately resolved to establish a cross-vesting scheme. The nature of the cross-vesting scheme was that the federal parliament would ensure that with respect to jurisdiction which the federal parliament conferred on courts—they have always been constitutionally open to it—jurisdiction to hear and determine matters arising out of federal matters could be undertaken either in the federal courts or in state courts. Arrangements insofar as which of those forums were appropriate were worked out in practice through decisions of courts not to entertain matters where a more appropriate forum was available. There was no legal arrangement which prohibited a court which was seized of a particular matter from dealing with the entirety of that matter and the technical difficulties that had hitherto been the bane of any lawyer's life—except to the extent that some accrued considerable professional skills and remuneration as a result of it. But a practical bane of every lawyer's life was removed.The states for their part passed reciprocal legislation sharing jurisdiction with federal tribunals so that the scheme was complementary and it meant that a litigant no longer was bedevilled by the kind of arcane, complex, expensive but essentially futile legislation that had characterised much of the litigation in the higher courts that had been happening previously. The Wakim decision arose in circumstances where that cross-vesting scheme was challenged. The argument was advanced that, whilst the Commonwealth always has power to vest state courts, clearly from the start with federal jurisdiction that was necessary because, when the Commonwealth was founded in 1901, the High Court was not even in existence in a formal sense. So, whatever mechanisms were required for the administration of justice, they would necessarily require the hearing and resolution of disputes in state forums and courts. So the Constitution envisaged plainly that the federal parliament could invest state tribunals and courts with federal jurisdiction. The challenge was taken on the basis that reciprocal cross-vesting arrangements were constitutionally invalid. In other words, the Constitution had not envisaged that states could invest federal courts, if so created, with state jurisdiction.Unfortunately, I think it is a mark of the distance between practical reality and the manner in which the court addressed this matter that six of the seven High Court justices were persuaded that states lacked that constitutional power to undertake something which had been in practice for over a decade and which had so remarkably changed the practical way in which litigation was conducted. In the High Court, all state and territory governments were as one in saying that this arrangement, which was so practically effective and beneficial, should be maintained. Indeed, I think every law society and bar association would have shared similar views. Regrettably, however, that was not the outcome of the litigation.Without any disrespect to those judges who found themselves holding the view that the Constitution had not envisaged a situation where states could vest federal courts with a state jurisdiction, I might say that the dissenting judgment, whilst a lone voice, in my mind was a powerfully persuasive and well-reasoned argument. It strikes me as showing a significant disconnect between what we might say is an appropriate recognition of the kind of constitutional responsibility that one could normally expect of a High Court that the outcome was so achieved. It was not necessary in relation to any body of precedent that the court had before it. As the single dissenting judgment so plainly and eloquently set out, it was not required on the plain reading of the Constitution, and there was nothing in the Constitution which required it to be so found by way of direct inference. In other words, it was a conclusion that the High Court found itself drawn to by reason of sophisticated legal argument where the practical consequences of this judgment were entirely discounted but which was not required by the plain reading of the Constitution. One would have thought that greater weight would have been given to the submissions coming before the court by all those who are concerned about the practical operation of the federation. I think it says something about the way in which government has failed to engage itself sufficiently in direct and constant dialogue with the court that this outcome could have arisen. It is some time since Commonwealth attorneys-general have taken it upon themselves to appear before the High Court of Australia. What we find now by way of intellectual exchange between the court and the government of the day seems often to be conducted in tones which are really that of antagonism and distance, rather than those of co-responsible partners in a federation which requires the effective understanding of each other's roles.I think that the discomfort the court has been placed in by attacks by senior members of the government upon their constitutional roles has, to some extent, permeated the court and created a sense that they are an institution increasingly isolated and under siege. That has diminished the mutual respect that should exist between legislatures—in this instance federal and state legislatures—seeking to obtain outcomes that will benefit all citizens. Whilst I understand—but do not agree with—the Attorney's decision to regard himself as essentially a political officer rather than having any responsibility to defend the judges in relation to the roles they play, the fact that the principal law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia has walked away from that role further emphasises, I think, the distance that has come to exist between this parliament, and this government in particular, and the highest court of the land. That distance has been emphasised by attacks on the findings of the court in relation to the Mabo decision, the Wik decision and a range of other decisions which have been made by the court in recent times.Nothing I say should suggest that I would be seeking, for my own part, to further that distance. In making these remarks I am not seeking to widen the gulf by in any way suggesting that any of the six judges did not act in a way which, in their thoughtful judgment, they thought appropriate and fit. Had there been a better understanding between the executive and the courts and between the respective legislatures there would not have been an outcome so transparently inconvenient—if I can put it at its lowest—to the good government and administration of the Commonwealth. The fact that the judgment could be made on such flimsy grounds does suggest that we need to seriously look at the way in which there is an interface between the highest court of the land, the judiciary, this parliament and the executive.Might I suggest that some measure of better communication needs to be put in place. I have informal discussions from time to time with justices of the High Court—both former and present. It is not appropriate to disclose the nature of those discussions—they are always private—but I think there is a great sense of disquiet about the way in which the court has been addressed by those serving in the parliaments. I think there is also an increasing sense that the court cannot assume that the parliament will undertake its responsibilities and therefore there is a sense sometimes that the court has to step in and address matters which the parliament itself has decided to not respond to. That leads to some great and potentially serious divides between these important institutions of our national government. Of course, the Constitution of Australia divides the responsibility for the good government of Australia into three branches: the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. But the responsibility to make certain that each component of those branches understands the consequences that flow in relation to all of these matters is one which is not uniquely restricted to one division of those three tiers of government. I might say that it is not infrequently the case that the court is not provided with adequate or sufficient information in relation to the consequences of its action nor is it briefed or given appearances before it by officers of the executive of sufficient standing and weight to enable those representations to be taken properly into account. It is not a satisfactory situation to find, for example, that in significant constitutional cases key matters of importance in relation to the consequences of public action have not been adequately put before that court.I also think it is very important to suggest that there is a need for the Attorney himself to regard it as an important role to appear before that court from time to time. Whilst the Attorney has increasingly characterised his role as that of a political officer, it makes it very difficult for the government to continue to have an effective and appropriate relationship with the High Court of Australia if all the interchanges between the executive and the judiciary are by megaphone dialogue on the front pages of the newspapers as each disparages the other or, if the only advocacy that occurs on behalf of the Commonwealth is by counsel briefed on its behalf rather than appearances in the appropriate case by the highest law officers of the Commonwealth—that is, the Attorney or certainly the Solicitor-General—clearly acting with broad and appropriate instructions from the Commonwealth so that the court can be made fully aware of the practical consequences of a particular course of action.In this particular matter I find it distressing that I can only characterise the decision that has been arrived at as one where the court, for reasons which are not necessarily apparent from the Constitution, chose an outcome or regarded itself as able to reach an outcome so manifestly inconvenient, so manifestly causing of difficulty, so manifestly going to cause extra expense, more red tape and a tremendous amount of administrative difficulty in the resolution of the problems that may arise as a consequence of it when that was plainly not the only obvious solution.I remember from the days when I was in practice and when I was dean of a law school that we started from the presumption that, where two possible interpretations of the law were open, the court had to take into account a whole range of social and other factors but would look to an outcome that was not mischievous and that best suited the facilitation of the purpose of the statute to be interpreted. In this case the statute was the Commonwealth Constitution. The purpose of that Com-monwealth Constitution was to establish a nation. If it is appropriate to say that it was necessarily to infer that national government therefore has certain implied powers, surely it is appropriate to infer that it would have been the intention of those creating that constitutional framework that no absurd outcome, so mischievous of the implementation of a convenient system for the resolution of disputes before the court, was so required to be found. As I indicated, the single but powerful dissent made it plain that no such conclusion was necessarily to be drawn.That brings us to where we are now. We are presented with a situation where the court has made this finding and we have to fix it as best we can. This is not going far enough to fix it as best we can. These are a series of measures which do some of the things that start the process of fixing it to a certain degree, but it will still be messy. It will still be inconvenient and it will still give rise to a large number of problems in the practical administration of justice, even after these changes are made. I would commend to the Attorney, particularly in the corporations area, the reflection that it is not outside this Commonwealth parliament's power to use directly the corporations power to overcome entirely some of the issues, to vest the power to hear all corporations matters—other than those which go to the formation of corporations, which is outside this parliament's power—relating to the administration, conduct and disputes in relation to corporations matters in the Federal Court, because that court is well suited for those matters. It has judges who are now not being utilised properly, because the work has been taken from them in many areas. That would be a bolder way of dealing with it than this partial measure that the Attorney has addressed. It is also open, of course, to look at some constitutional amendment. The shadow Attorney has put that forward. Given that we have reached such an inconvenient outcome, I would have thought that it would be open for the government to think about putting such a constitutional referendum at the time of the next election so as not to increase expenses. Supported by both sides of the parliament, it would have a good prospect of passage. It may well be that, if subsequent decisions that are before the court find themselves adjudicated in a similar way without regard to the practical consequences, that will not only be a possibility but a necessity. (Time expired)18:19:0015321Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—As outlined by other speakers in this debate, the Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 deals with a number of distinct issues. It is my intention this evening to address two of them, namely the question of cross-vesting which arises from the High Court's decision in 1999 in the case of re Wakim ex parte McNally and the question of the clarification of the power of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. I will also be making reference to the second reading amendment which was moved by the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Barton, at the commencement of this debate.It is somewhat distressing that we even need to be having this kind of discussion and dialogue at this stage in our history, because this debate tonight yet again indicates that we continue to be plagued, as we move into a new century and a new millennium, by limitations arising from our Constitution. That is not surprising, I suppose. Any federal compact which was come to 100 years ago is obviously going to become a little bit worn as times change. Our world has changed remarkably in the time intervening from when the federal compact was struck through a series of constitutional conventions.I now think that there can be no doubt in any of our minds that our Constitution needs significant renewal and renovation if it is to put Australia in a position to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Obviously, opinions vary about what those matters of renewal and renovation should be, but there needs to be a genuine dialogue about each of them. We have obviously had a dialogue about the question of the republic, though how genuine that dialogue was is open to question. We have had a dialogue about the question of a preamble, about the statement within the Constitution of core values which bind Australians together. In the context of that suggestion of a preamble, we have had something of a debate about the question of recognition in the Constitution of prior custodianship of this land by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.However, the debate tonight is not perhaps about matters as all-embracing or as fundamental as any of those, but it is about an important matter, a technical matter that has arisen because of the High Court decision in the case of re Wakim, to which I have referred. In that case, the court found that under chapter 3 of our Constitution, Federal Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction conferred by state legislatures. That decision has thrown into chaos the enforcement matters relating to a number of areas where state and federal governments have introduced similar laws based upon agreements that these matters need to be regulated on a cooperative basis nationally.One of the very important examples of this, in an area in which I used to litigate prior to coming to this place when I was still in practice as a lawyer, was the area of the Corporations Law. As we are all aware, the Commonwealth has limited constitutional power in relation to the regulation of corporations. So our Corporations Law is in fact a cooperative scheme whereby the Commonwealth and each of the states have legislated identically to create a seamless system, so that corporations which operate and trade throughout Australia can be subject to the same legal regimes no matter where they are located or trading or employing people. That, of course, is an obvious thing to do. Indeed, I suspect the debate about corporate regulation, as we move further into this century, is going to be a debate not about the nature of national regulation but about the nature of transnational regulation. Unfortunately, we are still struggling as a result of this High Court decision with the question of national regulation. When we raise issues like the Corporations Law and litigating under the Corporations Law, that can strike people as a fairly dry area, as perhaps a technical area, an area where there are some difficulties but where people's rights are not really affected. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, because the Corporations Law, in defining the way in which corporations operate, defines the duties the directors owe when they seek to be directors of corporations. It actually deals with some very fundamental and important matters.One of the areas in which I used to litigate and which as an enforcement matter has been thrown into a fair bit of chaos by the re Wakim decision is the question of litigating in involvement trading, that is, litigating in circumstances where directors have breached the positive duty placed on them by section 588G of the Corporations Law to prevent a company continuing to trade when it is insolvent. That is an offence under our Corporations Law; it is an offence with an objective standard. The price that directors pay for engaging in the offence of insolvent trading is under section 558M of the Corporations law: a creditor who has suffered loss or damage as a result of that insolvent trading has a right to seek compensation personally from the directors who are responsible.This is a very important set of provisions that touches upon one of the major public policy debates that we have had this year, namely, the debate about employee entitlements. In many of those circumstances, when a corporation ceases to trade, is insolvent and cannot pay its employees their lawful entitlements—whether they be unpaid wages, unpaid annual leave, unpaid long service leave or unpaid redundancy moneys—the directors will have offended against this provision of the Corporations Law. I think we can easily imagine circumstances in which that could happen. If you are in an industry where the nature of the future of the industry is fairly easy to predict—for example, I would have thought someone engaged in the textiles, clothing and footwear industry in this country would be able to assess market conditions fairly clearly; there is a stable system of government regulation in respect of tariffs, all of that sort of thing—you would be able to work out where you were going with your business.If you continue to trade your business past a point where you could pay your employees their entitlements, one would, in the ordinary course, assume that you had done that with due knowledge. It is not the same as a situation where, completely unforeseen, an act of God, a freak act of nature, destroys part of the capital needed to run your business or where some international market closes down as a result of a war or where some unexpected trading bloc changes and suddenly you can no longer get your goods to the place where you used to sell them. It is not that kind of circumstance. I think that in most cases where, for example—just to pick an example, perhaps a topical example—textiles, clothing and footwear companies cease to trade, the fact that they will not be able to meet their employee entitlements is something that is foreseeable. If people have traded in those circumstances then, prima facie, one would say that there are possible breaches of the Corporations Law. This House has had cause to debate some celebrated failures in the textiles, clothing and footwear industry during the course of this year, the most celebrated of which is perhaps the National Textiles example. But there are examples—not in my own electorate, but in an electorate adjacent to mine involving the Braidwood workers—which have been the cause of debate and concern by at least this side of this House. It is enforcement of those sorts of matters, that sort of cooperative scheme under the Corporations Law, that has been affected by the re Wakim decision, and it is that kind of problem that this legislation seeks to address. As other speakers have raised, there is some issue about whether or not this legislation will succeed in doing what it seeks to do, which is successfully patching the problems that have been caused by the re Wakim decision. The attempted solution in this bill to overcome perhaps the worst aspects flowing from the re Wakim decision is that we will, through this legislation, facilitate a situation where actions taken by Commonwealth officers in the administration of cooperative state and federal schemes like the Corporations Law will be redefined as federal actions even though they have been taken pursuant to a state law. That is the device, if you like, that is contemplated by this legislation in order to get around the problems created by the re Wakim decision. As outlined by the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Barton, and speakers since, there is some reason to suspect that this patching may not be sufficient to fix the problem. I think the government recognises that there are ongoing difficulties in this area and is seeking to pursue a solution by way of having appropriate referral of powers from states to the Commonwealth so that the patching becomes unnecessary. However, at some point there might need to be a more profound solution to this problem, and that of course could only be achieved by way of referendum.I think we are all acutely aware, particularly after last year's republic debate, that the fate of referendums in this country is not a kind one; if we count through the numbers we do not see too many successes and we see a lot of failures. But it may be—and I think we will have to assess this over time—that at some point the Commonwealth says to itself that the matter of corporate regulation, for example, is such a major public policy area that we need to finally clarify our constitutional arrangements, that that would necessitate a referendum and that such a referendum would be worth while. The shadow Attorney-General has outlined the views of the Labor opposition about that matter, and it might be something that we need to contemplate over time.I now turn to the second issue which I indicated I would address and which arises from this piece of legislation, that is, the question of the clarification of the powers of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The need for the clarification of the powers of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was recognised by the Standing Committee of Attorney-Generals when it met in Melbourne on 24 March. At that stage the Commonwealth committed itself to restoring the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions and clarifying the fact that the director is able to mount appeals under state laws. Of course, this issue arose because of the problem that arose in the Alan Bond case where the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions appealed in relation to the question of sentence. The High Court indicated on 9 March that it was its view that that appeal was not authorised because of the state-Commonwealth issues and could not be further proceeded with. On the very day that the High Court made that determination the opposition called on the government to close this loophole, and we are proceeding to that now.I think it is important once again to recognise that matters such as these are not just technical matters and in respect of the context in which this matter arose—that is the context of the Alan Bond case—it is a matter which goes to the question of the public's view of, and the faith that the public has in, its legal system. One cliche that is often used is that the law is an ass. Every time it is, every time the law fails to meet expectations of fairness or efficacy, I think we lose a little bit more faith in our system, we lose a little bit more trust in our society and we diminish the bonds between us.I believe when looking at criminal matters people have in their minds a shared intuitive view of what is right and what is wrong. People intuitively know that violent crimes, murders, sexual offences and crimes against the person are the worst sorts of crimes and that crimes of this nature should attract the most heavy sentencing options. People intuitively believe that property crimes which contain no violent acts are of a lesser nature than crimes against the person. When dealing with property crimes, people intuitively believe that the more people you have damaged through property crimes the more severe the sentence you should receive for having engaged in that unlawful conduct. So I would say that your average person would say that to steal some leftover pizza or a pram, particularly in the context of a family dispute, is not a very serious matter. I believe your average person would say to steal a cigarette lighter is not a very serious matter. I believe your average person would say to steal a towel is not a very serious matter. I believe your average person would say to steal 90c is not a very serious matter. Yet I believe, on people's intuitive scale of what is right and what is wrong, people would say that stealing $1.3 billion is an enormously serious matter. In fact, it is hard to imagine a bigger property crime. Yet Alan Bond served one day's imprisonment for every million dollars he stole, while under the Northern Territory's mandatory sentencing policy we see people serving jail time for the most minor of property offences—14 days for the pizza and the pram, 14 days for the $2.50 cigarette lighter, a year for the towel and 90 days for 90c. What is the difference between Alan Bond and the Aboriginal boy who went to jail for 90 days for 90c? It is pretty hard to avoid the conclusion: one is white and rich; one is poor and black.In circumstances where our laws allow two men to be treated so differently I think there are real problems for people continuing to give their moral consent to the way in which our laws are operating. I think that diminishes the bonds between us and ultimately diminishes our society. Through this legislation the government is addressing one part of the problem—it is addressing the problem that the Commonwealth DPP could not appeal and perhaps get a more heavy sentence in respect of Alan Bond. The task before the government now is to ensure that it fixes the other part of the problem, stops avoiding its obligations and fixes the mandatory sentencing issue.18:34:0015324Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10— I thank members who have contributed to the debate on the Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2000—the members for Barton, Curtin, Lowe, Chifley, Denison and Lalor. I would like to pick up a few key points. I thank the member for Barton for his acknowledgment of the importance of this bill in the aftermath of the High Court's decision in re Wakim. As was noted, it is very important to ensure that the Federal Court remains the principal forum for review of Commonwealth officers and authorities even when acting under cooperative legislative schemes. The member for Barton has suggested that the bill may be problematic in that it amends the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act to permit the conferral of powers and functions on the Federal Court. However, the provisions in question are designed to permit the conferral of powers and functions on members of the Federal Court acting in a personal capacity and, on that basis, it would not run up against any constitutional problem. That is, they would be persona designata, not judges. The member for Barton has also suggested that certain civil aviation legislation and therapeutic goods legislation should have been included among the changes made by the bill. I am grateful for the suggestion; however, I am advised that such changes were considered unnecessary. Nevertheless, I will confirm that this is so in the immediate future.The member for Barton also suggested that it was unfortunate that the bill would in some cases permit a state or territory court to retain jurisdiction over a judicial review matter where a related matter is before the court. However, this is necessary to avoid splitting proceedings where the substantive matter must remain in the state or territory court as a result of re Wakim. As to the suggestion that item 67 of the bill removes an entitlement to legal aid, I am advised that the amendment would maintain the status quo in that persons who would not have been able to seek assistance under state arrangements would not be given access to assistance simply as a result of the technical changes made by the bill.On the matter of amendments foreshadowed in relation to schedule 2 of the bill, I am aware the opposition has a range of amendments and I will deal with them when I get to them. More generally, there were references to the Hughes matter which is currently before the High Court. The government is very conscious of the potential significance of this matter and is giving careful consideration to the options to deal with the various possible outcomes, including among these a referral of power under section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. As to the referendum option, I would simply say that, given the complexity and expense of a referendum on these matters even if conducted as part of an election, the government is unlikely to support that option. As I indicated in my second reading speech, the Commonwealth cannot legislate to restore all the elements of the cross-vesting arrangements—a point acknowledged by other speakers tonight—but it has taken significant steps in the bill to reinstate Federal Court jurisdiction lost as a result of the decision in re Wakim. It has also taken steps to rule out the use of unmeritorious delaying tactics in the criminal justice process by removing the collateral access of defendants to federal administrative law procedures and remedies. The member for Barton, both yesterday and in this debate, raised this bill in connection with the debates surrounding mandatory sentencing laws in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—Not Western Australia.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—All right—in connection with debate surrounding mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory. Reference has just been made to the same subject by the member for `Layla'—I say it that way now that she is not here. The connection is a tenuous one, and of no particular significance. The Commonwealth parliament has constitutional power to make laws which override laws of the Northern Territory—and, for that matter, the Australian Capital Territory. The Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 was such a law. It is technically true to say that in certain respects the bill would also override Northern Territory and ACT laws. The point, however, is that both jurisdictions were consulted on the bill as it was being prepared and had no objections. The drafting process involved consultation with all the states, the Northern Territory and the ACT. The overriding in this case is also of a very technical and limited nature.Modifications of the Commonwealth AD(JR) and AAT acts to cover Commonwealth officers and authorities acting under state laws are necessary as a result of the High Court's decision in re Wakim. In the interests of national uniformity and consistency of operation, the same modifications were also adopted in relation to the territories, even though re Wakim did not invalidate the current arrangements for Commonwealth officers and authorities acting under territory laws. The explanatory memorandum of the bill makes this clear. The overriding occurs only to the extent that current Northern Territory and ACT laws applying the Commonwealth administrative laws and conferring jurisdiction on the Federal Court would have continued to be effective.The opposition is proposing a second reading amendment. The government will oppose that second reading amendment. In paragraph (1) of the amendment reference is made to re Wakim in the form of noting it. In paragraph (2) the proposal is a recognition that the:... Commonwealth has a leadership role in consultation with the States and Territories to achieve a long term solution ...I can assure the House that that is in fact already in train. Paragraph (3):... calls on the government to urgently obtain an appropriate referral of power ... to ensure that co-operative and cross-vesting schemes are based on a valid exercise of Commonwealth power ...We are assiduously working to achieve that. We do not need a second reading amendment to encourage us. Paragraph (4) refers to the possibility of a referendum, to which I have already referred. Paragraph (5) notes the alleged overriding of specified laws of the Northern Territory and the ACT, to which I have also made extensive reference. I commend the bill to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.15326Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.18:41:0015326McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (9):(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 32 (line 11), omit “At any time when”, substitute “Subject to subsection 9A(1A), at any time when”.(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 32 (after line 19), after subsection 9A(1), insert: (1A) Subsection 9A(1) does not apply where an applicant has commenced an application under this Act prior to the commencement of a prosecution for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. (1B) Where subsection 9A(1A) applies, the Crown may apply to the court for a permanent stay in proceedings in the hearing and determination of the application and the court may grant such a stay if the court determines that: (a) the matters the subject of the application are more appropriately dealt with in the criminal justice process; and (b) a stay of proceedings will not substantially prejudice the applicant.(3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 35 (line 4), omit “At any time when”, substitute “Subject to subsection 51AA(2A), at any time when”.(4) Schedule 2, item 10, page 35 (after line 19), after subsection 51AA(2), insert: (2A) Subsection 51AA(2) does not apply where a person has sought a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction against an officer or officers of the Commonwealth in relation to a related criminal justice process decision prior to the commencement of a prosecution for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. (2B) Where subsection 51AA(2A) applies, the Crown may apply to the court for a permanent stay in proceedings referred to in that subsection and the court may grant such a stay if the court determines that: (a) the matters the subject of the proceedings are more appropriately dealt with in the criminal justice process; and (b) a stay of proceedings will not substantially prejudice the person.(5) Schedule 2, item 10, page 35 (line 20), after “Subsections (1) and (2)”, insert “and (2A) and (2B)”.(6) Schedule 2, item 13, page 36 (line 32), omit “At any time when”, substitute “Subject to subsection 39B(1CA), at any time when”.(7) Schedule 2, item 13, page 37 (after line 16), after subsection 39B(1C), insert: (1CA) Subsection 39B(1C) does not apply where a person has sought a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction against an officer or officers of the Commonwealth in relation to a related criminal justice process decision prior to the commencement of a prosecution for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. (1CB) Where subsection 39B(1CA) applies, the Crown may apply to the court for a permanent stay in proceedings referred to in that subsection and the court may grant such a stay if the court determines that: (a) the matters the subject of the proceedings are more appropriately dealt with in the criminal justice process; and (b) a stay of proceedings will not substantially prejudice the person.(8) Schedule 2, item 13, page 37 (line 17), after “Subsections (1B) and (1C)”, insert “and (1CA) and (1CB)”.(9) Schedule 2, item 16, page 39 (line 29) to page 40 (line 8), omit subsection 16(3), substitute: (3) The amendments of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Corporations Act 1989 and the Judiciary Act 1903 made by Part 1 of this Schedule also apply in relation to: (a) a decision made before the commencement to prosecute a person for an offence, unless that decision is the subject of an application that is before a court at 5 April 2000; or (b) a related criminal justice process decision made before the commencement in relation to an offence, unless the decision is the subject of an application that is before a court at 5 AprilThese amendments relate to schedule 2 of the bill, the schedule which, broadly speaking, attempts to prevent AD(JR) proceedings as well as criminal prosecutions and penal proceedings under the Corporations Law occurring concurrently. In the second reading debate we acknowledged that there may be some cause for that. However, we are concerned that injustice could arise in respect of AD(JR) proceedings commenced prior to the launching of a prosecution. In other words, a party may have incurred considerable expense; indeed, the course of a trial or a hearing may have proceeded to the point where judgment has been reserved. In those circumstances it is our view that it could be oppressive without debate to pull down the shutter on those proceedings simply as a result of a prosecution being launched. Indeed, there is the potential for misuse if there was an AD(JR) proceeding launched and prosecution authorities determined that they should terminate those AD(JR) proceedings by launching a prosecution. Our amendment seeks to still facilitate appropriate AD(JR) proceedings being terminated or stayed but with the judge hearing those proceedings to have a discretion having regard to considerations of whether the issues could be appropriately dealt with during the criminal trial process itself and, indeed, having regard to whether it would cause any substantial injustice to the applicant in the proceedings. In that way we have attempted to balance those competing interests, and I have hence moved those amendments.Amendment (9) relates to the retrospective operation of the bill. Schedule 2 will apply to all AD(JR) proceedings which are currently on foot. So, if a criminal prosecution is either in progress or commenced after this bill is enacted, they will automatically be extinguished. For similar reasoning we say that is over the top if people have commenced AD(JR) proceedings in good faith on the assumption of an existing legal framework. It is bad policy, in our submission, to change that legal framework, with the consequence that they could face substantial prejudice, including of course considerable legal fees which they would have wasted.We also note that there may well be a challenge arising from the legislative termination of proceedings, preventing a court from concluding its deliberations on matters already on foot. Far from resolving or preventing concurrent proceedings, this may actually inflame the situation. So we say that the preferable course is to give recognition to this principle against concurrent applications, but matters already on foot as at today's date should be allowed to proceed. We say `as at today's date' because we recognise that it would be quite inappropriate to say `the date of enactment' if people, between now and the date of enactment, run off to court simply to secure their place.18:46:0015327Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes the opposition amendments because they would create a loophole that would have an effect far into the future. These amendments would allow continued exploitation of the system. They would delay prosecutions, obscure issues and perpetuate the legal loophole that the bill seeks to close. The amendments would enable people to defeat the intent of the present bill by ensuring that they commenced Federal Court proceedings during the investigation process, prior to a charge or a prosecution being commenced. Those proceedings could then be kept on foot, followed by the usual appeals, in a manner that perpetuates exactly what this bill is trying to avoid. Prosecution would be delayed just as effectively as if we had not moved to prevent the mischief. It would affect not only the few matters on foot when the legislation commenced but potentially all future prosecutions. The permanent stay applications for the Crown that are proposed would only open up a further avenue for appeals in the federal system. In short this would have a disastrous effect on the efficacy of the legislation to do what it was intended to do.Let me also say that defendants are not being denied remedies by the bill. Relevant decisions will be subject to review by a court, either in the course of the criminal trial itself or under the Judiciary Act in the state court system. Under the proposed amendments a defendant could still seek to prolong proceedings instituted before the prosecution commenced by appealing decisions to the full Federal Court and even to the High Court. Disruption, delay and increased costs in relation to the criminal proceedings would not have been effectively avoided. The current bill is intended to apply to matters that have occurred before it comes into operation and it affects some rights that may be an issue in pending litigation. Failure to apply them that way would mean that the policy amending collateral attack could not be given effect other than very gradually, even if it were entirely prospective and it would eventually take effect—that could be in five or more years. Challenges at the investigation stage—that is, before a charge has been laid—are not precluded by the government's bill. The bill extinguishes any challenges that are still on foot when a charge is laid and collateral attacks can be brought in the state or territory system. The member for Barton says that this will lead to the prosecutor laying charges in an effort to frustrate AD(JR) proceedings. The government does not agree with that proposition. Where AD(JR) proceedings were instituted during the investigation of an offence and those proceedings had the consequence that the police were denied access to evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, it would be unethical and quite improper for a prosecutor to advise the police to institute a prosecution simply for the purpose of extinguishing AD(JR) applications. In some cases the effect of the AD(JR) application will be that it will not be possible for any charges to be laid until those applications have been resolved, as the police, as a consequence of those applications, would be denied access to crucial evidence. In that regard, before a prosecution is instituted, there must be sufficient evidence available which satisfies the prosecution criteria in the prosecution policy of the Commonwealth.Collateral attack is frequently used in relation to white-collar crime. It is almost invariably used only by defendants with deep pockets; it is not available to ordinary people. Going to the Federal Court for AD(JR) review provides the means for removing an action from a state court to the federal justice system. That causes a loss of priority for the prosecution in the state courts and substantially increases the duration and cost of proceedings. The proposed amendments would not alter that situation. The criminal justice process itself provides adequate safeguards and mechanisms for review of the lawfulness of administrative actions, for example, abuse of process applications, the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence and the availability of appeals. For those reasons the government will be opposing the opposition amendments.Amendments negatived.18:51:0015328Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move government amendments (3) to (5): (3) Schedule 1, item 26, page 10 (before line 11), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) an Act of a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory that applies, as a law of the State or Territory, the Code set out in the Schedule to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 of the Commonwealth;(4) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 36), after item 27, insert:Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act 199427A Section 4 (paragraph (b) of the definition of authority)Omit “court,” .(5) Schedule 1, page 12, after proposed item 27A, insert:27B Subsection 20(4)Omit “a State”, substitute “the Northern Territory”.27C Subsection 20(4)Omit “that State”, substitute “the Northern Territory”.These amendments relate to the Commonwealth agricultural and veterinary chemicals registration legislation, one of a number of cooperative legislative schemes which must be amended following the decision in re Wakim. The draft bill was distributed to affected Commonwealth departments last year to enable them to consult with their counterpart state and territory departments. The approval of state and territory ministers was also sought as required by the various schemes. However, approvals in relation to the agricultural and veterinary chemicals legislation could not be provided in time for the introduction of the bill. It was therefore not possible to include amendments of that legislation in the bill as introduced last month. As the relevant approvals have now been received, the amendments can now be included in the bill. Amendments Nos 4 and 5 will amend invalid provisions of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act 1994. Amendment No. 3 will amend the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to confer federal jurisdiction on the Federal Court to review decisions of Commonwealth officers under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Scheme. 18:53:0015329McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I will just place on the record that we were given these amendments only recently. Our preliminary reading of the document indicates that they are consistent with the scheme of the act. We note, however, that there may be at least two other areas that are also the subject of cross-vesting schemes—I think in respect of civil aviation safety and also pharmaceuticals. So it might be appropriate for the government to look at that area. In respect of the amendment arising from the problem identified in the Alan Bond litigation, we are already on the record as calling upon the government to move an appropriate amendment, and we would support that. But I rise to put on record the fact that we have had only a preliminary view of the amendments. While we support them at this point, we reserve our right to review our position in the Senate should our more detailed reading reveal any problems.Amendments agreed to.18:54:0015329Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to all government amendments. I move government amendments Nos 1 and 6:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add:(4) Schedule 3 is taken to have commenced immediately after the commencement of the items in Schedule 4 to the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999.(6) Page 40 (after line 8), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 3—Amendments relating to dealings in securitiesAustralian Securities and Investments Commission Act 19891 At the end of Division 2 of Part 2Add:Subdivision J—Dealings in securities12JA Operation of this SubdivisionIn applying this Subdivision, the other Subdivisions of this Division are to be disregarded.12JB Definitions In this Subdivision, unless the contrary intention appears:applied law means the securities provisions, as they have effect in accordance with this Subdivision.constitutional corporation means any of the following:(a) a body corporate to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies;(b) a body corporate that is incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory;(c) a body corporate that carries on, as its sole or principal business, the business of:(I) banking (other than State banking not extending beyond the limits of the State concerned); or(ii) insurance (other than State insurance not extending beyond the limits of the State concerned);(d) a body corporate that is a holding company of a body corporate covered by any of the above paragraphs.securities provisions means the following provisions, so far as they relate to dealings in securities by a constitutional corporation:(a) sections 670A, 726, 727, 728 and 995 of the Corporations Law (the primary provisions);(b) the other provisions of the Corporations Law, the Corporations Regulations, the ASC Law or the ASC Regulations, so far as those provisions are incidental to the operation of the primary provisions;(c) the provisions of any Act (including this Act), or of a law of a State or Territory that corresponds to the Corporations Act 1989, so far as those provisions are incidental to the operation of the primary provisions.12JC Application of securities provisions as Commonwealth law(1) The securities provisions apply as a law of the Commonwealth by force of this section.Note: The Corporations Law consists of separate laws for the various Australian jurisdictions. Subsection (1) will therefore have the effect of applying the securities provisions with their separate operations in the various Australian jurisdictions.(2) The application of the securities provisions in accordance with this Subdivision is in addition to the application that they have apart from this Subdivision.(3) The securities provisions, as they have effect in accordance with this Subdivision, are referred to in this Subdivision as the applied law. (4) A person is not liable to be prosecuted for an offence under the applied law.12JD Federal Court has jurisdiction under the applied law(1) Jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal Court with respect to civil matters arising under the applied law.(2) The jurisdiction conferred by subsection (1) is exclusive of the jurisdiction of any other court (other than the High Court).(3) This section has effect despite anything to the contrary in the applied law.12JE Concurrent operation of securities provisions(1) Subject to this section, this Subdivision is not intended to exclude the concurrent operation of the securities provisions.(2) A person is not entitled to institute a proceeding under the applied law in respect of loss or damage arising out of a contravention of the applied law if:(a) the person has recovered in respect of the loss or damage in an action brought under the securities provisions; or(b) the person has brought proceedings under the securities provisions to recover in respect of the loss or damage, but judgment has been entered for the defendant in those proceedings.(3) A person is not entitled to institute a proceeding under the securities provisions in respect of loss or damage arising out of a contravention of the securities provisions if:(a) the person has recovered in respect of the loss or damage in an action brought under the applied law; or(b) the person has brought proceedings under the applied law to recover in respect of the loss or damage, but judgment has been entered for the defendant in those proceedings.2 After section 243CInsert:243CA Recognition of things done under Commonwealth law relating to dealings in securitiesAnything done under, or for the purposes of, the applied law referred to in Subdivision J of Division 2 of Part 2 of the ASC Act is taken, for the purposes of a national scheme law of this jurisdiction, to have been done under, or for the purposes of, the corresponding provision of the relevant national scheme law of this jurisdiction.This second group of amendments relates to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989, which I will refer to as the ASIC Act. They are necessary to deal with the combined effect of the decision in re Wakim and the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999, which I will refer to as the CLERP Act. The CLERP Act was passed in October and received royal assent in November last year. Among other things, the CLERP Act amended the ASIC Act so that, broadly speaking, actions for misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to securities could no longer be brought under the ASIC Act in the Federal Court. This was done to ensure that such actions, whether pursued in federal or state courts, were pursued in accordance with the requirements of the Corporations Law. However, following re Wakim, the unintended consequence is that no action for misleading or deceptive conduct can be brought in the Federal Court. Corporations Law is state or territory law creating state or territory cause of actions which can no longer be pursued in the Federal Court. The effect of the CLERP Act amendment is thus to exacerbate the loss of the Federal Court jurisdiction caused by the decision in re Wakim.Amendment (6) will add schedule 3 to the bill, which will reinstate the Federal Court's jurisdiction under the ASIC Act by reference to the new Corporations Law actions. Amendment (1) provides that schedule 3 is taken to have commenced immediately after the commencement of the CLERP Act amendments which were proclaimed on 13 March this year. It thus has a retrospective commencement. It applies in relation to relevant conduct which occurs on or after 13 March. However, this is necessary to ensure there is no interruption in the availability of the relevant Federal Court jurisdiction and to avoid the jurisdictional lacuna which would otherwise result and thereby create a potential pitfall for litigants.Any liability faced by a defendant under the amendment would simply mirror that which would apply under the Corporations Law in a state or territory court. The double-dipping provisions in proposed section 12JE would ensure that no-one would be exposed to double liability. The benefits to litigants of avoiding the potential uncertainty and pitfalls which would otherwise result from gaps in the coverage of the court's jurisdiction therefore justify a retrospective commencement in this case. As it did not prove possible to finalise these amendments before the bill was introduced last month, amendments (1) and (6) are being moved as a parliamentary amendment to the bill. 18:57:0015331McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—In respect of the issue I raised before, we anticipate being in a position to support these amendments and will do so in the House. We reserve our position in the event that we wish to move any refinements in the Senate.Amendments agreed to.18:58:0015331Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 2 and 7 as circulated:(2) Clause 2, page 2, at the end of the clause (after proposed subclause (4)), add:(5) Schedule 4 commences on a day to be fixed by Proclamation.(6) If Schedule 4 does not commence under subsection (5) within the period of 6 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, it commences on the first day after the end of that period.(7) Page 40, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 3), add:Schedule 4—Amendments relating to takeover bidsCorporations Act 19891 After section 59Insert:59A Court proceedings before end of bid period for takeover bid etc.(1) The object of this section is to ensure that section 659B of the Corporations Law has the same effect in relation to proceedings in courts exercising federal jurisdiction as that section has in relation to proceedings in other courts exercising jurisdiction under the Corporations Law.(2) Section 659B of the Corporations Law applies as a law of the Commonwealth, by force of this section, as if a reference in the relevant definition to proceedings were a reference to the following proceedings before the Federal Court or before another court exercising federal jurisdiction:(a) proceedings under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977;(b) proceedings in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer or officers of the Commonwealth.For the purposes of this subsection, relevant definition means the definition of court proceedings in relation to a takeover bid or proposed takeover bid in subsection 659B(4) of the Corporations Law.(3) The application of section 659B of the Corporations Law in accordance with this section is in addition to the application that it has apart from this section.(4) Nothing in this section is intended to affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 75 of the Constitution.The third group of amendments relates to the Corporations Act 1989. The CLERP Act inserted section 659B in the Corporations Law. Section 659B was intended to ensure that the Corporations and Securities Panel would be the primary forum for resolving takeover disputes under the Corporations Law. This will allow takeover disputes to be resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible by a specialist body largely comprised of takeover experts. Section 659B was designed to prevent legal proceedings in relation to a takeover bid, including judicial review of panel decisions under any state administrative laws before the end of the bid period. Only proceedings commenced on the application of ASIC or another public authority of the Commonwealth or a state were to be exempted. Because re Wakim invalidated the state administrative laws that purported to confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court, the bill as introduced will amend the AD(JR) Act so that it applies directly to decisions of Commonwealth bodies such as the panel. This would make section 659B of the Corporations Law, which operates as the law of a state or territory, ineffective as a means of preventing judicial review of panel decisions by the Federal Court. Amendment (7) will add schedule 4 to the bill, which is necessary to give effect to the original policy behind section 659B.Proposed section 59A of the Corporations Act will give section 659B of the Corporations Law additional force under the Corporations Act as a Commonwealth law applying to the Federal Court. Amendment (2) provides for amendment (7) to commence on a day to be proclaimed. As with the amendments of the ASIC Act just dealt with, it did not prove possible to finalise amendments (2) and (7) before the bill was introduced last month. 19:00:0015332McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Again, we are not opposing amendments Nos 2 and 7, but we reserve our rights in the light of further consideration.Amendments agreed to.19:00:0015332Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move government amendment No. 8:(8) Page 40, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 4), add:Schedule 5—Amendments relating to the appeal powers of the DPP and DPP staffDirector of Public Prosecutions Act 19831 Subsection 3(1)Insert:appeal includes: (a) a proceeding of the same nature as an appeal; and (b) a review or rehearing, or a proceeding of the same nature as a review or rehearing.2 At the end of paragraphs 6(1)(a) to (k)Add “and”.3 After paragraph 6(1)(m)Insert: (ma) if the Director is authorised by or under a law of a State to institute and carry on appeals arising out of prosecutions of offences against the laws of the State, being prosecutions by the Director as mentioned in paragraph (m) or by members of the staff of the Office as mentioned in subsection 17(1)—to institute and carry on such appeals in accordance with requirements of or under that law; and4 Paragraph 6(1)(n)Omit “(m)”, substitute “(ma)”.5 Subsection 9(8A)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (8A) If: (a) proceedings for the summary conviction of a person in respect of anoffence against a law of the Commonwealth were instituted by a person (the relevant person) other than the Director; and (b) the Director subsequently carried on the proceedings;then: (c) in addition to any other rights of appeal the Director has, the Director may exercise, in respect of the proceedings, such rights of appeal as (disregarding the effect of paragraph (d)) are exercisable by the relevant person; and (d) except where the Attorney-General is the relevant person—the relevant person cannot exercise those rights of appeal. (8B) If: (a) proceedings for the summary conviction of a person in respect of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth were instituted by a person (the relevant person) other than the Director; and (b) the proceedings were not carried on by the Director;then: (c) if the relevant person institutes an appeal in respect of the proceedings, the Director may carry on that appeal on behalf of the relevant person; and (d) if the defendant in the proceedings institutes an appeal in respect of the proceedings, the Director may act on behalf of the respondent in the appeal.6 At the end of section 17Add: (2) If a member of the staff of the Office is authorised by or under a law of a State to institute and carry on appeals arising out of prosecutions of offences against the laws of the State, being prosecutions by the Director as mentioned in paragraph 6(1)(m) or by members of the staff of the Office as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, the first-mentioned staff member may institute and carry on such appeals in accordance with requirements of or under that law.Note: The heading to section 17 is replaced by the heading “States may give members of staff of Office prosecution and appeal functions relating to State offences7 Application of amendmentsThe amendments made by items 3, 5 and 6 apply in relation to prosecutions, and proceedings for summary conviction, whether instituted before, on or after the commencement of those items.This amendment adds a fifth schedule to the bill to deal with certain technical deficiencies in Commonwealth legislation identified in the light of the High Court's recent decision in the Bond case. Amendment (8) will add schedule 5 to the bill, which will amend the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 in three ways. It will authorise the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or a member of the director's staff to exercise rights of appeal conferred under state or territory law in relation to prosecutions for state or territory offences, it will put beyond doubt the director's rights to appeal in relation to proceedings for summary conviction in respect of Commonwealth offences, and it will put beyond doubt the director's authority to carry on or respond to appeals instituted by others in relation to such proceedings. The amendment will thus restore what had been thought to be the situation before the decision in the Bond case. In that decision, the High Court held that a staff member of the office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions did not have the power to appeal a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia on Mr Alan Bond for breaches of the Western Australian companies code. In particular, the amendment will allow a role under Commonwealth law for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the office of the director in relation to prosecutions and appeals under the companies code considered in the Bond case. However, it will be necessary for the states and territories to consider their own laws in the light of the amendments of Commonwealth legislation made by this bill. I shall be writing to the states and territories to bring them up to date with Commonwealth amendments and to ask them to confirm that their own laws are adequate to give the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions the role that was intended under relevant, cooperative legislative arrangements.As I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate for the bill, the Commonwealth cannot legislate to restore all of the elements of the cross-vesting arrangements. It has taken steps in the bill to reinstate Federal Court jurisdiction lost as a result of re Wakim. The amendments moved today will take further steps in that direction. They will also restore what had been thought to be the situation before the decision in the Bond case to allow a role under Commonwealth law for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the office of the director in prosecutions and appeals under cooperative legislative schemes. On that basis, I commend this and the earlier amendments to the House.19:03:0015333McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I indicate that the opposition supports amendment No. 8. As I indicated earlier, after the Bond decision was handed down, the opposition went on record saying that this action should be taken. We encourage the states to respond urgently to the Attorney-General's representations to ensure that their laws are consistent with the steps being taken. We note, however, the potential cloud on the horizon, or indeed potentially a wave the size of Krakatoa in the Hughes litigation, that could create substantial problems in this particular area, but I note the Attorney's assurance that he is looking at all potential options arising from that decision. It is not our job to interfere in High Court deliberations, but obviously it would be convenient from a legislature's point of view if an approach were taken having regard to the purpose of these cross-vesting schemes. Whether that approach is taken or not remains to be seen.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.15333Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous1533315333Message received from the Senate requesting the House to consider immediately the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999.Bills15333R66115333Debate resumed from 16 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.19:05:0015333Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The bill before the House tonight, the A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 2000, seeks to amend the Trade Practices Act to prohibit misrepresentations of the impact of the GST on prices. Of course, the opposition does not have any problem with that proposition. The GST is nasty enough for the consumer without the additional impact of price exploitation. Indeed, already Australians are facing the inflationary impact of the GST. As we have seen again today, already Australian consumers, Australian families and Australians generally are facing the interest rate impact of the GST, and they are coming to realise that the compensation measures in the Howard government's package with respect to the GST will go nowhere near compensating them for the impact. Again, we have seen that today with another increase in interest rates. Price exploitation is something that the consumer can ill afford. The opposition does not have any problem with the core principles being put to the House tonight, but we have issue with some of the detail. The first issue goes to the question of what is motivating the legislation before us. There is no doubt that the government is becoming increasingly concerned about the impact of the looming GST out there in the community. No matter where you go, whether you move in large, medium or small business circles, whether you move in the general community or whether you move in the accounting and legal professions, the GST is on everyone's lips. Those on the government's back bench, particularly those in marginal seats, are becoming increasingly nervous. I think it is fair to say that tonight's bill is about damage control. This is the government in damage control overtime. At the moment, what we are seeing from the government is a set of diversions. They are out there pressing a number of buttons. They are out there pressing the race button and the bigotry button with respect to mandatory sentencing and their offensive submission to the Senate inquiry. They are even out there pressing the sovereignty button again with respect to mandatory sentencing. It is true that the government want to do anything but talk about the GST. The tactics adopted in tonight's bill are not all that different. They are very similar tactics. Like the other buttons I was talking about, tonight we are talking about populism. Tonight we are talking about the government's conclusion that there are—it is to state the obvious, of course—many more votes in consumer land than there are in business land. There are more votes to be gained by keeping the consumer on side than there are to be gained by keeping Australia's 2½ million businesses on side and Australia's almost one million small firms on side. This is an extraordinary situation. These are the people the government has always claimed as its natural constituency. It has made this simple calculation. Tonight's bill is about reassuring the Australian community that the government will not wear price exploitation and the impact it has on the community, but, at the same time, it has been prepared to jettison its loyalty to its natural constituency, or the constituency it claims as its own, to meet those ends. It is time for the government to puff its chest out and show that it is prepared to get tough on price exploitation. Why would it not? We have already seen a number of instances where some businesses have quite deliberately chosen to take advantage of the transitional arrangements flowing from the GST. The most extraordinary thing about this bill is how far the government has been prepared to go. An article in today's Daily Telegraph stated:Retailers have been warned they will face penalties for mistakenly overcharging consumers following the introduction of the GST on July 1.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Allan Fels said yesterday retailers not passing on all cost savings under the new regime face action. “The law simply says if there is overcharging then it's a breach of the law,” Professor Fels said.“I don't think consumers should pay for mistakes and there is nothing in the law that says if [retailers] have made an innocent mistake they're exempt.”The point to be made is that the powers are already with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Professor Fels already has those powers. This was a quote today, but the good professor was not factoring in the impact of the bill we are discussing tonight. He was highlighting the fact that those powers are already in his hands. What is tonight's bill about? Exactly what I was saying it is about; it is about taking the big stick to business in an attempt to demonstrate to consumer land that it is serious about protecting it. The big stick to business does not concern me all that much because larger businesses have the resources, have the army of accountants and legal professionals necessary to deal with the transitional arrangements. Recently, I saw what I thought was an extraordinary letter from Woolworths to some of its small business suppliers. It demanded to know the ABN of the small suppliers by a date that was well in advance of the 31 May deadline for applications and certainly well in advance of 1 July. But, more importantly, it was demanding to be advised by those small suppliers what savings they were likely to pass on to Woolworths as a result of the GST. It gave a pro forma example. It stated, `Name of small business supplier, your ABN number, value of your supplies, savings passed on—that is, X, Y, Z savings.' This is a chicken and egg argument. Woolworths says that it cannot determine its prices until the small business supplier determines what savings it is going to pass on to Woolworths, but the small business supplier is in exactly the same situation. It has been demonstrated that this is a tax that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation does not understand. He cannot even explain how the rounding will work or how the GST will affect the price of a can of Coke. Yet small business people are expected to get it right. Tonight, the government is telling them, `If you are unincorporated and you get it wrong you will be looking at a fine of up to $500,000 and if you are incorporated it is a fine of up to $10 million.'Let us make it very clear: incorporated does not mean big. Many micro firms are incorporated for many varying reasons. So here we have a situation where a minister of the crown in this parliament is not able to adequately explain the GST. When we ask questions during question time on the GST to various ministers with regard to their portfolios sitting on the front bench opposite, what do they do? They flick pass them on to the Treasurer; they have been instructed that no-one in this place will answer questions on the GST bar the Treasurer because the reality is that no-one on that side in this place bar the Treasurer comes close to fully understanding the GST and its impact. Whether it is aged care, small business or caravan parks under community services, all the questions go to the Treasurer. Yet the small business community, which is already facing a myriad issues ranging from the retail inquiry, ABN applications and Ralph next year coming on top of the GST, is expected to get it right.I want to give the House a very good example of how this government have too high an expectation of small firms as to how they expect them to deal with this tax. It really has become ludicrous that they are waving this $10 million stick over them in a desperate attempt to patch up their political ills and win a few votes in the wider electorate. I want to quote from the Small Business Show, a very good program on the Channel 9 network on Sunday mornings for those who are up at 7.30—an obligation on my part, unfortunately. The picture is this: the Small Business Show had a number of panellists—representatives from the ACCC, representatives from tax and representatives from the accounting profession—facing a roomful of largely small business people fielding questions from these small business representatives. One of those people was Mr John O'Brien from a company called Poolwerx. John O'Brien was responding to David Cousins, from the ACCC. He was talking about the extent that a firm might have savings, given the extent to which it might be labour intensive as compared to capital intensive, given that many firms provide just a service and will not have any savings from the wholesale sales tax because they do not have any inputs into their operation. John O'Brien said:David talking on that. In our business we've calculated that it's about 9% ...So they expect the impact on their charges will be nine per cent. The Treasurer says that nothing should go up 10 per cent. I saw a circular from a tourist authority in my electorate yesterday trying to explain to their members how the GST will affect commissions within that organisation. This was a well motivated circular, but it showed the full 10 per cent going on of course. John O'Brien said it was nine per cent. He continued: ... which is a service business also. And one of the coal face problems for us is that in a lot of service businesses we call back every week, or regularly, and to whack a 9% increase onto our customers could well result in a customer loss. For small businesses that's an expensive replacement factor and that's a worry.Cousins's response was very interesting. He said:Well I appreciate what you're saying it was the point that I was making earlier on to some extent in that I think competition will mean that many businesses will absorb some of these increases in costs and many customers will be out there shopping around and they may well be resisting, certainly full 10% increases.O'Brien not unexpectedly said:So you're suggesting that small business wears the cost of this?Cousins quite cautiously said:Well I'm saying that I think competition will often cause that to happen.So we have heard it there from the authorities. We have heard that those firms that are service oriented will be expected to absorb the cost of the GST into their profits.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—And you're going to fix that, are you?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—So there is not too much good news in that for small firms.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—And you're going to fix it?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Well, Minister, I do not know how you do fix this mess, but I can assure you of this: we will be giving it a good shot. You should confine your attacks to the women in the government party room.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for Hunter should ignore the minister at the table and direct his remarks through the chair. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—There it is from the horse's mouth. That is the impact of the GST on small firms. More importantly, this is the context in which small firms are expected to get it right. Woolworths cannot get it right with their army of legal eagles and accountants until their small business suppliers are able to advise them of their savings, but the small business community does not have that same opportunity, and yet after this legislation is passed—if indeed the Senate allows it, after what I think will be an appropriate inquiry into the bill—that will be the expectation.This is a bill that has horrendous implications for Australia's small firms—and, as I said, it comes on top of all those other GST start-up and compliance issues we have talked about on so many occasions in this place. It comes very soon before another big bang next year and before the Ralph changes, which I have heard many accountants say will make even the GST transition look like a picnic. Included in that is a real fear amongst small firms that Ralph's option 2 is heading their way as well.This is not good for small business, and it is rather extraordinary that the government would turn its back on a constituency it has always claimed as its own in an attempt to dig itself out of a very deep political hole. But do not worry: there will be payback and the payback is already on its way. Not only is it on its way in terms of the traditional small business community, it is also on its way in terms of what I call the new small business constituency, the largely service based small business constituency growing out of the contracting out practices of both big business and government departments and also businesses growing out of the new technologies being made available by way of innovation such as the Internet.In the short time available to me I want to say a few things about the other provision within this bill—that is, some minor amendments to part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. Part IIIA was a Keating government initiative to allow mandatory access to infrastructure to facilitate competition in a number of important industries in this country. Part IIIA leads me to an issue very dear to my heart—that is, petrol prices. I think the member for Werriwa had a very good private member's bill before the last parliament. That was a proposal to extend the access regime under part IIIA to the country's various petroleum terminals—in other words, to break down the oligopoly we have in this country in order to bring real wholesale competition to the petrol market and therefore to bring prices down, to reduce that totally unacceptable city-country gap and to level out those crazy fluctuations we have in the petrol industry due to the unfettered power of the major oil companies and their ability to control price all the way from the refinery to the bowser and, as a consequence, their ability to take excessive profits wherever and whenever they can. Part IIIA is one way of achieving that, but there is another way. The other way is to give petrol station franchisees the right to shop around for their fuel—50 per cent to make it fair. It is a very basic concept that has the same effective access under part IIIA, except that the infrastructure is not required to go down to that terminal and to pick up that fuel; the competition point is at the service station itself. We have seen in recent days a very obvious impact of the GST on petrol prices—that is, the fact that the GST is going to send petrol prices, particularly those in the bush, even higher. I have a private member's bill before this parliament that will fix that. It now has the support of the ACCC. It now has the support of the National Farmers Federation. It now has the support of the Motor Traders Association of Australia. It now, as I understand it, has the support of the Democrats. I can suggest to you that if the government wants to bring petrol prices down it should adopt the principles contained within my bill.19:25:0015337Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to support A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 2000. What a sorry row of opposition comments we have had tonight. The member for Hunter said that this is all about populism. Does that mean that we in this House should just ignore what people say? We should be here looking at the concerns of people, being concerned about the issues that confront them, looking at the GST in its implementation and the way in which some people may wish to exploit it, looking after consumers' interests to make sure that, when they are confronted with prices which are not in line with reality where the opportunity has been taken to use this GST to move their prices up substantially, this provides an opportunity to keep that whole process in check. This bill is particularly important because it implements legislation which provides penalties, provides a significant obstruction, to those members of the business community who are not going to do the right thing, who simply want to exploit this particular situation. The member for Hunter said that this bill has horrendous implications for small business throughout Australia. What horrendous implications? If they do the right thing, they have absolutely no reason for concern. Of course we well remember the shadow Treasurer coming into this House in his exercise of gimmickry, holding up children's pyjamas and saying, `Look at this. Look at the two tags. This is Woolworths. They are going to exploit the situation. Doom and gloom is upon us.' It took only a day before the Managing Director of Woolworths, Roger Corbett, came out and said, `This is nonsense. We expect that prices will not increase anywhere like 10 per cent; it would be a much lesser amount.' Across the board, the increase will be something of the order of two per cent or less in terms of the actual price that we believe they will need to charge, because of the savings, because of the removal of wholesale sales tax. It is quite clear that right across the board the community will experience these savings in terms of the wholesale sales tax, whether it is 12 per cent, 18 per cent, 22 per cent or 32 per cent that is currently being paid in wholesale sales tax. It is important that this legislation provides a real incentive to small business and larger business alike to get their house in order, to look at how their costs are going to be reduced because of the removal of wholesale sales tax and to look at what price they will need to charge to compensate for GST. And, as we know, in terms of the grocery areas, the increase in prices is expected to be about 1½ per cent across the board. There will not be all this scaremongering that the opposition goes on with, that it will be 10 per cent or more across the board. The New South Wales government wants to charge 15 per cent or 16 per cent extra for fares and tolls and blame everybody—the sky is falling; the GST is coming. The reality is that this legislation is going to prevent the exploitation of consumers. This legislation is going to maximise the opportunities for small business across Australia to make sure that unfair exploitation does not occur. Debate interrupted.Adjournment1533810000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1533819:30:0015338SPEAKER, MrMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I want to take the opportunity tonight of bringing to the attention of the House and members a pretty amazing fundraising effort that occurred here in Canberra and the immediate region. You may or may not have heard of a campaign called the Money for Millie Campaign, which is something that has been running for some weeks and months in Canberra. Millie is a five-year-old little girl who suffers from a disorder called, in shorthand, LAD or, in longhand, leucocyte adhesion deficiency. What that means is that she cannot fight infection; she has a very severe immune system problem. Her parents, David and Jane, know very well what this means because some five years ago Millie's brother Jack died of the same thing at the age of three.What is required to treat this disorder is a bone marrow transplant. As we know, the success of a bone marrow transplant depends very much upon the exactness of the match of the bone marrow, and that is a severe problem. Technology has now produced a machine called a miltenyi cell separation machine. This machine greatly enhances those not so exact bone marrow matches to make them actually quite successful. This machine costs $55,000 and the cost of two lots of software to effect the treatment through the machine comes to a total of $49,500.Hence the Money for Millie Campaign emerged when the community here and in the region decided to try to raise that money. A local radio station, FM104.7—with Marty and Erica from that station—joined forces with the ACT-Eden Monaro Cancer Support Group to raise the money. Both these entities have a history of pretty innovative ways of getting money and sponsorship, but we have seen some new ideas really flourish as a result of enthusiasm that we can only commend. Marty Haynes and John Mackay, who is the head of the ACTEW corporation in the ACT, for instance, abseiled down one of our large buildings in the city. There was a Hawaiian shirt day throughout the whole region—from Gundaroo, where a school of 30 or so students raised $700, right down to aged care facilities, preschools and primary schools. The whole place seemed to be decked out for a day in Hawaiian shirts. There have been dinners and auctions. I do not have the time, unfortunately, to explain to the House exactly what extent the community in this town and the immediate region went to to raise this money.The good news of course is that not only did they raise the $104,000-odd they needed, they have actually raised, as of today, $409,034.70. That is absolutely extraordinary. What is really good about it is that the money for Millie's bone transplant is now there and hopefully that will occur in May, depending upon her health. The money in excess of that requirement is going into the family assistance account of the Eden Monaro Cancer Support Group. This group, which operates throughout Canberra and Queanbeyan and the region around us, currently has 300 or more families on its books and includes families with very young children up to young adults who are suffering from some form of cancer. The group assists with any form of support that families require, including financial or other support such as transport for getting them to Sydney. We know that here, in Canberra, if someone has a very ill child and they need to go to Sydney for specialist oncology treatment, generally what happens is that the whole family ups and moves for a period of some weeks or months and there are financial and other strains. This group, under the guidance of Yvonne Cuschieri—who I must admit is a wonder woman; she founded the group back in 1986 and it is now flourishing—does very good work.Millie's family, David and Jane Hagan of Rivett in the ACT, are extremely grateful to the community for its reaction. The Eden Monaro Support Group of course are more than grateful because not only have they answered Millie's call but they have also been able to add to their coffers money that they need to hold so urgently for these people. Also, it is a reflection of the heart of this community in Canberra and the region. When the call is put to us, we really know how to react in this town. I must report, sadly, though that the Eden Monaro Cancer Support Group's office got flooded overnight and they now need $10,000 to $14,000 to fix their equipment. I am sure that, again, the Canberra community will come to the fore and help them in whatever way they can. I just want to finish off by saying that the Eden Monaro Cancer Support Group, Marty and Erica from FM104.7 and everyone concerned need to really congratulate themselves on such an effort. (Time expired)1533919:35:0015339Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Tonight I want to take the opportunity to highlight the failure of the New South Wales Labor government to fund some reconstruction work on Woy Woy Road in my electorate. On 20 March, I put out a press release raising my concerns about the fact that the work on Woy Woy Road had been stopped for some months. My investigations have revealed that, in fact, the state government had refused a council application to fund those works. The only work that had been done on that road was under the federal government's black spot funding. We had, in fact, provided $500,000—the maximum amount under the black spot funding—to allow this work to begin. It was a small deviation in the road to allow two dangerous corners to be eliminated and hopefully to save motorists' lives.The council approached the state government to contribute and to match those funds to allow that project to be finished, but the state government has not contributed $1 to those projects. I understand budgetary concerns and I believe it is difficult to find money. But today—it was almost beyond belief—I read the local Central Coast Express Advocate to find a letter from Carl Scully, the Minister for Roads and Transport in the New South Wales Labor government. He had the audacity to write a letter to the paper berating them for their story about Woy Woy Road. He went on about how much the state government provides to Gosford council for road funding and that the council received money for regional roads on the Central Coast. He also mentioned that it had provided money for another project along that road. He then said, quite correctly, the black spot project on Woy Woy Road is a federal government-Gosford City Council project agreed to by the parties in 1998.He forgot to mention that that road is a regional road. The responsibility for the funding for that road lies fairly and squarely with the state government and the local council. It really has nothing to do with the federal government, but the federal government recognised that these were dangerous corners and they were prepared to provide the maximum amount of $500,000 to allow those works to at least start. They presumed and hoped—I guess it was a vain hope—that the state government would make a contribution to that reconstruction. The federal government have already provided $1,294,916 in funding to Gosford council to allow the council to construct and repair local roads, so the federal government are certainly doing their bit.The last bit of Mr Scully's letter in the paper was, I guess, the final straw that made me realise that I had to come and say something in the parliament tonight about his outrageous claims. He said:Mr Lloyd is clearly embarrassed by his Government's inadequate funding of blackspots across our State and is looking for a scapegoat.What a lot of rubbish. In 1999 the federal government provided $12.46 million in black spot funding to New South Wales, and yet Carl Scully has the hide to write a letter to the editor of the paper to say that I am embarrassed by our government's support of the black spot funding.The other thing I want to remind the parliament and the community about is that in fact it was the Keating government that scrapped the black spot funding. When we came to government in 1996 we had to reinstate the black spot funding. The federal Labor government had scrapped the black spot funding; and yet Carl Scully, the state Labor minister for roads, has the hide to write these sorts of statements in the local paper. It just shows the sort of contempt with which the state Labor government is treating the people of the Central Coast. The message, as far as I am concerned, is loud and clear: every day that those upgrade works on Woy Woy Road remain at a standstill, putting motorists' lives at risk, they will stand as a monument to the state Labor government's arrogance and their contempt for and neglect of the Central Coast. I will continue to remind the residents of the Central Coast about this every single day until the state government puts in some money to fix this dangerous section of Woy Woy Road. 1534019:40:0015340Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise tonight to talk about the release of the interim report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform released last week. Its terms of reference drawn up by the government uses terms like `increasing reliance on welfare', `reducing welfare dependency' and `broader application of mutual obligation'. But what does the government mean by these terms? If I had to hazard a guess I would say that this is all about cost cutting and blaming the victim. The whole notion is about spreading the concept of mutual obligation rather than examining how we can look at redistributing the wealth that has come with four straight years of economic growth. Where has the job growth been in that `miracle economy'? It is not there to be seen. I suppose I should not be talking about the miracle economy today after we have had another interest rate rise.To examine the government's form on this, you only have to look at the massive cuts to social security they have ushered in during their time in office. As described by my colleague the member for Lilley in his submission to the review, the Howard government have cut $5 billion from social services programs such as labour market programs, social security payments, disability allowances—the list goes on. This has created an enormous social deficit. The government are comfortable in talking about budget deficits but refuse to acknowledge the social black hole they created as if it is somehow less important.My office is sort of in the golden triangle. Box Hill is supposedly in the leafy suburbs of Melbourne but my office, like many, is across the road from the Centrelink office. So the people go into the Centrelink office and have an argument with the staff in there, or cannot get to speak to the staff in there because the offices are currently so understaffed. I would like to praise the people in my Centrelink office in Box Hill because they do do a fantastic job. Nevertheless, there are problems generally with the inability to get appointments to meet people. So they come out of the Centrelink office and they come to my office but they are generally looking for money—which, of course, as a member of parliament, I am not allowed to give them. So then we dutifully walk them down to the community information agency, where they might be able to get a food voucher to survive. But generally they are looking for assistance to meet rental payments or for homeless or emergency accommodation. This process goes on, and we seem to be in this `vicious triangle'. If they cannot get something from the community information office, they go back to the Centrelink office and come back into my office—and we feel so incredibly frustrated that there is so little we can do for those people out there.The report is really just a discussion paper but it did make a number of interesting points. It canvassed the idea of a single work force age payment. It approves of Labor's idea of tax credits and work bonuses and criticises the Job Network and the youth allowance—and I would like to endorse the view that those two things are not working. There are two main elements of this review and government welfare policy I would like to focus on: mutual obligation and redistributive justice. Mutual obligation is a term the government uses to justify its punishing of people on income support. It is a recipe for the government walking away from its part of the bargain. The government has tried to rid itself of responsibilities in finding work by closing down labour market programs and outsourcing responsibility, whilst expecting an ever increasing amount of compliance from recipients. I think that one of the greatest tragedies we have had is the closing of the MIFS program. Job Support, who operate in Box Hill, were running a wonderful MIFS program—a program assisting people with disabilities to get back into the work force. I think it is tragic that that program has been axed, especially as we are seeing the government now turning the blowtorch onto people with disability pensions. I am also concerned that with a big jump in the number of people existing on disability pensions there may be an attempt to cut back their benefits as they cannot meet the government's tighter guidelines. Sadly, there are many people on these benefits, whether they be lone parents or people with a disability, who cannot work and are likely to come under enormous pressure or, worse still, have their benefits cut. Labor believes in the concept of reciprocal obligation where the government also meets its side of the bargain as well as the individual. The government's responsibility does not just extend to providing transfer payments and training programs; it must also ensure that those on welfare are not so marginalised that they become branded by the community as bludgers or no-hopers—further compounding their problems and weakening our social fabric.This leads me to the concept of redistribution. I note in their submission to the review that the Catholic Social Services said the following:The question should not be `Can we afford our income support system?' but rather `Can we afford the social dislocation and unrest of a society deeply divided by the haves and the have-nots?'I was amused to see that the member for Lilley had been unable to find Minister Newman's usage of a range of terms like `investing in people' in her four years as minister. This was actually the campaign slogan I won the election on in 1998 and that I think should be the foundation of our social security system.1534119:45:0015341Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise this evening to speak on the white paper on water prepared by the New South Wales government, a paper that has raised much attention since its December 1999 release. The New South Wales government produced the paper to propose a new legislative framework. The proposed Water Management Act is supposed to promote the best use of water and support ecosystems, public health, town water, industry, agriculture and recreation. I personally hold grave concerns about the New South Wales government's white paper—namely that the paper is in direct conflict with the principles laid down in the COAG agreement, in that there is little or no consultation with affected parties.The New South Wales government attempts to confiscate a property right that has been sold on the open market since transferability was introduced. The reference to environmental flows completely ignores the historic river flows associated with Australian rivers before European settlement. I recognise that there is a need to review how we utilise such a valuable resource. However, the impact on communities from job losses cannot and must not be ignored. The New South Wales government does not address the social or economic effects of such a dramatic change at this time. The white paper does not address the problem of compensation for irrigators, who will have their allocations seriously reduced. These allocations have been the basis for substantial investments based on government allocations of water. I believe that the New South Wales government has a moral obligation to use the extra funds that it receives for implementing reforms to offset the cost to people who are adversely affected as a result of these policy changes.Further consideration should also be given to the impact of a five-year limit on licences. There will be no investment in better water management techniques if a farmer cannot plan for a period greater than five years. Financial institutions will not even consider dealing with them on these terms. Agriculture is worth about $4 billion to my electorate of Riverina, of which the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area accounts for about $2.5 billion. It is this $2.5 billion which will be in severe jeopardy if water reforms are tilted away from irrigators. Further damage will be caused by the multiplier effect devastating the economies of irrigation communities, such as my communities of Griffith, Leeton and Coleambally. The issue of water management is extremely complex, and the process of reform requires careful scrutiny to achieve a resolve, or else we place our entire irrigation industry at risk. DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—Including the Murray.83OHull, Kay, MPMrs HULL—Absolutely. My concerns reflect those of the irrigators in my electorate. I recently received a letter from an irrigation-dependent family. They are a farming family from Whitton in the MIA. In their letter, this family speak of their livelihood being threatened by the reforms proposed in the white paper. They stress that the new act needs to provide all water users with a secure property rights framework based on current entitlements, including off-allocation and other opportunity flows. Irrigation families cannot remain viable if they cannot access water: it is as simple as that. A sensible approach is required so that a situation does not develop whereby water is unaffordable for irrigators. This family sum up an appropriate course of action in their letter:To sustain our viability as irrigators and farmers we don't need these water entitlements to be taken away from us, we need independent and expert reviews of all of our waterways and rivers in consultation with our representatives to come to a just and reasonable conclusion to the problems that are facing us today and for our future generations so that we may be able to continue to supply our nation with cheap food.This is a very serious issue and one that requires the utmost care and attention.1534219:49:0015342Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—As a result of the new tax system, the government now requires employers to report fringe benefits on the group certificates of individual employees. This can fundamentally impact on child support, HECS and superannuation surcharge liabilities, and on entitlements to family payments. Last year Defence personnel were understandably shocked to learn they were not exempt from these requirements. They pointed out that the fringe benefits they receive compensate them for the very real inherent hardships of service life, such as being compulsorily posted away from their home or town and moving their families over the length and breadth of this country. These benefits are not perks or forms of tax minimisation. There are very real, very stark problems that these people face, and that is why these fringe benefits exist.Following a strong campaign on the issue by the opposition, Ministers Moore and Scott jointly announced on 19 August 1999 that housing assistance provided to Defence personnel in Australia would be `totally exempted'—I stress `totally exempted'—`from FBT reporting requirements'. In view of subsequent developments, I would like to quote at length from the comments of Minister Scott in that joint press release. He said:As a result of today's announcement, the amounts paid by Defence for housing assistance for ADF personnel will not be reported on individual's Group Certificates ...`Will not be reported'. He continued:By totally exempting ADF members' housing assistance from the reporting measure, the Federal Government has addressed the primary concerns of ADF families. The Federal Government has addressed the concerns of Defence families about major losses to take-home pay due to loss of government benefits and increased payments such as child support.Subsequent feedback to me raised some comments about aspects of the decision, causing me to write separately to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, and to Minister Scott. The first matter concerned family payments provided by Centrelink. On 28 January 2000 I received a reply from Senator Newman's chief of staff, Rod Nockles, stating:From 1 July 2000 housing benefits received by Defence Force families will have no effect on family assistance ... Centrelink will therefore need to collect relevant information until FA [Family Allowance] is replaced by the Family Tax Benefit in July 2000.In plain English, this means that until 1 July housing assistance to Defence personnel continues to be taken into account in determining their eligibility for family payments, rendering some Defence personnel ineligible for assistance and reducing the rate payable to others. I acknowledge that for some years certain employer provided fringe benefits have been included in the assessment process for family payments. My concern is, however, that at no time did the announcement of last August suggest that the exemption would take place only a full 11 months later. With child support the situation is even more confusing. The letter to me from Senator Newman's office said: Employer provided benefits are not currently considered in determining child support liabilities, unless the payee requests that they be included under a departure from the formula. From 1 July 2000, fringe benefits will be taken into account, although Defence housing benefits and certain other allowances will be exempt.On 16 March I received totally different advice from Minister Scott's defence adviser, Brad Fallen. His reply, in contrast, said:Although housing assistance will be excluded from FBT reporting, it may at any time be considered by the Child Support Agency in child support assessments. The amount of child support that individuals are required to contribute to the support of their children is unrelated to the ADF exclusions from FBT reporting and is a matter that should be addressed through the CSA.Quite interesting buck-passing after such grand public pronouncements that they had totally solved the problem and there was going to be no reporting whatsoever.It is absolutely outrageous that the offices of two ministers could give me such conflicting advice on a matter of vital concern to Defence personnel. Further, I totally reject their belated effort to argue that the FBT reporting exemption is somehow unrelated to the question of child support liabilities. The fact is that Minister Scott, as I quoted earlier, specifically referred to child support liabilities in the media release of 19 August, as did the Chief of the Defence Force. Any fair reading of these two media releases could only indicate that the value of subsidised housing would definitely not be taken into account in determining any child support liability for Defence personnel. Seven months later we are fed the preposterous proposition that the two issues are unrelated. The whole situation is obviously a total debacle. When I issued a press release on 30 March highlighting the confusion that currently applies, the response of the government was one of embarrassed silence. This is just not good enough. Defence personnel are entitled to know without delay the true position. (Time expired)1534319:55:0015343Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Mr Speaker, I rise tonight with a plea for action. The Victorian government is sitting on its hands while many selfless individuals who give tirelessly of themselves to care for people with disabilities wait for action. You might be aware that this is probably the third or fourth time I have raised issues regarding the disability community on behalf of not only the people with disabilities but also their carers and their family members and I called for decisive action to address areas of unmet need. The House may well recall the announcement of the Minister for Family and Community Services on 5 August last year that an additional $150 million would be made available by the Commonwealth over two years, in addition to the current Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement, to address the specific areas of unmet need. At that time the announcement was couched in terms that the Commonwealth was already overperforming in its obligations under the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement, and was offering additional assistance to the states to fulfil their obligations under that agreement.I rise tonight to particularly speak about the area of accommodation. I was fortunate enough to be part of a demonstration organised by Headway in Victoria last weekend where carers and loved ones of young people with acquired brain injuries and other types of disabilities were campaigning, in support of their family members, for appropriate accommodation. At the moment, people with acquired brain injuries and the like often are accommodated in residential aged care facilities as that represents the safety net—their only alternative to receive the type of care and support that they require. Family members were campaigning for more appropriate care for these people so that they could be with people of their own age and with their own requirements and enjoy and be stimulated by one another's company and shared interests. It is interesting to look at the figures as they affect Victoria and to contemplate the number of young people that are accommodated in residential aged care facilities, often inappropriately. In Victoria more than 170 people under the age of 50 receive high care support in residential aged care accommodation. Those people are not appropriately accommodated in aged care facilities. They need more appropriate facilities designed for their particular needs and circumstances. As we stood on the steps of the Victorian Parliament House last weekend, on a rather chilly day, hearing compelling and moving stories from family members and advocacy groups about the needs of these young people, I was again listening to the Victorian Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Christine Campbell, tell me that the Victorian government is working on a plan. That would not of itself have caused too much concern, other than the fact that that was exactly what I heard that very same person say back in October when I addressed the One Voice disability group and family members talked about the need for appropriate accommodation for younger people with intellectual disabilities. So all that time has elapsed—more than six months has passed by—with the federal government offering $150 million to state and territory governments to assist them with their obligations under the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement, and what has happened in Victoria? Absolutely nothing has happened to advance the interests of those families who are caring for people with intellectual disabilities and acquired brain injuries. There is a chronic need for additional accommodation.If the Victorian government wants to continue to sound empathetic and interested and be known as the doey-eyed, do-little government in the country, but cannot manage this task, it should give the Commonwealth a call. We have already identified where the additional money should be applied. If the Victorian government cannot organise itself to make a submission to match dollar for dollar that $150 million the Commonwealth has made available to help ageing parents and carers who are now in their 70s and 80s care for people with intellectual disabilities, provide appropriate retirement structures for ageing individuals who have an intellectual disability or address the young people inappropriately accommodated in nursing homes, maybe we need a new government in Victoria. It is not doing anything about a problem that is serious and that profoundly affects the lives of many people in my electorate. The Commonwealth is there with $150 million. All the Victorian government has to do is say, `We will match you. We will meet you dollar for dollar. We will put action in place.' This is indifference. This do-little government in Victoria needs to get off its backside and do something to help this very desperate group of people in our community because the Commonwealth is there, with the cash, ready to play its part.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:0015344House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices15344The following notice was given:XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to postal services, and for related purposes. 2000-04-05—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members153451534509:40:0015345Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—This morning I want to briefly continue on the theme of changes to the social security system highlighted in the recent welfare reform report released by the Minister for Family and Community Services, Jocelyn Newman. This report has generated considerable interest in my electorate and, one would imagine, in everyone else's electorate as well. I want to place on record part of a letter written to me by Phil Nichol of Lymington who, on hearing the minister's comments on Radio National, wrote to me as follows:Anyway my feelings and those of others I know were one of optimism and I would hazard a guess that many people who feel left out of the prosperity of this present society felt good about what they heard. Most people receiving benefits and even low income earners hope others in society want to share in mutual obligation and social cohesion. Most recipients of benefits, no matter what type, I am sure would welcome organized community involvement but NOT if it is portrayed in a negative fashion, if there is stigma attached to the work, if it is seen in any way like a punitive measure, if there is resentment in the air and if it is not flexible and chosen in some way by the participant. Many people on benefits live busy exciting useful lives even with small amounts of cash. If people on small incomes pay little tax that will also be rectified after July when benefit recipients too will be GST taxed. Senator Newman on 29/3/00 indicated that Centrelink in the past has portrayed an abrupt non-inclusive type of front. The new Centrelink would be different. Personally I have always found individuals in Centrelink very nice—its what the people working there have been asked to carry out.To my thinking her comments the next day ... seemed to backtrack from the 29/3/00. The whole feeling of trust, fellowship and furtherance seemed now to be at odds with comments the previous day. She seemed political and divisive. Imagine thinking low income earners would be glad that those receiving benefits would be obliged to do their dues. Why did she pick LOW INCOME EARNERS? Why not the rich, say those on $1 million a year, would those people also not feel glad of mutual obligation? This welfare reform must:have no stigma of a negative kind attached to benefit recipients; have no negative stigma attached to the type of work they do;they, mutual obligers, should not be `told' what to do but should in agreement with a broad selection of community members choose the work they do for the benefit of all; it must be flexible. N.B. Benefit recipients might even be able to do or help with some of the work low income earners do then we can all be friends together bettering our communities.1534509:42:0015345Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I want to speak briefly this morning about the successful west RFA outcome in Victoria. The Victorian timber industry can now get on with the job of attracting new investment and value adding. There were a number of important aspects in these RFA negotiations. Firstly, there will be no net job losses as a result of the final two RFAs in Victoria. I am very pleased that we are going to achieve that. The Commonwealth and state governments together are providing a package of $42.6 million under the Common-wealth-Victorian Hardwood Timber Industry Development Restructuring Program to help businesses take advantage of RFA certainty and adjust to changes in resource availability. The bulk of this funding will be for industry development and value-adding projects. The program also provides a safety net for businesses and workers. This brings the available cash under FISAP to $33.8 million, of which $18.8 million comes from the Commonwealth and $15 mil-lion from the state of Victoria. A further $20 million is committed by the Victorian govern-ment to silviculture and plantation initiatives, improved inventories and tourism development. The resource reductions that were part of the RFA will be phased in over two years which will help the value-adding projects get off the ground. The conservation outcomes are also outstanding in Victoria. More than half of the total public land across all five RFA regions is now protected in the comprehensive adequate and representative—CAR— reserve system. Overall in Victoria, 68 per cent of all old-growth for-est in the five RFA regions are in reserves. In west Victoria the RFA adds about 194,000 hectares to existing reserves. This brings the total CAR reserve amount to 633,000 hectares, which means that 65 per cent of the region's public land is now set aside for conservation. Significant additions to reserves include the Pyrete Range in the Wombat State Forest, which is added to the Lerderderg State Park, and Tallageira, which becomes a nature conservation reserve.I would like to pay significant tribute to both Minister Tuckey and Minister Garbutt in Victoria, who I think had very sensible discussions in relation to a very difficult issue. Also, there has always been a strong relationship between Minister Tuckey and the union movement in Victoria, who have worked very hard to protect the interests of their workers in conjunction with both the federal and state governments. In the 30 seconds remaining to me, I would like to talk about the behaviour of the Depart-ment of Natural Resources in Victoria. The difficulty with this RFA was very much to do with a significantly reduced sustainable yield figure which was brought out late last year. Everyone involved in the industry had been relying on the figures of the state department. This is not a political comment; it is a comment about the state department, which had been telling us that all was well and then it turned out that it was not. This has caused enormous difficulties. (Time expired)1534615346Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I would like to bring to the attention of the House a road safety ini-tiative that is operating in my electorate of Swan which targets primary school students. This initiative was started last year because we felt that young people returning to school needed to be made fully aware of road safety issues. We needed to look at issues such as how they could safely ride their bikes, skateboards and rollerblades. If they were having to cross streets on their way to school, we needed to make sure that they could do so safely, without being hit by vehicles.We looked at implementing a road safety competition. We involved local primary schools. We approached the principals and asked for their support and we found that that support was quite overwhelming. We talked to parent groups and found that they believed there was a real need to teach young people about road safety issues. Of course, we talked to the young people themselves and asked them what they believed would be a good way of getting them to be-come aware of road safety issues. We also approached an organisation called Constable Care. Constable Care in Western Australia is a child safety program. They run a whole raft of pro-grams dealing with the whole issue of child safety—stranger danger issues, road safety and a whole raft of activities aimed at ensuring that children are protected.When we came up with the competition we thought we would need to have two groups of primary school students, so we looked at grades 1 to 4 and decided that we would introduce a drawing competition for them, whereby they would have to do a drawing on road safety and include a number of different points—which I will cover later. For children in grades 5 to 7, being in that older category, we thought it would be appropriate for them to write an essay on road safety. We asked the representatives from Constable Care to judge all the entries. We asked the young people to look, in their drawings and essays, at the issues of children wearing bicycle helmets, children on skateboards et cetera, wearing protective pads, and chil-dren using the term `stop, look and listen' when crossing the road in order to ensure their safety. We asked them to illustrate crosswalk attendants in their drawings to show that they knew that the crosswalk was where they needed to go to cross the road on their way to school. We also asked them to mention or include a picture of Constable Care and to mention their school so that we could promote the activities of the school in supporting parents.I am pleased to say that we have received hundreds of entries. The program has been ex-tremely successful. I commend the program to the House. If any member would like some more information on what we have done, I will be pleased to provide it.1534715347Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I would like to take this opportunity to refute comments made by the member for Isaacs, Mr Wilton, in the House yesterday, particularly in relation to the Riv-erside Nursing Home and the Minister for Aged Care, Mrs Bronwyn Bishop. I would like to quote from an article in the Australian of 18 March 2000 by Amanda Hodge. She quotes the St Vincent's aged care chief executive, Kerrie Cross. The article stated that initially: Relatives feared that moving Melbourne's Riverside Nursing Home residents would kill them. But just 10 days after the move, nursing staff say the improvement shown by some of them is so remarkable they are comparing it to the restoration of the senses depicted in the Robert De Niro movie Awakenings. Kerrie Cross stated:`What we found is most of them were either overmedicated or receiving inappropriate medication ... We did expect residents to improve once they settled down, but we've seen some remarkable transfor-mations in the health and well-being of residents, and relatives have commented on that.'From all that Ms Cross has already seen, there is no doubt in her mind that despite the initial trauma it caused, federal Aged Care Minister Bronwyn Bishop did the right thing by revoking the Riverside proprietors' licence.Joe West, 64, is equally convinced. Eighteen months ago he entered Riverside to help mend a broken hip and in that time he developed such horrific foot ulcers, `the size of CDs', that he could barely walk. Now on the mend and one of only a few residents not suffering some degree of dementia, he regu-larly takes himself down in the lifts of St Vincent's for a cigarette and some sunshine. Like many of the former Riverside residents, Joe has no idea where he will go from here. All he knows is, even if the Riverside proprietors do have their licence reinstated, he never wants to go back. And for the benefit of those opposite I would like to repeat the fact that all he knows is that even if the Riverside proprietors do have their licences reinstated, he never wants to go back.For the benefit of the member for Isaacs, I believe a few facts need to be incorporated into Hansard. The government's aged care reforms are designed to improve the quality of care and the vast majority of the `good' facilities are getting on with the business of providing high quality care and services. The poor performers are now under scrutiny and the media are highlighting this fact. This is a sign that the system of ensuring quality care in residential fa-cilities is working. It is not simply a matter of closing a home. We must protect the health and wellbeing of the very frail people in the home and, if one is closed, find suitable accommoda-tion elsewhere. It is only with the most careful consideration and planning that we would move residents. (Time expired)1534815348Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—For quite a few years now, along with other members of the House, I have pointed out to the government the injustices that arise from anomalies in terms of eligibility for some categories of repatriation benefits for Australian former service-men who served in various theatres throughout South-East Asia over the last 40 years or so, most specifically naval personnel associated with the Far East Strategic Reserve during the Emergency in what was then Malaya in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Several years ago, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs did provide some limited relief to these veterans in terms of repatriation benefits. However, he failed at that stage to rectify the most substantial anomaly, which was denying the former RAN personnel access to service pensions which Army and RAAF personnel from the same theatre are entitled to. Really, the only justification that was ever offered for failing to correct that anomaly was a lot of legalistic mumbo jumbo that seemed to come out of the bureaucracy.Last year, in May 1999, the minister announced a review of these matters and appointed Major General Mohr and Rear Admiral Kennedy to carry out a review of anomalies in respect of South-East Asian service. I will read a couple of paragraphs of that review. The key aspect is the recommendation that is now before the government:It is recommended that such anomaly—That is, the anomaly in respect of service pension—should be removed by placing naval seagoing personnel serving with FESR in the period 01 July 1955 to 31 July 1960 on the same basis as other members of FESR and in particular, to grant them qualifying service so that they will be eligible for the Service pension. The review makes the point that seagoing naval personnel formed part of the RAN contingent to the British Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve. These personnel have never been eligible for repatriation benefits until 1997. In 1997, the government accepted a recommenda-tion that their service be classified as operational service. Ex-service personnel organisations representing the interests of seagoing naval personnel, however, continued to press for the period of service to count as qualifying service for the service pension. The minister now has this recommendation from the review he has commissioned before him. The recommendations are quite clear. I must indicate that the review is a little late; the minister expected it in October last year, but in due course it has arrived in February this year. He really now has no justification for failing to correct the longstanding injustice.1534809:55:0015348Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Last week I found myself in Darwin on my par-liamentary duties and I had great pleasure in catching up with an old unit that I served with, the 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. I only caught up with one of the officers because the unit is in Timor at the moment. They have been over there for seven months and they return on 3 May.I rise today in the Main Committee to commend the 5/7 RAR pit crew. The pit crew are the ladies who are supporting their husbands whilst they are overseas. All the attention—and rightly so—goes to the service personnel who are obviously doing a great job in Timor. But quite often we forget that the family members left behind have to carry on, run households and look after the children, and they need a great deal of support. I believe the CO's wife, Patti Jane Gould, instigated the very first pit crew, as she called it, and appointed a committee which was brought from all ranks—no rank-specific involvement at all. This committee was headed by Mrs Rebecca Tufekic, who I believe has done an absolutely fabulous job in keep-ing up the morale of the wives, the girlfriends and the families during the seven-month absence of their loved ones. They have run a number of functions. They have produced continual newsletters. They have actually had their own operations room set up in battalion headquarters. I am led to be-lieve that they could well be doing a better job than some of their husbands. In fact, that is what they are trying to lead me to believe. Perhaps their husbands, when they return, may find themselves out of a job. There have been some very important aspects to their job because, as you can appreciate, in all walks of life we all have little crises that crop up from time to time, and not having the husband or the boyfriend around can obviously lead to greater distress. They have set up welfare phones lines so that they know where the soldiers are at any par-ticular time, what operation they are on and when the mail is likely to be getting through.One quick story that was relayed to me was that each of the soldiers gets five minutes every week to ring home. This has been set up through Optus and it is a great initiative. One par-ticular fellow rang home to find that home was not there any more. That was his first five-minute call and, obviously, there was a bit of concern. The following week he rang his mother-in-law—for five minutes—who told him where his wife now was. So three weeks later, on the third five-minute phone call, he finally found where his wife had been relocated to. It was all fine, it was all above board, but can you imagine the angst for a soldier in the field having to wait an additional week to get a five-minute phone call. It was here that the members of the pit crew were able to come in and support the families on the ground.I would also like to add congratulations to the two assistant adjutants, Lieutenant Paul Greive and Lieutenant Damien Kook, who both, I am told, have done a fabulous job in main-taining the morale of the battalion. They are due back in Darwin on 3 May. I am sure all of Darwin wishes them well and will give them a welcome return.Bills15349R100715349Debate resumed from 9 March, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:0015349Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I rise today to speak on the A New Tax System (Family Assistance and Related Measures) Bill 2000. This bill forms part of the government's overall tax package and is all about how this bill is going to interact with the GST, family payments and a whole range of payments that families are going to get. That leads me, quite clearly, to talk about where the family is in today's society. The family is the backbone, the centre, of everything we do in this country. The family is that unit in our society which really holds us all together. It is really about what keeps us going, and it is the part that the government should be placing the most importance on to be able to deliver something positive. This is where this bill absolutely fails, because there is no way in the world that there is anything in this bill that looks to build on the family or to assist the family or to somehow compensate or make life easier in relation to the huge impost that the GST will have on families.Families are a changing composition in our society. What was previously seen as the nu-clear family has changed somewhat today. We are finding that more people are choosing to have fewer children, and there is probably a variety of reasons why that is the case. But it is clearly evident that today there are just not many people deciding to have three or more chil-dren. In fact, more couples are deciding to have only one child or to have no children at all. There is almost a trend developing. Australia is becoming a childless society. I think part of the reason for that is that people are actually struggling and finding it more difficult to make ends meet. They are finding that to have a family is actually a huge burden. There is not just the financial burden; there are all sorts of other burdens. Government policies are not family friendly—they are very much antifamily. If we have a close look at this bill, what we will find is a whole raft of antifamily policies. Every single one of them is part and parcel of the anti-family policies of this government. If we have a look at the GST to start with, we can see that the whole GST is based on con-sumption. Who consumes more? Is it the upwardly mobile yuppie living on his own in a nice unit in the North Shore of Sydney, or is it the family with three children? Who has the most disposable income? Who actually consumes more in terms of disposable income? It is the family. The family with two or three children actually suffers. They are the ones who have less opportunity for work because they have children to care for, so they cannot do the over-time. They are the ones who have bigger costs when they go shopping. They are the ones who actually carry the burden for the high income earners. That is what this policy is all about.But it goes much further and much deeper than that. We have all talked a lot about the costs and the problems associated with the GST for the family, but what about education? How does GST impact on education? We are all told that education is GST free. I beg to differ. I do not think it is GST free at all. I think education has a huge GST component to it, but I will have a look at that in a minute. If we look at health, who is it that pays the majority of the health cost? Is it the single person living in a unit on the North Shore of Sydney? No, it is the family. They are the ones that have to take the children to hospital. They are the ones that are being forced, through legislation, to have to take up private health insurance. So when I say that this government's policies are all antifamily, I am quite serious about that because every single area you turn to, every place you look at, every policy that this government has is anti-family. In particular, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance and Related Measures) Bill 2000 that is before the House is actually very much antifamily.I think we need to take a new approach. It is time that this government and all governments looked very carefully at what government policy is doing to families. There needs to be a new approach, an approach that says, `We support families. We will do that not just through rheto-ric, but we will do it through our policies. We will actually give you something concrete. We will give you family assistance that means something. So that if you want to go from welfare to work, then you actually have an incentive through government policy,' not a disincentive. That is what this policy is about—disincentives for people to go from welfare to work.I talk to people all the time who come to my office and say, `I would love to be able to go out and do a little bit more, but if I go out and I try to do a bit of overtime to give my family a little bit extra, the government slugs me. Not only am I slugged through tax, but I am slugged through family assistance.' So it is always a double whammy. Now, for the first time in this country, we are about to see the triple whammy take place. Not only are families going to be slugged on tax, not only are they going to be slugged on family assistance, they are about to be slugged with the GST as well. On 1 July the triple whammy hits, because on 1 July they will also carry the new burden in this country that is squarely being shouldered by all the families. It will be low and middle income families that will carry the load. It is not going to be a burden on the people earning $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 or $90,000 a year. They are going to be better off. So if they are not carrying the burden, who is? Who is going to be carrying the burden for this country in the future under a supposedly new tax system for a new century? That is quite easy to answer—it will be families. Again, when I say that this bill and this government's policies are antifamily, I am quite serious about it because every-where I look I see only antifamily policies.The government also talks a lot about what we might do in terms of education. There is talk of literacy and a whole heap of things, but there is very little talk in terms of money going back to families through early intervention programs and trying to do something positive. You do not see too much money going to early intervention programs. You do not see too much money going to programs that will assist people and take them from where they are today and give them a hand up, or just a bit of assistance. Rather, you see measures that are designed to create more bureaucracies, and more measures that are designed to move the goalposts just a little bit further every time, just to make it that little bit more difficult. There is a raft of things in here, which I will talk about shortly, that actually covers that. The government also claims that inflation will be only 1.9 per cent—and it made a very big issue at the last election about that. This was the key to compensation packages and to selling this policy and legislation to the people. We all know that that is absolutely incorrect. The 1.9 per cent was probably blown on the first day. It is just not the case. Try about five per cent. Try a little bit more. What are we seeing today? What is the evidence we have right before us? If you pick up Choice magazine, they say, `You might be $3 better off with your shopping.' I do not agree with them. I do not think that is true at all. I and a lot of other people have actually been doing a price watch survey out there to monitor the cost of a fairly reasonable standard basket of goods, not after GST, but right now. What has been the cost over the last nine or 12 months? Let me tell you. Since this government has put forward its policies, there has been a steady increase, an inflationary rise based on the expectation that GST will cause prices to go up, and not just in the services or goods sector where we know GST will be applied but also on things that have no GST, such as basic foods, milk and bread. I was shocked to see some of the results that have come out of that price watch over the last six months. What we have seen is what I would describe as some people taking the opportunity to actually raise prices and increment them slowly. That is all fine and well—1.9 per cent means absolutely nothing to most people because 1.9 per cent does not represent anything to do with reality and the real costs.If you talk to a family about their real costs—what it costs them to survive week to week, because for a lot of them it is just survival—you will see the real picture, and that 1.9 per cent soon means absolutely nothing. What does the government do? It claims that raising a child under the GST will cost an extra 30c a week. I cannot even begin to imagine where that statement or a figure like 30c a week would come in because, through my own calculations, I can tell you now that it is not 30c. If we talked dollars, we would start getting closer to the figure. It will not be cents. It will be dollars and it will be big dollars—double-digit dollars. That extra cost has already occurred since 1998 and we have not even got to 1 July as yet. It is ridiculous for the government to make all these claims about how the GST is somehow miraculously going to put some money in your back pocket. There is going to be no extra money in your back pocket. You are going to end up with a lot less. This bill is called `family assistance'. It is not family assistance, it is family dis-assistance. It is family anti-assistance. It is family anything but assistance. All the measures that are contained in this bill are about keeping people on welfare and keeping people down. There is nothing in here about giving people a hand up. It is almost about punishment. There is talk in this bill about zero tolerance. There is talk in this bill about a whole range of things, but there is nothing in here that says, `We are going to try and move people out of welfare traps and give them a hand up.' It is just not in here. There is nothing in here about trying to help a parent who is unemployed and give them more incentives. None of that is contained in here. The recent welfare reform interim report recognised a number of problems contained in this bill, in particular the way the antifamily Youth Allowance interacts with family tax benefits. The report actually stated that this is:... an extreme case where tight and poorly integrated social security income tests can severely discourage workforce participation.People who have looked at this quite closely actually concur that this is not about encouragement, it is not about existence, it is actually quite the opposite. Over a period of time we have become used to the fact, as my good colleague and friend, the member for Port Adelaide, has said on quite a number of occasions, that this is a government that uses newspeak, the language of government in 2000—that is to say, more is less and less is more. That is what this is about: more is less, less is more. It is amazing—and this is coming through in a whole range of government policies and bills—that somehow by giving you less the government is actually being good to you and giving you more. 3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—Tough love!83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—Absolutely. It is all about tough love: there is a lot of tough and very little love. It is all about less being more. The government claims in the interim report that, once again, this is all about families. I dispute that completely. It is all about punishing families. It really reinforces—and this is what concerns me—at a deeper level, I suppose, the long-term effects. This policy is antichildren. It is about childless societies. That is what we are pushing. That is where these policies are going. It might sound a little out there to make those sorts of comments, but what are the long-term effects when you look at the trend in today's statistics? There is a statistic out there that says something like, `If you have three children in your family, you represent only 17 per cent of the community.' I have three children, and I can tell you now that having three children is wonderful, that it is fantastic. It is great to have a family, but there are not too many policies out there that would actually encourage you. When I talk to my friends they say that I am crazy. They say that my wife and I are mad and that we are totally different from the rest of the community in that everyone else is having only one child. They ask, `Why would you have more children when you cannot afford it as one of you would have to give up work?' They say that a family with one working parent is finding it more and more difficult to survive.So where does family assistance come in in this bill? Nowhere. It is nowhere at all, because there is nothing in this bill that actually encourages a family to either stay a family or become a family. This bill discourages families, it discourages people having children. When we start talking about the backbone of society, what Australia is about and how we are all about families, I would like to see that backed up by a little bit of policy that actually supports it. I would also like to see it backed up with a reversal in trends. Somewhere down the track we actually have to look at the much deeper problem that exists.What we are also seeing in this bill which is extremely disturbing is the new income estimates rule. This is very disturbing in the way that low and middle income families can incur debts. You are required by Centrelink to actually go in there on a fortnightly basis and estimate your income. On the surface, that sounds quite fine. You might not think there is a problem with that. But if you make a mistake of $1 or if there is an overestimation, you have to repay the debt incurred. That is fine. No-one disputes that if you incur a debt you pay it back. But I think the problem here is that currently 32 per cent of family payments are in error. They are in error because it is almost impossible to actually estimate your income from fortnight to fortnight and get it spot on every time. If you do not get it spot on, what is your reward? If you do not get it right with Centrelink, you have to pay back the debt.Okay, so you pay back the debt. What happens when you have to do that? You get less money and that makes it tougher for you. What happens then? Again, life becomes harder. For the 32 per cent of families out there who have incurred a debt of, on average, about $1,000, that is $1,000 less they are going to have. Sure, they had it in the first place, but they have to pay it back. It is always easy to say, `You earnt that money. You got that money. We gave that to you, so give it back.' You hardly notice a couple of dollars a week or a few dollars a month coming in, but you really notice it when it is going out. When it is coming out of your pay and the government says, `Give us back our money,' then we have a real problem. Currently there exists a margin for error, because the government has realised that it is not always possible to get it spot on. If you are working overtime, and you are doing those normal things that a family does, then the errors can creep in. But now the government is talking in this bill about `zero tolerance'—no 10 per cent margin, no buffer zone. These families are not cheating the system, they are just going in there and honestly trying to estimate. It is almost impossible because you work a couple of hours overtime one week and none the next: it is all over the place.So what happens under zero tolerance? If you are $1 out, you have to pay it back—you in-cur a debt. So you become a debtor to the government. And if you become a debtor to the government under this bill, you then cannot claim an advance. Again it is every little bit, al-ways that little increment. It is always about ratcheting it up one more level to make it harder and harder. I keep questioning: what is the purpose of this; what are we doing? What is the purpose of handing out a few dollars to some people to try and assist them, and then making it as hard as possible, not only to qualify, to actually get the assistance in the first place, but to maintain it?What zero tolerance means for this government is zero tolerance for families. That is what it is about. Zero tolerance means, `We are not going to tolerate your making a $1 error. We are not going to tolerate your making an estimate.' I always thought that an estimate was just that—an estimate. `Can you please give me an estimate of what you think this might be for the next fortnight?' `Well, since it hasn't happened yet, I will give you an estimate. That esti-mate might be out by a few dollars, and, sure, I might incur a debt and have to pay it back.' Why can't this government look a bit more closely at doing something positive, instead of trying to slug these people with an average debt of about $1,000, which they incurred quite unjustifiably? Again it is all about newspeak by the government: more is less, less is more.There is a range of other parts of the legislation which are quite disturbing. A funny situa-tion arises with regard to the incurring of a debt, in that if you are a high income earner you can make your claim at the end of the year. You do not have to estimate anything; you can actually do it dollar for dollar. You can get the accountant to do it for you. If you are in that comfortable bracket and you are getting a little bit more, you are fine, but in the lower and middle income earners bracket—where the majority of people are and where this debt is actu-ally incurred—people actually need the money week to week. They need those few extra dol-lars. That is why the dollars are there. So they are the ones that carry the burden. Everywhere you turn in this bill, you find it is quite clear on a number of things such as zero tolerance. And who carries the burden? The burden is shouldered by those least able to afford it.The legislation contains also a number of issues about shared care arrangements. Currently there is a 30 per cent care arrangement with the non-custodial parent, where if you care for the child for 30 per cent of the time, then you get part of the allowance and so forth. The government is going to reduce that to 10 per cent. It is an absolutely ridiculous proposition. There has been no consultation. The Single Mothers Council of Australia has rejected this idea, saying it means that, if you care for the child for one day a week or a little more, you can claim part of the allowance. So the main carer, who might have the child for 90 per cent of the time, suddenly loses money.To wrap up: there is a whole range of issues in here and it would take me hours to go through them one at a time. What I would like to say is that this clearly demonstrates the antifamily values of this government. (Time expired)10:18:0015353Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The A New Tax System (Family Assistance and Related Measures) Bill 2000 amends, to make viable, the consolidation of 12 family payments into three. The original act has merit, in my view, but this bill is a very lengthy one and re-veals some faults, at least in the planning process for the implementation of the government's intentions—announced at the election—for the consolidation. I believe consolidation is a step in the right direction, because the overlapping of a plethora of family payments with the tax system has created a lot of complexity. It has also created the problem of high effective mar-ginal tax rates. As benefits are withdrawn with earned income, the tapering effect of that withdrawal rate in relation to a number of the family payments is very high. Also, you are paying income tax on every extra dollar beyond the tax-free threshold. So to obtain the effec-tive marginal tax rate is quite simple: you add together the marginal rate of income tax and the withdrawal rate or the taper rate. Some of those effective marginal rates of tax are quite hor-rific. The damage that they do is concentrated on lower and middle income families because it has the effect of creating poverty traps, of making the transition from welfare to work that much more difficult because the incentives to move from welfare to work are greatly im-paired. Put simply, when someone who is receiving some form of government payment looks at the amount of money they will have in their pockets from making the decision to move from welfare to work or to move from, say, casual or part-time work to full-time work, they realise that there is very little left in their pockets. Quite rationally, in many cases, they make the judgment that it might be better not to take that extra work, not to take that extra job, but to wait for something better to come along because they are able to retain only such a small proportion of income from that extra effort, that extra work.I have to say that some of these high marginal rates or effective marginal rates of tax are, in fact, the result of a number of very good initiatives that were taken by the previous Labor government to increase payments to low income families. I refer in particular to Bob Hawke's child poverty pledge when he was maligned for setting as a goal—and it was a goal—that no child shall live in poverty by 1990—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—You missed out a word.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—In fact, the technical section of the whole documentation said that no child need live in poverty, and that did not make it into the speech. That is history. But behind that election statement were a huge number of dollars for low income families. It gives me, as a former employee of the then Prime Minister Bob Hawke, great pride to be able to report some of the impacts of that child poverty pledge and other initiatives taken by the Labor gov-ernment at that time.It is a fact that earnings inequality in Australia widened more sharply over the 20-year period from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s than in any other OECD country. But this was al-most fully offset by the progressive income tax system and government transfers to low in-come earners, and government transfers to low income earners is really what we are talking about in this legislation. As a result, over that period from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, Australia achieved a fall in poverty, as was the intention of the child poverty pledge, which `was concentrated in the second decade when Labor was in power'. That quotation comes from Access Economics in a major report that it produced in 1999—just last year. And these findings of Access Economics have been confirmed by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, NATSEM, which found, for the period 1982 to 1993, that:Changes in the tax transfer systems appeared sufficient to fully offset growing inequality of market in-comes, resulting in little change in the aggregate distribution of disposable income.What these two studies reveal is that market incomes did widen quite dramatically over the 30-year period from the 1970s through to the end of the 1990s, but in the latter decades, when Labor was in power, the transfers associated with the child poverty pledge and other commit-ments to lift up low income families meant that the inequality in Australia overall did not widen in spite of that dramatic, sharply widening gap between the earnings of high income and low income earners. I think it is actually a cause for great pride, on both sides of the parliament, that that was achieved. But what it inadvertently did was that, by piling these extra payments on top of each other, the withdrawal rates all compounded, so you did get very high effective marginal rates of tax. It was not an intended consequence; it was unintended. There has been a great opportunity for this government to deal with that problem. Unfortunately, in the legislation, it makes some progress in some areas but, particularly in the area of the unemployed—people on Newstart—very little progress has been made. I refer to the example of an unemployed person receiving Newstart who is offered a job, say, in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 a year, which is quite common; if you have been out of work, it is not highly likely that you will be offered a $50,000 or $60,000 a year job. You may be offered a part-time job, putting a toe in the water so that the employer can have a look at you and you can have a look at the employer.The effective marginal tax rate over that range of $10,000 to $15,000 has been reduced under the legislation from 90 cents in the dollar to 87 cents in the dollar. That is due only to the reduction in the marginal rate of income tax for lower income earners from 20 cents in the dollar to 17 cents in the dollar. So nothing in this legislation involves a reduction in the taper rate for people on Newstart over that income range, which I think is a great pity, because we could really have made some progress for those people. They remain, therefore, very much caught in a poverty trap. The incentive to move from welfare to work, I would argue, is very low when you are sacrificing, effectively, 87 cents in the dollar for every extra dollar of income earned. So an opportunity has been missed.It is quite clear that, on the part of this government, reducing effective marginal tax rates for welfare recipients is not a priority. As I said, this legislation fails to do that for people on unemployment benefits. The government has completely rejected the idea of tax credits. It has rejected, for example, the Keating-Lambert proposal which would have consolidated the payments even further and which would have meant that there was a single taper. That was covered in the Financial Review today. There is some merit in the Keating-Lambert proposal, but the government has said, `No, we're not interested in that.' I think it does reveal its social agenda. That social agenda is one in which we get the sort of rhetoric and inferences that people on welfare are bludgers. I refer to the words of the employment minister, who regards them as `job snobs'. There is this denigration of people on welfare who face effective marginal tax rates of 87 cents in the dollar, and even higher rates in some cases. These people are supposed to be welfare bludgers, but for high income earners who face a marginal tax rate of 48½ cents in the dollar, the government considers that that is a punitive rate of tax and that it removes the incentive to work harder and improve oneself and one's family. But an effective marginal rate of 87 cents in the dollar is fine for low income earners because it allows the government to continue to label them as `job snobs' and `bludgers'.The Treasurer has said, `We've got to get this top marginal rate of tax down.' I refer here to statements that he has made. He finds that this is a great disincentive to work and he has declared himself to be an `income tax cut man'. He said that in a statement after delivering an address at the forecasting conference of the Economics Society of Victoria on 19 August 1999. That was reported on page 1 of the Australian Financial Review on 20 August 1999. He said that he was an income tax cut man and that he wanted to get the top marginal rate pushed out to be `multiples of average weekly earnings'. He said that in an interview on Meet the Press on the Ten Network on 30 May last year. So we have got the Treasurer of this country saying, `Oh, that 48½ per cent rate is punitive; it robs people of incentive to work. But 87 cents in the dollar is fine for low income earners because we can continue to label them as welfare bludgers and job snobs.' Such are the priorities and such is the philosophy of this government. The government have said that the tax package, of which this legislation forms part, is going to be magnificent for families. They have now fallen into their own trap of making wildly exaggerated claims about the benefits of this risky tax scheme. The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that the average family will receive $47 a week in their pockets. The Deputy Prime Minister went one further—I think there is a bit of an auction going on here—and said in the parliament on 5 February, talking about a single income couple with a baby in Collarenebri on $30,000 a year—a typical family in that little town—that they will have an extra $65 a week in the home to spend. And then, not to be outdone, the minister for workplace relations, Mr Reith, said on 2UE recently, `What about an assurance for someone on 30 grand a year who, under us, is going to have $71 a week more in their pocket. For that person on $30,000, $71 a week is a lot of money. That is $3,500 a year.'So we have the Prime Minister saying $47, the Deputy Prime Minister saying $65 and, not to be outdone, the minister for workplace relations saying an average family is going to get $71 a week. Each and every one of them completely failed to mention the war, the three-letter word—GST. They all failed to mention the GST. What is the latest assertion? Is it that the GST will cost people nothing? I believe that this will condemn them once the GST actually comes in because I reckon that there will be very few Australian families who believe the government when it says, `You are $47 a week better off,' or `You are $65 a week better off,' or `You are $71 a week better off.' They will say, `Funny, it does not feel that way.' So the government is sowing the seeds of its own demise in making these wildly exaggerated claims about the impact of this risky tax scheme.It is a fact that with the GST, every time you have a child you enter into a higher tax bracket because those children consume, and what is being introduced is a tax on consumption. It is a tax on virtually all of the things that babies consume—all of their clothes, all of the services that for the first time are going to be subject to tax. Overall, when you weigh one side against the other you realise that essentially what this legislation is about is an attempt, but not a very good attempt, to compensate families for the impact of the GST. Really, this is compensation. On its own there is merit in it, and we supported the original legislation last year because it did provide extra family payments, but it fails the test of adequately reducing the effective marginal tax rates for low income earners. It has to be seen in the context that it is really an attempt to compensate for the GST, and for lower and middle income families that compensation is not adequate.I ask members of parliament to spare a thought for that other category of people, single people, who are the forgotten people in this tax package because they get very little. It is quite easy to demonstrate that single people on low and middle incomes are going to be clearly worse off under the risky tax scheme that the government is putting in place. Another category of single people is age pensioners. Many age pensioners, obviously, live alone; they have lost their partners. We have had the government saying, `But age pensioners are going to receive this bonus of $1,000,' which in most cases is just untrue. They are going to receive dollar for dollar on any investment income that they have. In my electorate, and in the electorates of the members for Sydney and Melbourne Ports, there are thousands of pensioners who derive no income at all from investments. They have not got any investments because they could never afford to have them. They will not get this $1,000 bonus.The government have been quite misleading before, during and after the election in assert-ing that as well as getting this $1,000 bonus—which many age pensioners will not get—the age pension is going to go up by four per cent. What they failed to mention, other than in the fine print, is that there will be an initial four per cent in the pension but half of that will be grabbed back on 31 March next year. Half of the four per cent will be clawed back—so there will be a two per cent rise, not a four per cent rise. And this is meant to compensate for all of the price impacts of the GST. Clearly, it will not be able to compensate adequately for that. The consolidation of family payment does have merit, but the government has squandered an opportunity to improve the incentives to move from welfare to work. This is just another instalment in widening inequality in the information age. There is a new economic agenda that is only being pursued by one side of politics—and that is the Labor Party. It is part of being the knowledge nation to put extra resources into making sure that young people and older people, through lifelong learning and reskilling, have the skills to be able to compete for jobs successfully in the information age.Over three years, $20 billion of government surplus is being taken from the new agenda and from giving skills to people from disadvantaged areas to pay for the old agenda. The old agenda is a GST. The Australian government said that because Europe has a GST we have to have one. This is the old economic agenda. Labor pursued an economic agenda of micro-economic reform through the 1980s and the 1990s, reducing tariff barriers, deregulating the financial system, floating the dollar and creating more competition in the economy. Most of those measures were supported—sometimes grudgingly—by members of the present government. But the government says there is unfinished business in the old economic agenda. We have to have a GST, which Labor has not supported and has never supported, and we have to have further changes in the industrial relations system to make sure that we can depress the wages of families who are already on low incomes. The government have taken $20,000 million from the new economic agenda, including from education and all those vital social services that would create a proper and decent fair society, and used it to pay for what they consider to be the unfinished business of the old economic agenda.What we face now, as a result of the government's inaction on the new economic agenda, is a fractured and increasingly unequal society. A fractured society is an unsafe society. If high income earners cannot find the motivation from altruism to pay their fair share of tax and stop engaging in aggressive tax avoidance schemes—more of which we have seen revealed in the last few days—and cannot find in their hearts the altruism to say, `We have to pay our fair share of tax so that kids from disadvantaged areas can be lifted up and given a decent education and future,' they may have to look at the motivation of self-interest and understand that, as income inequality continues to widen and social exclusion becomes more commonplace, this fractured society is becoming an increasingly unsafe society. They are going to have to confront the reality that, if they are to look after themselves and their families, they are going to have to pay their fair share of tax. The government talks about welfare bludgers and job snobs, but it never talks about tax bludgers. The country is full of high income earners who go to all these respectable functions. They present themselves as respectable people in society and yet they are engaged in aggressive tax schemes to minimise tax. If they paid their fair share of tax, they could contribute to the new economic agenda to a fair and more decent society.10:38:0015357Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise to speak on A New Tax System (Family Assistance and Related Measures) Bill 2000. I was struck by the inclusion of the term `family assistance' in the title of the bill. I sometimes wonder whether these bill titles are ironic. The other reminder of the irony of the titling of bills was `more jobs, better pay'. While much of this legislation is uncontroversial, there are aspects that will undoubtedly hurt families and, particularly, hurt children. With this bill coming in the week after the release of Jocelyn Newman's report on welfare reform, people might be forgiven for wondering whether this government's support for families is no more than rhetoric. The aspect of the bill of greatest concern to me relates to the cut to the family tax benefit for the primary carer when the non-residential parent has more than 10 per cent care of a child. Under previous policy, family payments were shared once there was a minimum of 30 per cent care from the non-custodial parent. That is consistent with child support payments which currently recognise that a significant commitment of 30 per cent care is needed by the non-custodial parent before their child support liability is reduced. This legislation proposes that the family tax benefit for the primary carer would reduce as soon as the non-residential parent has 10 per cent care. That is less than one day a week; it is only 36 days a year. It is likely to cause significant hardship for single parents who stand to lose up to $40 per fortnight for each child that is subject to these arrangements. Of course, anyone who has primary care of children realises that your expenses do not necessarily diminish that much if you do not have the children one day a week. You are still responsible for rent, clothing, putting food on the table and all of the ordinary expenses of child rearing.This government is full of talk on how it supports families, yet it looks for any opportunity to take money away from the poorest families. The government has cut child-care assistance, axed retraining programs and severely restricted employment support schemes such as JET, aimed at getting parents back into work. The recent report so paraded by the Minister for Family and Community Services just continues this trend. Patrick McClure, Chief Executive of Mission Australia and the chairperson of the federal government's reference group on welfare reform, stated quite clearly:Without a fundamental change in the direction of the nation's social support system, far too many Australians are at risk of long-term poverty. This is one of the findings of the interim report.He is right in saying that the risk of poverty is much too high, but this report and this government have no solutions for that. This minister does not see it as her job to address unemployment and disadvantage, or intergenerational poverty. She sees it as her job to save a few dollars on the budget bottom line, to throw a few single mums off the pension and get those lazy disabled people back down the mines or up the chimneys. To do the job of welfare reform properly, the minister would have to get her government to commit to a program over many years, indeed decades, and to spend billions of dollars to actually get people from welfare to work. Such a program would have to address social and educational disadvantage, parenting skills and, most particularly, support for working families. Welfare reform is not just about saving nickels and dimes; it is about helping people to become independent when they can be and it is about giving security and peace of mind to those people who continue to rely on benefits. Providing support and assistance to sole parents and disability pensioners may be the emphasis of the report but, as Tony Eadley points out, `it is underpinned by the government's veiled threats of compulsion and sanctions'. It reminds me of some of the more punitive measures that were taken up by some of the North American states. In a book called No one left to lie to, Christopher Hitchens says:... we are endlessly instructed, while rich people will not work unless they are given money, poor people will only work if they are not. (These are the two modern meanings of the term “incentive”: a tax break on the one hand and the threat of the workhouse on the other.) And, once the Democratic party had adopted this theology, the poor had no one to whom they could turn. The immediate consequence of this was probably an intended one: the creation of a large helot underclass disciplined by fear and scarcity, subject to endless surveillance, and used as a weapon against any American worker lucky enough to hold a steady or unionised job.The evidence lies all around us, and will be around us for some time to come. Whether it is gleaned from the most evenhanded and “responsible” reporting, such as that of Jason DeParle atop the great rampart of the New York Times.He goes on to say:... we shall have to accustom ourselves to stories like this. In Missouri, under the Direct Job Placement scheme (such schemes are always known officially as “initiatives”), the state bureaucracy mutates itself into a hiring hall for cheap labor in junk-nutrition conglomerates such as Tyson Foods. Welfare recipients are told to sign on and gut fifty chickens a minute, or be wiped from the rolls of the new Poor Law. They are directed to an industry which is well used to turnover among employees: Here is a story of a particular person affected by these laws. He writes:As one woman on welfare discovered [never mind her name] even having a newborn baby and no means of transportation is no excuse. When the thirty-year-old mother informed her case managers of these extenuating circumstances, they were not sympathetic. “They told her she had to work at Tyson's even if she had to walk to get there—a six-mile trek,” says Helen Chewning, a former family advocate with the Missouri Valley Human Resource Centre in Sedalia. “They sanctioned her while she was pregnant, and then ordered her to work at Tyson's when her baby was just eleven days old. She hasn't had any income for six months. How are they supposed to live?”That, of course, was all reporting from Christopher Cook, but Christopher Hitchens goes on to say:The process of “sanctioning”—the new state euphemism for coercion via the threat of cut-off—involves facing defenceless people with the rather old choice between “work or starve.” It is the tactic by which welfare rolls are being “trimmed”, if you will allow another Clintonian euphemism. You can be “sanctioned” if you refuse any job, or miss any interview.I did not select Missouri because it's a famously unsentimental state. I selected it because President Clinton in an August 1997 address to businessmen in St Louis, touted it as the model laboratory for his welfare reform. It's useful only for dialectical purposes to mention that Tyson Foods uses the Direct Job Placement scheme as its taxpayer-funded recruiting sergeant. The first shock of recognition, experienced by those who are supposed to be grateful for a dose of nonalienated and dignified labor, is the “puller job.” This involves gutting birds—later to provide tasteless nourishment at the tables of the badly off—at a rapid rate. The fingernails of the inexperienced are likely to be the first to go; dissolved in bacteria and chicken fat. Of Missouri's 103,000 poultry workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, almost one-third endured an injury or an illness in 1995 alone. That this may be an undercounting is suggested by the experience of one hard-pressed toiler on the Tyson chicken-thigh assembly line named Jason Wolfe: “They want you to hang forty or fifty of these birds in a minute, for four to six hours straight, without a break. If you miss any, they threaten to fire you.” He himself was fired because of too many “sick days.”Supplied by the state with a fearful, docile labor force, the workhouse masters are relatively untroubled by unions, or by any back-talk from the staff. Those who have been thus “trimmed” from the welfare rolls have often done no more than disappear into a twilight zone of casual employment, uninsured illness, intermittent education for their children, and unsafe or temporary accommodation. Only thus—by their disappearance from society—can they be counted as a “success story” by ambitious governors, and used in order to qualify tightfisted states for “caseload-reduction credits” from the federal government. The women among them, not infrequently pressed for sexual favors as the price of the ticket, can be asked at random about the number of toothbrushes found in the trailer, and are required by law to name the overnight guest or the father of the child if asked. Failure or refusal to name the father can lead to termination of “benefits” or (an even better word) “entitlements.”Christopher Hitchens goes on to describe in quite a lot of detail what the effects of the American states' views of mutual obligation have been and, in fact, the deleterious effects that they have had, of course, on the welfare recipients but, perhaps even more importantly, on the children that rely on those parents.Mike Steketee wrote in the Australian of this government's attitudes towards people receiving welfare benefits that show they have lost touch with the community when they believe that `... a strongly performing economy must have opportunities for everyone and those that remain unemployed are bludgers'. He is pointing out that for most people, the vast majority of people, unemployment is not a choice. It is not a lifestyle decision.The government has tightened economic policy at the expense of programs to help the long-term unemployed. The government has clearly betrayed families, contrary to the Prime Minister's assertion that `families are the essential building block of a dynamic and decent society'. If the Prime Minister believes this, it is difficult to understand how 770,000 children now grow up in families where neither parent has a job. When the figures were last taken in 1999, that was an increase of 96,000 people since the election of the government. In a speech to the Australian Federation of Childcare Associations in 1997, Senator Newman promised `a high quality child-care system ... flexible, affordable and accessible'. Yet, child care under this government has gone up at least $20 a week for most families following cuts of $850 million from the child-care budget. It is obvious that these measures have been responsible for the drop in the participation rate of women in the economy and, certainly, for increased insecurity and cuts to the hours of numbers at work. It is unfortunate that, on the one hand, the Minister for Family and Community Services is undermining every effort of families to return to the work force, particularly burning the bridges that are necessary for single parents to re-enter the work force, and then feels it necessary to punish those people who are suffering from these cuts to programs. Peter Edelman, a US worker in the area of welfare policy, points out that there are class issues involved here. Of a similar situation in the United States, he said:There is a submerged class question here. I always get at it in my speeches by pointing out the hypocrisy in the rhetoric as to who should stay home with their children. Many on the right (and elsewhere) are saying mothers should stay at home with their small children because the new research data on brain development shows that small children need that stimulation. These same people then turn around and say poor moms have to go out and work immediately. (Many states have work requirements beginning when an infant is twelve weeks old, and the vast majority of the remainder require work when a child is a year old. That is a pretty class distinction..It is interesting as well that this minister who seems to believe that caring for children is not valuable work on its own and who ignores the fact that there are currently 28,000 disabled people on waiting lists for training—these same people that she is saying need to undertake some work tests—manages to claim two pensions herself. On top of her salary as a cabinet minister, the minister is entitled to a parliamentary widow's annuity and a defence force spouse benefit. Of course there is no reciprocity demanded of her—and nor should there be. She is entitled to these benefits and she claims them. Yet at the same time as she is claiming these benefits she is looking for ways to trim the social security lists. Surely is it obvious that there is some irony here, where people who do not need benefits are allowed to stick their hand out and claim them and those people who are just getting by, who are just managing, are being told to get out there and get off the social security lists.The agenda of the government is based on their view that the disadvantaged, the sick, the disabled, those raising children, the unemployed, the carers and those struggling to survive owe a debt to society rather than that they are Australians who need a hand in unfortunate times. Gerard McEwen of Glandore in South Australia put it very clearly in his letter to the Australian in March this year. He stated that the current government's definition of mutual obligation is:... in return for less money than it takes to live, the recipient agrees to be grateful for being humiliated and bullied.Adele Horan, of the Sydney Morning Herald, has suggested a number of times over the last year that one way in which the necessary costs of welfare reform could be found would be—and the member for Rankin spoke of it earlier—if the government were willing to crack down on tax dodgers, the big end of town cheats. She said:Where might the money come from to provide the extra Centrelink staff, the social workers and the psychiatrists, the job training and the childcare that the committee sees as prerequisites for many sole parents and disability pensioners to make the transition to work? Who will pay the very necessary increased rate of benefit implied in the report? I think the sad answer is that no-one is going to pay it. This government does not have a commitment to making the investment that is required to get people from welfare to work. To blame those most disadvantaged in society, to penalise them, is wrong. To set up a situation where people are punished for not complying with mandatory work is wrong. To fail to acknowledge that work undertaken by a single mum in caring for her baby is wrong. This difference between the Howard government's rhetoric on welfare and the reality of its policy in action is wrong.Labor's vision for welfare reform and an adequate welfare system involves acknowledging the work that parents do—the importance of caring for children and for caring for people with disability. We believe that it is necessary to protect people from poverty and destitution. That seems a very obvious thing to say but, given the experience in many states in the United States where these most punitive measures have been introduced, it is not something that modern civilised societies can any longer take for granted. Those social payments that were instituted, very often 60 years ago, during the 1930s, can no longer be taken for granted. There is no assumption that children born into poverty will actually receive a helping hand. There is, in fact, every indication that the trend is being reversed.Labor believes also that we need to give people choices about how they manage their family and work responsibility in early years of child rearing and about the types of activities they undertake to get back into work. There is no point in asking people to weed along railway tracks if that is never going to lead to a real job, if it is going to be a cycle of punishment and humiliation that does not deal at all with the underlying problems that have led to the unemployment in the first place. What we need to do in welfare reform is to help people to move forward and to become independent, rather than just to threaten, bully and harass them, and pull the rug out from under them.10:56:0015361Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I rise to speak briefly on the A New Tax System (Family Assistance and Related Measures) Bill 2000. In some respects this bill sums up the whole folly of the government's tax reform proposal. It is some 300 pages long and it has an explanatory memorandum of some 203 pages, so we have over 500 pages of detail. Its development lacked consultation with the opposition subsequent to its introduction, and it amends eight other acts. In some ways it demonstrates, in this drive for simplification around tax reform, actually more complication and more confusion.When we look at the issue of family assistance in the context of the new tax system we have to look also at the question of whether that assistance is in fact fair, reasonable and just, particularly in relation to compensation on the basis of the changes that have been made with respect to the GST. What we see is a number of flawed assumptions that have come in as the basis for how compensation has been worked out, a number of flawed assumptions around the question of what has occurred. We now know that the figure for inflation that was estimated in the first place is not correct—that the impact on inflation and therefore on prices has been underestimated. Beyond that, having seen the development and the consideration of this system in respect of a range of different areas, we know that the price implications for a range of goods and services have been underestimated. That is going to have an impact on Australian families and on the assistance that they require in order to meet their daily bills.In particular I would like to focus, very briefly, on the health area in relation to that, be-cause it has implications for many Australian families. All of us are users of health care prod-ucts, and, in the circumstances, that area is something that the government has got terribly wrong. The government said continually that health would be GST free, and only recently has it actually started putting a few riders on which products are covered and which are not. When we look at that area we see some very interesting implications. Let us look at the circumstances of people who need family assistance and people on bene-fits. Often they will be in a situation where they are on pensions such as disability pensions and often they will be sufferers of various types of chronic illnesses. Those who are suffering from chronic illnesses often require health care which involves a range of different products. Some of those will be prescription products, which therefore are GST free, but often they will be products that are not GST free: although they are clearly of medical benefit, they have not made the poisons schedule as, effectively, products that require supervision by medical prac-titioners with respect to how they are used and so they will be subject to GST.When you look at the question of people with chronic illnesses, you often find that we are talking about significant amounts of expenditure being required. People with some skin dis-eases sometimes require a range of different products, including things like specific shampoos to deal with skin conditions, and ointments and creams for those conditions. Many of those products will not be GST free. The estimate from within industry about the price rises ex-pected in these areas is of up to eight or nine per cent on occasions, depending on the product, so it is almost the entire 10 per cent. And the assistance and compensation packages outlined do not take into account the level of requirement for people in those particular sets of circum-stances. I have seen letters from members of the community saying that the bills they could be facing over a monthly period could be as high as $150 to $200. The circumstances are that they are going to rise seven to eight per cent.This goes right through to herbal remedies and a range of other products that are used in preventative health care. This government has really only focused on four issues in the pre-ventative area: sunscreen, condoms, personal lubricants and folate. Although I support those four exemptions, there is a range of other products that should be considered, like calcium for people with osteoporosis. So we see with this bill that a range of amendments are required. It is a huge bill and it requires huge adjustment because this system is just not right. It was not right when it was brought in, it has not been right since then in terms of the adjustments that have been made, and I am sure we are going to be seeing many more amendments to this bill right up until 1 July and, also, post the event.11:01:0015362Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—in reply—First of all, I thank all the members for their contributions to this debate on the A New Tax System (Family Assistance and Related Measures) Bill 2000. Admittedly, many from the other side were misguided. But I would particularly like to thank the members for McPherson, Hughes and Mitchell.This bill is part of the government's vision for a new tax system. As part of the govern-ment's plan for a new tax system, the structure and administration of family assistance is be-ing recast and simplified with effect from 1 July 2000. This bill complements last year's tax reform legislation and, in particular, the family assistance package provided primarily by A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999. These acts have already made huge contributions to reducing 12 forms of assistance currently available through the tax and social security system to three new family assistance payments: family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B and child-care benefit. The bill refines the existing legislation package to clarify the operations of various aspects of family assistance law, to replace regulation making powers with substantive provi-sions, to insert relevant savings and transitional provisions and to make miscellaneous techni-cal amendments. It also makes consequential amendments to other relevant legislation.I would like to talk in some detail about some of the provisions contained in the bill. Under the current family assistance arrangements, many matters are dealt with by way of regulation making powers. The bill replaces existing regulation making powers with substantive provisions in the primary legislation. This replacement provision includes claiming, determining and payment of the child-care benefit—CCB—obligations of claimants and approved care services and payments of advances to services. The bill refines and clarifies the operations of the family assistance law and makes some technical and consequential changes to the family assistance law and other Commonwealth acts. The bill contains necessary transition and savings provisions. The bill provides for special benefit recipients who would otherwise not be eligible for family tax benefit or child-care benefit because of the residence rules to access these payments. This means holders of temporary visas who satisfy the residence requirements for special benefit will also be able to access the family tax benefit, FTB, and the CCB. This change mainly affects the holders of spouse temporary visas who retain the care of the children after a partner's death or desertion or separation due to domestic violence. Under the current rules these people can access special benefit but not family allowance or FTB from 1 July 2000. I cannot understand why the opposition would oppose that. This also ensures that refugees holding a temporary protection visa who receive family allowance will continue to receive FTB.There are provisions in the bill which ensure that any unrepaid family tax benefit advance is a debt under the family assistance law. This is in cases where the advance recipient ceases to be entitled to family tax benefit part A before the advance is repaid or the recipient's part A rate drops to a level which is insufficient to recover the advance in the advance period. The debt provisions will also be amended to prevent entitlement to an FTB advance arising where a person has an existing debt. These changes are consistent with the treatment of unrepaid advances of income support payments under the social security law.The bill provides for amendments to overcome a technical anomaly relating to the payment of rent assistance. Amendments will be made to ensure that a person who only has the shared care of a child or children is assessed for rent assistance at both the `with child' and `without child' rates and paid at the higher rate. Amendments of the CCB rate for formal care ensure that the CCB hourly rate for the fourth and subsequent child in a family will be the same as for a family with three children in care, including indexation.The bill provides for amendments to child-care benefit to taper out the 10 per cent part-time loading in long day care centres so that families using less than 34 hours of care continue to get the 10 per cent loading. However, families using 34 to 37 hours get a lesser loading so that they do not get less CCB in total than those using 33 hours. Changes are also made to the child-care benefit so that the minimum rate for informal care for school children will be reduced to below the corresponding rate for younger children. The bill will allow the child-care benefit eligibility provisions to align the child-care benefit immunisation requirement with the current child-care assistance and child-care rebate immunisation requirements. The amendments exempt children born before 1 January 1996 from the immunisation requirement.The bill also contains provisions allowing an approved child-care centre to have the discretion to decide the CCB rate applicable to an individual experiencing hardship. Amendments provide that a service can lose this discretion if it has demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate use of the discretion. Other amendments in this bill increase the rates of the CDEP participation supplement, pensioner education supplement and carer allowance by four per cent. This increase will compensate recipients for the effect of the goods and services tax. The bill also makes minor technical changes to the A New Taxation System (Bonus for Older Australians) Act 1999 to take account of the subsequent enactment of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.I take this opportunity to address some of the comments made by opposition members, particularly the honourable member for Lilley. As usual, the member for Lilley embarked on his standard diatribe. He spoke of his `insecurity index'—an insecurity index which makes no sense. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is certainly about helping families, as you well know. It is not about scaring families. This is certainly in contrast with the member for Lilley's so-called family insecurity index. Like the member for Lilley, the index is based more on scare than on substance. When you take a closer look at this farcical index, to start with, the figures used are from the time of the last Labor government. The last time he was in this place, of course, was back in 1995. Of the 61 numbers used in constructing his index, 29 are wrong. It is hardly surprising that, with 29 incorrect numbers, it is hard to take this index seriously. With 29 incorrect numbers, you cannot provide a measure of anything, let alone changes to family insecurity. Some of the index's components are irrelevant, while other important elements are missing. The index has been weighted incorrectly. Some statistics used have been measured incorrectly. Finally, the index is being used in a selective and misleading way. Rather than providing security to Australian families, many members of the opposition are more concerned about scaring people and scaring families. The member for Lilley has accused the government of pushing this legislation through at the last minute. The opposition believes that there has not been enough time to analyse the bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government introduced the bill into the House four weeks ago. The member for Lilley has been given ample briefings from my department on issues relating to the bill. I am certainly quite happy for the member for Lilley to receive further briefings—perhaps it will enlighten him. It is a bit rich for the opposition to feel that it has not been given adequate time to look at the bill. I would like to explain in detail some of the aspects of the bill that obviously have been lost on many members of the opposition, and particularly the member for Lilley. For a start, he claims the family tax benefit B reduces a single family's tax-free threshold by almost $5,000 when a child turns five. However, additional assistance is provided to single income families with a child or children under five to enable these families to choose a balance of child care and work responsibilities appropriate to them when their children are very young. The additional assistance ceases to be paid once the child is five years old on the basis that this is the age when children generally commence school and many parents have a greater opportunity to take up part-time or full-time employment. I do not think that is unreasonable. The member for Lilley is also concerned by the estimate rules contained in the bill. I would like to clarify some of these things for the benefit of the opposition. This was passed in the original act almost a year ago. Where family tax benefit has been paid based on an estimate of family income, the family's actual entitlement will be reconciled at the end of the financial year when their actual taxable income is known. A top up payment will be provided if the customer has received less than their entitlement, and a repayment will be sought if the customer has received more than they are entitled to. The reconciliation process will ensure that the customer receives their full entitlement for the financial year. Reconciliation addresses one of the major complaints about the current family tax system which recoups overpayments but does not top up underpayments. Customers will be able to opt to overestimate their income so as not to incur an overpayment because they know they will receive a top up at the end of the financial year. Reconciliation will also mean that families claiming through the tax system will generally receive the same level of assistance as those who receive fortnightly payments. There will be no need for a margin of error when estimating income, as exists under the current family allowance system, as the reconciliation process addresses both underpayments and overpayments. Income support recipients will receive the maximum rate of family tax benefit A, which will be quarantined from the reconciliation process. The member for Lilley and the opposition have also raised concerns about the shared care arrangements contained in the bill. The 10 forms of assistance that will make up family tax benefit parts A and B currently have their own separate and different shared payment ar-rangements. The current arrangements vary from little or no restriction on the shared pay-ment—for example, family allowance, dependent spouse rebate with child, and sole parent rebate—to no sharing at all for some payments such as guardian allowance and the basic par-enting payment. The 30 per cent threshold applies only to the family tax initiative. The government consid-ers that 10 per cent is a reasonable test for material care, recognising parents with this level of care will incur significant costs in caring for children. Parents with this level of care or higher incur relatively significant costs due to the need to provide a bedroom, furnishings, food, clothes, health care and entertainment. This measure forms part of the response to the 1996 family law reforms which were introduced with the intention of promoting the parenting role of both parents and their continuing role in the lives of their children following separation. The member for Lilley claims that the tax reform will not benefit low income families. The opposition appears to overlook the generous compensation provided to low income families as part of the new tax system. Generous ongoing compensation will be provided to compen-sate income support recipients for the impact of the GST. This consists of a four per cent up-front increase in payments. This will apply to all payments, except the maximum rate of rent assistance, which will increase by seven per cent. For all pensions, a four per cent increase will be paid as a supplement in addition to the basic pension that will continue to be indexed to male total average weekly earnings or inflation, whichever is the greater. As part of a com-pensation package, there will also be a 2.5 per cent increase in the incomes and assets test. Free areas apply to all income support payments and there will be a reduction in the taper of the income test for pensioner payments from 50 per cent to 40 per cent.As I have already said, this bill forms part of the government's vision for a new tax system. It builds on last year's tax reform legislation and complements and consolidates the family assistance package this government has delivered. The 12 forms of assistance currently avail-able through the tax and social security system are reduced to three new family assistance payments: family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B and the new child care benefit.This bill gives effect to the family assistance package provided by the new tax system. Many of the provisions debated in the House over the last two days have already been incor-porated in the new taxation system bill last year. This includes the share care measures and the 10 per cent estimated provisions, so I am a bit surprised that there is this sudden revelation of indignation by the opposition. This is a great achievement and will benefit all Australian families immensely. I commend the bill to the House.Motion (by Mr Anthony) agreed to:That further proceedings on the bill be conducted in the House.Committees153651536515365Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Mr Hollis:That the House take note of the report.11:15:0015365Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I am particularly pleased to be talking today on the report of the visit to East Timor on 2 December 1999 of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, not only as a member of the delegation but also as the deputy chair of the committee. It was particularly appropriate that a delegation from this committee go to Timor, as we did in early December of last year, not only because of the work we do on that committee but also because each of the subcommittees that we have was very involved in what is happening in Timor. There is the foreign affairs subcommittee itself; there is the human rights subcommittee—and it is very important for us to get a first-hand view of what happened in the human rights area in Timor; and there is the trade subcommittee. I see the chair of the trade subcommittee is here. Unfortunately, he was in New York when we visited East Timor, but we had a briefing in Darwin before we went to Timor and briefings when we came back from Timor about the trade potential there for Australia in Timor. There is also, of course, the most recently formed subcommittee which is looking at Australia's relationship with the UN itself. It was important for the committee to have a look at the way the UN responded to the crisis in Timor, and especially important to know the lessons that can be learnt from that. I thought it important that most of the members of the delegation were either a chair or a deputy chair of the various subcommittees. We also had Senator Maurice Payne and Senator Vicki Bourne, who had been there during the so-called consultation period. They could give a perspective on what they had seen when they were there a couple of months before compared to what Timor was like when they returned on that December visit.Few Australians today would not be aware of East Timor, but for many years from 1975 East Timor was said by some to be an embarrassment or an irritant to successive Australian governments. Governments did not want to know too much about our nearest neighbour. That was except for a small group of Australians who kept East Timor on the agenda. Within this parliament there has been a parliamentary East Timor support group which has been quite active. The numbers were very small; when East Timor became fashionable, they suddenly grew.Xanana Gusmao visited this parliament before going back to East Timor. Many members of the parliament did not even know who he was before that, but within that fortnight I was amazed when I went into a room and I saw about 50 or 60 members of parliament there all shaking his hand and having their photographs taken. I remember that for years when the East Timor support group used to meet, you would be lucky to get four or five members there—people like Laurie Ferguson and Peter Andren, after he came in here, and a few others. So it did seem that—QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—And Colin Hollis.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—I was too modest to say that, but it did seem that East Timor suddenly became very much the flavour of the month. I do not know whether it was because of the tragedy, but let us hope that an interest remains in East Timor because it most certainly will need it.There has been much discussion about the timetable leading to the vote and what has happened in East Timor and there have been arguments about how much Australia knew or did not know. I do not want to enter into that debate in any great length, except to say that I believe that our foreign affairs department knew a lot more than has been made public. I say that because, if for no other reason, I believe our intelligence and our knowledge on Indonesia, for all sorts of reasons, is the best of any country. Of all the countries in the world, the department and various officials in Australia would have had a fairly good idea of the possibility of the wanton destruction that happened afterwards. Whether we responded appropriately or not I leave for others to debate, but I think that we had a fairly good knowledge of the possibility of what could happen there.Having said that, there are some people who were involved in East Timor in that difficult period that I do not think adequate recognition has been given to. I pay tremendous tribute to our Australian forces there and all the forces there. It seems to me a great pity that we have not given that same recognition and tribute to members of the Australian Federal Police who went there and were there at a period when they had very little back-up support. Some of those people have been severely traumatised by what happened in East Timor. I think it is a great pity that there has not been adequate recognition of their work. Indeed, some of them were not paid for some time after they came back. One Australian Federal Police officer who served in Timor said to me and to other members of this parliament, `If you—' that is the parliament `—are going to send us to hell and back, don't have us grovel for our entitlements when we return to Australia.' That is true. They had to grovel for their entitlements. So I just want to put on the record my appreciation of what the Australian Federal Police did there un-der terribly difficult circumstances. Everyone was shocked at the mindless, senseless violence that we saw in Timor. We saw it on our television night after night. I, like many other people, felt absolutely frustrated about our inability to be able to do anything. So I think it was very satisfying when in early Septem-ber the INTERFET forces eventually went in there. On 15 September 1999, the Security Council voted unanimously to authorise the establishment of a multinational force under chapter 7. I think it was very important that it was under chapter 7—and I would say that only under Chapter 7 could it have been successful—that the Charter of the United Nations, to be led by Australia, authorised the states participating in the multinational force `to take all nec-essary measures to fulfil its mandate'. That last point—`to take all necessary measures to ful-fil its mandate'—is very important. The force was to be known as INTERFET. This force was asked to restore peace and security in East Timor, protect and support UNAMET in carrying out its task and, within force capabilities, to facilitate humanitarian assistance in operations. The first elements of INTERFET arrived in East Timor on 20 September and, at the time of the visit by the joint standing committee, the force comprised some 9,000 personnel from 20 nations.There have been some comments on the force. Some Indonesians and others have criticised the INTERFET forces and said there was an unnecessary show of force. What did they ex-pect? They were not going to village picnic parties. They have seen death and destruction wrought there. Bear in mind, when we are talking about these forces, in the main we are talk-ing about young people—20-year-olds, 21-year-olds and 19-year-olds. Most of them had not been in a combat situation before. Despite all their training, unless they had actually been in a combat situation, they and their officers would not know what to expect. They did not know when they went out on the streets of Dili in the evening when they arrived how they were go-ing to be met or what to expect. It was very important, I believe, that that show of strength be made. You have got the militants there terrorising people with all sorts of equipment. You are not at a party; you are in a life and death situation. I think that any criticism that has been di-rected has been unnecessary criticism. The proof has been in the result of what was achieved. They achieved the mandate that the United Nations gave them to achieve and without loss of life. I think it has been a magnificent effort and I think that the criticism that has been di-rected, such as it is, has been totally unwarranted.There are all sorts of questions of course coming out of the Timor exercise. One that I know my colleague the member for Chifley will probably elaborate on is this ongoing debate about whether we train our forces for peacekeeping or for combat duties. One subcommittee I unfortunately did not mention when I was listing our subcommittees is the defence subcom-mittee. In one of the inquiries we are holding at the moment on the suitability of the Austra-lian forces we are grappling with this problem. You may have seen some comment in the me-dia recently regarding New Zealand who have made a comment that they are going to train their forces for a peacekeeping role. This happened with the Canadian forces with, some say—I do not say—disastrous results over the last couple of years when the Canadians put a particular emphasis on peacekeeping. My own view is, and I think it has been shown to be true in Timor and other places, that if you train your forces for combat duties they can adapt to the peacekeeping role. That is what I feel in the main. Except for one officer who briefed us who argued very strongly that there should be training for the peacekeeping role, most of the other people I have spoken to, espe-cially in Timor, have said that Timor showed that training for combat duties was the right de-cision to take.We are going to be engaged in Timor for many years. We have got a role there and other countries have got a role there. I actually have a personal resentment of the Portuguese over the whole Timor thing. It annoys me considerably when they pontificate and take the high moral ground. Always bear in mind that Portugal was a colonial power in Timor for over 400 years and, apart from teaching a bit of the Portuguese language, did absolutely nothing. The Indonesians, for maybe all the wrong reasons, did a hell of a lot more in Timor than the Por-tuguese ever did. This is one of the surprises that the Indonesians had in Timor. Because they had put so much infrastructure there compared with the other provinces of Indonesia, they were surprised that the Timorese were not more grateful for them. The Portuguese, when they were there, did very little but they are now taking the high moral ground.I think nothing prepares you for actually going to Timor and seeing the destruction there—even if you have seen photographs of it. During our visit there we travelled to Suai, which is on the border. It was interesting to note that when the Australian forces arrived there—I do not know how many people were in that town, perhaps 7,000 or 8,000—there was not one person in that town. When we went there, all we saw was a blackened spot on the ground where a wooden hut or a grass hut had been and no corrugated iron left where a concrete house or something like that had been—that had all been taken away. We were flying by heli-copter, and this came across very visibly to us. Interestingly, when we were returning from Suai to Dili we were caught up in quite an interesting storm and had to divert. That enabled us to fly over a couple of other towns where, again, we could see the wanton destruction throughout that area.There will be some challenges facing us in Timor. One of the great challenges now is not only the rebuilding but also employment. The young people, especially, have no work, and until we can get them doing something instead of standing around, resentment is going to build up as they see the lifestyles of some of the aid agencies in the floating hotels. So it is important that we do what we can to ensure there is work there. There has been some criticism that the UN and other aid agencies are moving too slowly, but you have to realise the level of destruction and the huge task ahead. I was criticised recently because I said that there had been some duplication within the aid agencies. I still think there is an amount of duplication, but I do acknowledge that ACFOA is doing a good job in coordinating those aid agencies. When you have over 70 aid agencies there— say, 50 from Australia and also a number from other countries—there is going to be a certain amount of duplication. But it is an important point, because there is a lot of work to do in infrastructure, schools and health—in a whole range of things.The one thing we must never overlook is the psychological impact on the people there. We have to take account of that. It is very important, too, that the rebuilding is done by Timorese. We have to have consult with them. It is their country, and we have to be aware of that. I was very worried when we had the `Thongs for Timor' campaign and everyone sent in their thongs and then the `Teddy Bears for Timor' campaign at Christmas. I did not criticise at the time, because I thought that was not appropriate, but it was during the rainy season and all these teddy bears—the Timorese do not celebrate Christmas as we do; Bishop Belo said that—did not fit in. I had visions of all these houses in the wet season without roofs and all these sodden teddy bears, and I thought their only advantage would be as pillows. People gave their thongs and their teddy bears with the best of intentions, but how Australian—thongs and teddy bears. What the aid agencies needed was some cash to start rebuilding and to buy things. I hope that we have learnt a few lessons from that and that we take advice from the Timorese on the rebuilding. Everyone wants the relationship with Indonesia restored, but we do not want it restored at any cost. There are problems with foreign affairs and the military, but Australian troops did not burn the villages or kill the Timorese or drive the refugees across the border, and they are not terrorising the refugees in the camps and stopping them returning from West Timor.The other point I want to make is that those responsible for the terrible violence, the violations of human rights, must be brought to account. If the UN as a world body, and world opinion, mean anything, it is no good the current government of Indonesia or anyone else saying, `Look, this all happened in the past. Let's move on to the next chapter. Let's forget this as being in the past.' We will not forget it as being in the past. And the reason why we will not is that we must never let this happen again. Such things will happen again; it is inevitable—the violations of human rights in so many parts of the world are a tragedy. But we must make sure that this does not happen again. Our relationship with Indonesia is important, perhaps the most important relationship that we have with any foreign power. We will re-establish that relationship, but I hope on a more realistic line.Finally, I would like to place on record my thanks to both the foreign minister and the Minister for Defence for making the trip, and especially the plane for it, available. I would like to pay a special tribute to the leader of the delegation, Senator Alan Ferguson, who led the delegation with great distinction. We were there for only a day, but all members of the delegation worked well together and since we have come back it has had an impact on us all. I pay tribute to our adviser, Lieutenant Colonel M. J. Ward, and most of all to our hardworking secretary, Margaret Swieringa, who accompanied the delegation and did so much to make the trip the outstanding success which I believe it has been. Thank you very much.11:35:0015369Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Perhaps I could take up where the honourable member for Throsby left off and sincerely congratulate the leader of the delegation to East Timor, Senator Ferguson, and the deputy leader of the delegation, the member for Throsby. I reiterate our thanks to Colonel Michael Ward and to Margaret Swieringa, the secretary, who accompanied us. I think I can say for all of us who went to East Timor that it was a privilege. I would like to read into the record one bit of the report:The members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade are grateful to the members of the Australian Defence Force who have deployed to East Timor in support of INTERFET. We acknowledge the sacrifice that this entails for each of you, particularly those who will remain in East Timor over the Christmas period. You should be conscious that the thoughts and good wishes of the Australian people go out not only to you but also to your families and loved ones.We can be, and are, justifiably proud of our Defence Force and the people who comprise it. We wish you all continued success in your mission and a safe return.In a way, that sums up the report, A visit to East Timor, 2 December 1999. I can say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that as in Bougainville—to which you and I went—and in Rwanda and Somalia, to see our peacekeepers in operation makes us intensely proud to be Australians, not only because of the efficiency with which they do their job but because of the real esteem in which they are held by people who are the victims of massive human rights abuses.I would like to comment on the debate that the honourable member for Throsby talked about as to whether training should be for peacekeeping or for war. The lieutenant colonel who was attached to the committee, Simon Gould, made the very good point that there is no doubt that you need to have your fighting force trained for combat, for killing—that is what you have defence forces for; it is a most unpleasant business—but, when you are aware that there is a likely deployment, some valuable time can be spent in thinking about what the likely humanitarian or chapter 7 task is going to be and what you are likely to do, to start pre-paring for that. The Australian defence forces have yet to learn that lesson and it is something that we can pick up in our current report. This deployment, unlike any other, included not only full-time soldiers or ADF personnel but also some 600 reservists, and they not only served in East Timor but also filled holes back in Australia. We owe them a special thanks, particularly when you recollect the figures quoted by my colleague the shadow minister Mr Ferguson that some 20 per cent of reservists who served in the Gulf War—I think there were about 100,000—lost their jobs on return to United States. I ask the minister to keep a tally so that we have some understanding of the circum-stances of people, reservists in particular, returning to Australia.I have a lot of concerns about our defence situation and the lessons that may need to be learned out of East Timor. I particularly regret that neither the Minister for Foreign Affairs nor the Minister for Defence is really putting on the table what their experiences are, what their views are and what direction they will take. The honourable member for Throsby made a point that I think is a deeply disturbing one, and that is: was there, as the government has in-sinuated, an intelligence failure in the likely outcome of the poll? If there was a failure, the important point is that we need to understand what that failure entailed and how it may be addressed. I still think there is some benefit in a public discussion of this and in the ministers putting the matter on the public record. But clearly, from the Four Corners program and the leaked documents, there was no intelligence failure. Where does that leave us? Given Austra-lia knew very well the likely implications of the post-ballot period, what action did we take?It is true to say that it is without precedent that we did not have a secretary of Defence at the time. We had a secretary, Paul Barratt, who had got a good report card from Max Moore-Wilton and continued on in his post, and suddenly there was this confrontation with the min-ister. Putting that to one side, the result was that we did not have a secretary of the depart-ment. You have to understand the lengths the ADF went to, on both the military and civilian sides, to build relationships in our region. But the situation meant that that secretary could not pick up the phone and talk to his Indonesian counterpart. The other issue of concern is that I think it was also unprecedented that the calls that Minister Moore made to his counterpart, General Wiranto, were not answered. I cannot recall a precedent for this. It is most alarming.I asked what we could do with the intelligence that we had. Could we have tried to play the connections that we had made within Indonesia? Clearly that was failing; that was not possi-ble. But it would be interesting to know the extent to which we tried. The other thing we could have tried was to call in the one power that was going to have an effect, and ultimately did have an effect, and that was America. We are not in a position to know—and we should be in a position to know—whether or not attempts were made in that direction and what the response was, for whatever reason.That is the situation. I want to say—and I want to be generous about this point—that I thought the government did a very proper thing in getting an extra brigade up for extra readi-ness. Some might say, `Well, blind Freddy could have done that.' But they did it, and it is im-portant that they did it. It would have been absolutely horrific had that not been done. So I credit the government with that.I want to make this point: had our INTERFET forces been required to stay there for a longer period—some 18 months—we would have been awfully stretched. Also, I do not believe we could have handled a second emergency. From the parliament's point of view, it is wrong to have a member of parliament speculating about these matters. Where is the ministerial statement by the Minister for Defence that discusses these issues of our rotation and our ability to sustain another operation involving quite a number of personnel, albeit not on as large a scale? There is none. Questions were asked in the parliament on several occasions about how the troops were going to be rotated. Of course, the minister was most dismissive of the issue. `Don't you worry about that sort of thing'—apparently a Queensland mentality. Of course, the cat was out of the bag when one of the military officers briefed the press on rotational issues. It is disappointing that the minister could not have taken the parliament into his confidence. There is not only an issue of rotation; the issue is the extent to which we have had to scramble for equipment to get these extra units in readiness as a rotational force. What has that meant in terms of our other battalions? What is the manning level of those battalions? What is the equipment level? We do not have a picture of the actual numbers of people in battalions, their equipment level and what we need to remedy it. Here we are, in the largest deployment since Vietnam, having a debate in which we are speculating about these issues. This should not be a matter of speculation; it should be a matter of the Minister for Defence taking the people of Australia into his confidence and saying, `These are the things that I confront. These are the things that we need to see opened.' We have had two cabinet submissions lodged on the reserves. I do not know how long it has been going on, but we know it has been going on for months and months. There has been an announcement that we are going to be able to mobilise the reserve for peacekeeping. I absolutely support that. But the really difficult cabinet submission deals with the structure of the reserves and what is going to be done. Again, there is a real hiatus on the part of this government while we await the outcome of the strategic white paper. Are we saying that the government, which has commissioned the paper, which has a cabinet subcommittee dealing with the issues that will be in the white paper, has such a lack of knowledge about what the outcome will be that it cannot make critical decisions, that it cannot make a decision on the reserves? I think those decisions need to be made. I absolutely question the ADF's proposition that the only way we should use the reserves is to fill gaps in the full-time Army. I think it is an absolute waste of our reserve potential. We have 23,000 reserves, an establishment of 30,000, and they are a phantom army. We cannot use them in the way we are supposed to use them. I do not blame this on the government but I say that we need to address this issue. We have to work out where we are going to go. I am saying that this minister and the government should be taking the people of Australia into their confidence. Do they think that we need another Ready Reserve type scheme? Or are they quite satisfied with the current situation of the reserves? I am not; the reservists are not. The Army is not. They believe radical changes need to be made. Why can't we discuss these issues? Why is it that I am raising these issues in the House and the Minister for Defence is not putting out a statement about the current situation and the parameters for reform, so that we can have a decent debate? Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know, the joint committee has had a tradition of bipartisanship. We think these issues of national security are so important that, irrespective of our parties, we should work together in the national interest. But you cannot work together in a vacuum. So I am really disappointed.We have also got in the department this curious phenomenon of almost communist like self-criticism, as if they have been sent to special camps and need to confess their past sins. Any department needs to change and improve. I know this department is highly capable and professional, but still it would be the first to argue it should be improved, even significantly improved. We know that there is going to be a purge of staff. We know the Chief of Army is going; we know the CDF is going; we know the Secretary has already gone; and we know most of the deputy secretaries are on the way out. Is this the way to run such an important department, by purging the staff of the department? I have never seen a situation comparable to this. Talk to people and find out what their morale is. Here we are at a critical point in our nation's history where we need to make some real changes, and morale is at absolute zero. Despite this, we have a minister who will not make a statement, who will not take us into his confidence, and who cannot show us his light at the end of the tunnel. We are actually demonising the submarines to such an extent that the other weekend the Prime Minister had to say, `I think these subs are going to be a pretty terrific purchase.' That was the extent of the demonising of the acquisition process. More than most, I know what needs to be done to improve the acquisition and logistics process, and I support some changes there. But to get changes you do not have to demonise a department or demonise individuals. (Time expired)11:51:0015372Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, in making some comments on the report, A visit to East Timor, 2 December 1999, I feel somewhat inadequate after hearing both you and the member for Chifley. Both of you have been on so many of these critical defence visits. You have been to places like Somalia, Rwanda and East Timor. Nonetheless, as a new member I would like to make some comments that I believe take up some of the issues that both you and the member for Chifley have raised.Firstly, I would like to note that in my electorate one of the local government organisations, the City of Port Phillip, has organised what I hope will be a precursor to what many other cities in Australia will be doing: it is forming a joint relationship with the city of Suai, a city which is described in your report. In your remarks earlier you described the total destruction there, the burning down of all of the houses, the wrecking of the solid concrete buildings, and that there was not one person left in Suai when the ADF got there. Abel Guteress, the representative of the CNRT, was at the joint launch of the Port Phillip-Suai relationship, and I was very proud to see a municipality in my electorate initiating such a joint relationship. I hope that such a joint relationship will be established with a lot of towns in East Timor. I note that when Senators Payne and Bourne went to Suai—they had been there earlier to do the report around the time of the referendum—they said that the TNI-sponsored violence that destroyed Suai had left the entire place, like Dili, almost totally destroyed. They had seen it before the destruction, and they saw it afterwards when they were there with your mission, Mr Deputy Speaker.Let us remember the vote on 30 August in East Timor. Ninety-eight per cent of registered voters went to the polls and, of those, seventy-eight per cent voted for independence. What a triumph for the democratic spirit that was, that in the difficult circumstances of early last year 98 per cent of the people in that country who were registered to vote voted, and despite the violence 78 per cent of them voted for independence.I know there are some difficulties with the remarks by the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, about Indonesia and East Timor and that just this week, the foreign minister has been attempting to score points off the former Prime Minister. I was not in this place when the former Prime Minister was here but I do remember seeing him and the current foreign minister, who was then the Leader of the Opposition. It seems a shame to be very courageous in attacking the former Prime Minister when he is not here. Some people would say that the current foreign minister's courage in attacking Keating is in inverse proportion to the ability of the former Prime Minister to respond in this place and to his presence in the parliament.The Minister for Defence, Mr Moore, prior to the 30 August referendum, suggested—and so has the government—that the critical issue we should be looking at is the role that the gov-ernment took in demanding that there be a referendum. They argue—and this, in my view, is a simplicity that both the members for Chifley and Throsby addressed—that, if there had not been a referendum, there would be no independence in East Timor. No-one can disagree with that. If we had demanded, they say—as the shadow minister for foreign affairs requested con-tinually through the first half of last year—that there be a UN peacekeeping force, then there would have been no referendum. I do not think there is such a simplistic equation. The member for Chifley made a very in-teresting point when he focused on the inability of the Minister for Defence to get through to General Wiranto. It is interesting to note that when General Shelton, the Head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, eventually spoke to General Wiranto on the phone afterwards he was immedi-ately able to call off the TNI dogs of war and the violence in East Timor ceased almost imme-diately from the time that the head of the American Defense Force contacted General Wi-ranto. In a question on notice to the Minister for Defence, I asked:Since he has held the portfolio and prior to the 30 August 1999 referendum in East Timor had he (a) met with or (b) spoken in 1999 on the telephone to (i) Lt General Shelton, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, or (ii) William Cohen, the US Secretary of Defense; if so, (A) when and where was or were the meeting or meetings held, (B) where was or were the telephone calls made and (C) are there any notes, memoranda or other documentation concerning the (I) meeting or meetings ... The minister confirmed in his response to me that he had, in fact, spoken to General Shel-ton and Mr Cohen once in the entire period between becoming the minister and the violence in East Timor. I think that once is very significant in its singularity. In my view, the Minister for Defence should have been on the phone to the Americans in that period alerting them to the situation in East Timor. I believe that the Minister for Defence met the US Joint Chief, Gen-eral Shelton, at a public gathering in Washington on 5 May and that he spoke to Secre-tary Cohen at the same time. I believe that there were a number of opportunities that he did not take up in that period mentioned previously by the shadow minister for foreign affairs and the shadow minister for defence, and they should have been taken up. In that historical conun-drum we will find why the Indonesian military thought it could unleash its militia dogs of war.Much more positive circumstances have happened since then. I want to mention particu-larly the President of Indonesia, the new, democratically elected President Wahid, and his visit to Santa Cruz cemetery accompanied by the leader of the East Timorese people, Xanana Gusmao. That was a great act. It was an act of reconciliation that will perhaps in the future lead to some relationship between the Indonesian and East Timorese people being put on a more sensitive basis than the relationship has been conducted in the past.We still have some 1,500 Australian troops deployed in East Timor with the UN forces that are there. I note that 150 of them are reservists who have volunteered for full-time service and have undertaken months and months of training to achieve the kind of proficiency that our regular forces have. I can only echo what the member for Throsby and the member for Chi-fley said with regard to the professionalism of our forces. I have not been, as they have, to the various trouble spots in the world to see the ADF, nor have I been to Timor but recently, as the co-patron for the last several months of the Bandiana Safe Haven, which has been admini-stered by the ADF, it has been my pleasure to see the total professionalism with which those very sensitive circumstances have been conducted. If that is their behaviour overseas, then we have everything to be proud of.I believe Australia will have a presence, perhaps not militarily, in East Timor for a long time. The situation has been calmed down to a great extent by General Cosgrove and INTERFET. It is marvellous what those 9,000 INTERFET troops were able to accomplish, which 25,000 troops in the TNI were not able to. I am sure the Blue Berets of the UN will continue their work, but Australia will have a relationship with East Timor that goes far be-yond our military involvement and deployment there at the moment. The member for Throsby remarked rather ironically on the few people who were interested in the issue of East Timor and were able to be active in this parliament in keeping that issue alive over the last 25 years. Those people of course should be honoured, but I think the issue now has been burnt into the Australian consciousness. I hope the efforts of the municipality in my electorate in Port Phillip will be indicative of the Australian people's attitude to people in East Timor from now on. 12:02:0015374Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am very pleased to participate in this discussion this morning. I was not part of the delegation to which this report entitled A Visit to East Timor, 2 December 1999 refers, but I was in East Timor at about the same time on a trip with the Leader of the Opposition, and I have been there on one other occasion around that time.I think the fact that this parliament has taken such an active role and that the committee was so quick to make itself available, and indeed get the support of the government to take a trip to East Timor so early, is very important. It raises significant issues, as has been pointed out by the various speakers who have made a contribution. But as someone who has been associated with this issue since 1975 and someone who has spoken in this parliament on a number of occasions prior to the East Timorese being given their independence—at least in so far as they no longer have the Indonesian occupying force as an invader—I said that the Australian community owed the East Timorese a debt of honour. That debt of honour originated in the contribution made by the East Timorese to Australia's war effort in the protection of Australian commandos from the 2nd/2nd and 2nd/4th independent companies during 1942 and the early part of 1943. The records are clear about this. It is asserted that perhaps as many as 40,000 East Timorese died directly or indirectly as a result of the protection of a handful of Australians and there were very few casualties among those. It is therefore with some pleasure that I noted a report very recently in the media in which the East Timorese independence leader, Xanana Gusmao, gave Australia and General Cosgrove, who did such a magnificent job, high praise. He said that Australia had now repaid the historical debt owed to East Timorese soldiers killed by the Japanese in World War II for protecting Australian diggers. I quote, `Peter, you have now repaid the debt and we honour you for that.' I regard that as a very important statement. It is very important for Australia to understand that, as a result of its efforts over the last while, in the minds and eyes of the East Timorese leadership we have been able to settle that debt. I do not believe we have actually settled it in whole but at least in part. The work which has been done by the Australian military in particular, needs our highest commendation and it has been given on a number of occasions by many people in this parliament, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, so I am not going to repeat that praise.The contribution has been recognised of General Cosgrove and the Australian troops and indeed all of the forces from the United Nations who were involved. As the member for Chifley commented, the troops who are about to move into East Timor from 6RAR will be re-placing the Darwin based 5/7RAR under the control of Lieutenant Colonel Simon Gould. I just want to make the observation that these are troops from my electorate. A large number of them have been involved in East Timor since the United Nations force went in. They have done a magnificent job. I had the fortunate experience to be able to visit Lieutenant Colonel Gould in his headquarters whilst I was in Dili. I had a meal with him and met some of the troops. To me that was very important but really no more important than accepting that, whilst we give appropriate praise to these people who have been doing a very fine job in East Timor, we should also acknowledge the support that is being given to those troops by their fellow armed service personnel in Australia who, unfortunately from their point of view, were not able to share in that experience of being in East Timor, yet were vital to the success of that operation.I am now talking about the support people who have worked in and around Darwin in particular, whether military or civilian or police or customs, in assisting with the United Nations effort in East Timor. The defence force personnel who have worked their backsides off on an ongoing basis in Darwin in particular, I do not believe have received adequate recognition for the work they have done. I want to place on the public record—and I am sure it would be shared by all members of this parliament—our respect and applause for the very important and dignified way in which they have carried out their duties in supporting our personnel in East Timor. There is a range of issues which is now confronting us in relation to East Timor and I think those issues need to be recognised. We have an opportunity here, with the assistance of others, to be involved, in a very fortunate and important way, in developing a new nation. We need to acknowledge that it is a difficult task and that the East Timorese have required extreme patience in dealing with the presence of the United Nations and all the non-government organisations who have visited the community since the Indonesians withdrew. It is my belief that the United Nations administration has not been an altogether happy experience for many people. We need to acknowledge that, whilst we see on the surface the fine works that have been done and the words uttered by key personnel within the United Nations administration, a great deal of frustration is being felt by many within the United Nations bureaucracy in East Timor about their inability to be able to deliver services as promptly as the East Timorese would expect. That is something of which we should be very mindful. It is also important—and I believe it is a very important issue for this parliament and, indeed, for this country—that there ought to be the level of expertise available to the United Nations to carry out their work. It is my humble view—and I might well be wrong—that, in selecting the key leadership personnel to be involved in the United Nations administration, they have not necessarily chosen the right people. I believe that there is a shortage of people with appropriate public policy and public administration experience within the United Nations administration. That has been the cause of a lot of frustration. I have been involved directly in providing assistance in the form of getting gowns and wigs for judges in East Timor and in providing contact for people to provide furniture for these judges so that they can furnish their courts. I would have thought that was pretty pathetic, given the nature and importance of the maintenance of law and order. You would have expected that the United Nations would have moved heaven and earth to ensure that the resources were made available so that these judges and other court officials could be properly kitted out so that they could undertake their functions in an appropriate way. That was not done. That was no fault of the people in charge of that part of the operation in East Timor. It was simply as a result of the failure of the United Nations administration to ensure that funds were made available and that those resources were appropriately allocated so that the work could be properly done.It is also worth noting that there is a deal of dissatisfaction within elements of the United Nations administration about some of the policies which are being pursued within it. I note a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 March relating to infighting involving senior United Nations staff. It asserts that this is threatening the transition to independence. I believe that is true. I believe that much more needs to be done in terms of auditing the United Nations' performance in East Timor. Indeed, Australians should have a particular interest in that audit function. We need to be concerned that what we understood to be happening in East Timor is in fact happening. I am uncertain, frankly, whether the United Nations administration in East Timor is properly audited or, indeed, how the United Nations administration as a whole in relation to the East Timorese operation—that is, the headquarters in New York and the administration in Dili—is being monitored in terms of evaluating the outcomes of the investment which is being made. I quote from the article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 March:The policy dispute has led to the resignation of the UN's head of district administration, who claims “Stalinist” and “colonialist” practises by several senior staff members are jeopardising the UN mission. I know quite a few people who work within the United Nations administration and I have to say that, sadly, that view reflects theirs: there is potential for a real problem. We need to make very clear, through our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, what we think are accept-able performance criteria for the United Nations. There are very willing people involved in working with the United Nations in East Timor who are keen to facilitate the transition in a way which is acceptable not only to the international community but, most importantly, to the people of East Timor.I could say a great deal more about that but I will address, briefly, just one very important matter, the role of entrepreneurs who are going into East Timor. We should be very aware that there are a lot of carpetbaggers and spivs who have made it their will and their intention to rip off the East Timorese and the international community, and we have got to be concerned that these people may be given credibility by the Australian media. I have heard a story which is very unsettling to me, that a reputable organisation from Australia went into East Timor in October or November, made an arrangement with a person who occupied a dwelling that they could use that dwelling for administrative purposes and subsequently, through a range of pro-cesses, demolished the dwelling and built a hotel. This was without the approval, I under-stand, of the United Nations, the local administration or the person who owned the property.It seems to me that, if this sort of practice is happening, we as Australians should be most concerned. I note a report from the Age of 26 February of some words by a leading East Timorese businessman, Oscar Lima, a person whom I know:Oscar Lima says business is welcome, but only in legitimate joint ventures that ensure some profits stay with the Timorese people. Anyone seeking a quick buck need not apply, he says.“You see, we've heard it before. In the old days the Indonesians said they were going to come here and help the Timorese. In the end they left nothing, they took everything, and left us here to start again from zero. This time we want people who are going to help us, to teach us, to assist us and when they leave us we have something to continue on with.”That should be a fundamental objective. We should be most concerned that any Australian businesses which are seeking to operate in East Timor do so with the highest regard to their obligations to the East Timorese community and to the Australian community. (Time expired)12:18:0015376Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in the Main Committee today to congratulate the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its report A visit to East Timor, 2 December 1999. This very useful report covers a range of issues arising from the INTERFET operation in East Timor and, in particular, the most excellent military deployment led by General Cosgrove. I would like to address just a couple of issues which arise from the report and which are related to it. The first concerns the events leading up to the initial deployment of INTERFET; the second is our current delivery of aid to East Timor, and in that respect I note and support the comments just made by my colleague the member for the Northern Territory; and the third is our aid delivery and broader diplomacy as it relates to the repatriation of the 100,000 East Timorese still resident in refugee camps in West Timor.On the first of these questions, which is the events leading up to the INTERFET deployment last September, I noted carefully and support entirely the comments made by my colleague the member for Chifley on this point earlier in this debate. There was no failure of intelligence, as far as the Australian intelligence community is concerned, about a probable range of scenarios which could have ensued after the conduct of the ballot on East Timorese independence on 30 August 1999. What we do not know, however, is the nature of the analy-sis made by the Australian policy community in response to that intelligence, nor do we know precisely, in all the detail, the arguments underpinning the precise nature of the government's response to the analysis thus delivered. I am not privy to the intelligence traffic, I am not privy to the policy analysis undertaken, nor am I privy to the ultimate policy advice provided to the government and the basis for it. I have, however, worked in this sphere for many years in a previous incarnation. I would simply observe, as an external analyst of those events, that it was an entirely credible scenario that, in the event of the East Timorese voting decisively for an independence outcome on 30 August last year, there would be an adverse reaction by pro-Indonesian militia and that that could or would have been supported by the regular armed forces of the Republic of Indonesia, TNI. It was not necessarily the case that that would have been the only scenario but, using the tools of credible policy and intelligence analysis, it was a credible scenario which could have ensued.The government's policy response to the intelligence that it was receiving seems, to the external observer, to have been one which was primarily driven by hope over analysis; a hope that things would turn out in the end; a hope that, if there was a strong and decisive vote for independence on 30 August, the Indonesian government of the time, exercising command and control, as it hoped, over the Indonesian armed forces at the time, would have accepted the outcome of the verdict and simply packed up and gone home. As we know from the events which did ensue, that did not occur.The argument which I wish to advance today is simply what could have occurred and should have occurred in the immediate weeks prior to 30 August last year and immediately subsequent to it. I refer to the specific diplomatic challenge which existed at that time—given there was a credible scenario that things would go radically wrong after 30 August in terms of the maintenance of security within Dili and elsewhere in East Timor—on the negotiation of heads of agreement of a prospective and possible multinational force for immediate deployment to East Timor should that scenario have unfolded.As I said before, the government seems to have operated at the time on the assumption that it would all work out in the end. When it unfolded that it did not work out in the end, the previous policy position of hope over analysis seems to have yielded to one of panic over analysis, because what then unfolded was the unsightly public performance of a prime minister and a foreign minister publicly negotiating with the President of the United States and the Secretary of State of the United States about when, if and in what form the United States would participate in any military deployment in East Timor. The member for Melbourne Ports, who spoke earlier in this debate, made similar observations, which I would support. There was a mad scramble to cobble together—A division having occurred in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.24 p.m. to 12.50 p.m.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—When events turned sour on the ground in Dili and in other parts of East Timor immediately after the independence ballot on 30 August last year, there was not an orderly policy response from the government to what was previously quite a conceivable scenario. What we saw, in fact, was a mad scramble to try to cobble together two things: at the diplomatic level, a coalition at the United Nations in order to obtain the necessary mandate to underpin any subsequent deployment of an international force; and, secondly and simultaneously, a credible multinational force capable of giving execution to such a mandate. As I said before, we saw the public manifestation of all this when the Prime Minister and the foreign minister became engaged in a public debate with representatives of the US administration on the extent of US participation in such a multinational force. In fact, this was handled in such a manner that it led to something approaching an Australian public opinion confidence crisis in the ultimate underpinnings of the alliance. We had been taught for gen-erations in this country that if we were part of the ANZUS alliance and Australia found itself in difficulty, under the terms and spirit of the treaty, military assistance from the United States could comfortably be relied upon. Short of the formal terms and operational clauses of the treaty, the treaty had nonetheless provided a framework within which such consultations could occur over a long period of time. The disturbing thing from the analytical community's perspective is: what substantively did the government, prior to the events of 30 August and the two weeks subsequent to it, do in their highest level diplomatic communications with the administration in Washington? The Prime Minister, not long before then, had visited Washington and met with President Clinton. We presume that the foreign minister, Mr Downer, had met on a number of occasions with his US counterpart. We presume also that there had been some contact between the Australian defence minister, Mr Moore, and his American contact. What we know as an empirical fact is that by the time we got to the first week after 30 August last year, when all of Australia could see on their television sets that the security situation in East Timor was falling apart at the seams, the plain reality was that we had no heads of agreement for any level of military coop-eration with the United States, nor any public statement from them in terms of the extent that they were willing to participate in such a force. Things became so desperate that we had pub-lic beratings of President Clinton by the Australian Prime Minister as the Australian public and community reaction became more intense. As I said in my earlier remarks, I, as a member of the opposition, was not privy to any of the diplomatic communications which occurred at this time, nor to the precise content of the intelligence despatches which would have been delivered to the government here in Canberra, as well as, I presume, in part if not in whole, shared with the US administration in Washing-ton. However, at about that time I actually had the chance to meet with the chairman of the US House Subcommittee on Asia and Pacific Affairs, which is a subcommittee of the House Foreign Relations Committee of the US Congress. I had extensive discussions with him in Sydney and some later discussions with him here in Canberra. This was just prior to the events of 30 August. The discussion was about possible US participation in such a force should the scenario which I referred to earlier in my address to the Main Committee today actually come to pass. Very interestingly, the congressman's response to me was that there was zero possibility of the United States participating in an up-front military involvement with Australia. There would be some capacity for the United States, he told me at that stage, to participate in the provision of heavy lift capacity in order to deliver international troops to East Timor as well as broader support in communications and intelligence. However, the proposition that there would be American foot soldiers landing on the equivalent of Omaha Beach with Australian diggers in the deployment of an INTERFET force was not on the radar screen of possibilities.I would submit that the chairman of the relevant US house subcommittee on this matter was in a position of reasonable authority to speak on these questions. His reasons were simply that this was our theatre of engagement and the US was more than happy to play a support role but not a direct role. That conversation occurred just prior to 30 August, yet for the two weeks subsequent to 30 August we had the Prime Minister and the foreign minister engaged in this extraordinary public diplomacy, the implication and often stated assumption of which was that a credible US deployment would only consist of troops on the ground.The consequence of this was that we had, for a period in excess of a week, coming out of the Prime Minister's management of this diplomacy, a substantial public questioning in Aus-tralia of the continued relevance of this alliance. What the Australian public were not aware of was that at a substantive level the US was never going to commit to troops on the ground, whatever the public rhetoric of the Australian government may have been at the time. I be-lieve the Australian government should have brought the Australian community into the picture, there and then, that this was not a prospect. But instead we had some damage done to public standing of the alliance. This is not a view held uniquely by me; it is a view held by others, who have professional custodianship for the US-Australia bilateral relationship. There was a second consequence of the failure on Australia's part, at a private diplomatic level prior to the events of 30 August, to have a heads of agreement as to precisely what would constitute the elements of a force in being. That consequence was that what General Wiranto and others saw on their television screens from Jakarta was a weak and divided rabble which was the broader international community of nations' response to the unfolding security scenario on the streets of Dili and elsewhere in East Timor. We can safely conclude that when General Wiranto saw one thing—weakness, and a lack of resolve and of unity on the part of the countries which were interested in possibly participating in such a force—Wiranto's response on that basis was that TNI, supporting the militia, could afford to continue the sorts of tactics which they were then adopting and which, as we know, were highly destructive, in terms not just of the civilian population but also of the public infrastructure of Indonesia.We know also that the only time at which Wiranto and others finally took heed of the international community's reaction and acceded, through the Indonesian government, to the deployment of an international force under a UN mandate, was when the US administration got on the telephone to him and told him the game was up. My simple thesis, as it relates to those critical events at that critical time juncture, is this: there was a failure of Australian diplomacy. Those sorts of communications should have been held on the basis of credible scenario planning well prior to 30 August—even two weeks prior to 30 August would have been sufficient—so that, if that scenario unfolded in the first week of September, as subsequently proved to be the case, then both the negotiations with the Americans on the composition of a military force and the appropriate statements to be made by the US administration to Indonesia would have been secured, and we would probably not have seen the level of destruction and loss of life that we saw in the period which followed.We have seen in the House of Representatives this week some extraordinary performances by the foreign minister, criticising former Prime Minister Keating and others associated with his administration in terms of their knowledge of Asia. I would simply suggest that we would have faced a much greater crisis in our diplomacy in the region, and in relation to East Timor, had the minister's diplomacy not been masked to some extent by the professionalism of his department and the professionalism of General Cosgrove on the ground. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 12.59 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing15380The following answers to questions were circulated:15380(Question No. 885)88515380Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 26 August 1999:(1) Will he provide details on the level and effectiveness of Government programs since 1996 designed to deal with hearing impairment within the indigenous community.(2) What funds have been allocated to hearing services since 1996, and what proportion of those funds was used to service the needs of the indigenous community.(3) What proportion of funding for hearing services was used in programs to prevent hearing impairment in Aboriginal children.(4) Will he provide details of hearing impairment programs to prevent the onset of hearing impairment for indigenous children.(5) Is he able to say how long it will be before it will be possible to provide preventative medicine for all newborn indigenous children so that they do not contract hearing impairment diseases.(6) Are future programs proposed to eradicate all acquired hearing impairment from the indigenous communities; if so, what are the details.15380Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government's approach to hearing impairment within Indigenous communities is based on recognising the importance of primary health care in preventing ear diseases which may lead to hearing loss, and the provision of hearing services to assist where hearing impairment has occurred.General Primary Health FocusThe Department of Health and Aged Care has developed a comprehensive long-term strategic framework for improving Indigenous health. Implicit in this framework is the recognition that there are no easy or quick solutions in the area of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. The strategy has four main components: - Developing the infrastructure and resources necessary to achieve comprehensive and effective primary health care for Indigenous peoples;- Addressing some of the specific health issues and risk factors affecting the health status of Indigenous peoples;- Improving the evidence base which underpins the health interventions; and - Improving communication with primary health care services, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the general population.Achievement of the first component is primarily through the funding and development of a national network of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations. As the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations provide comprehensive primary health care, it is not possible to report on the extent to which resources in any service are specifically committed towards the prevention, identification and treatment of hearing impairment among Indigenous people.The Commonwealth has increased the level of funding provided through the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health from $130.6m in 1996/97 to $155.2m in 1998/99 with a further increase announced in the May 1999 budget of approximately $100m over the next four years.Hearing Strategy Building on the national network of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations and in response to recommended goals of the National Aboriginal Health Strategy (1989), the Minister in December 1996 approved implementation of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Hearing Strategy 1995/96 - 1998/1999.The aim is to provide a strategic approach to improving Indigenous hearing health by targeting children 0-5 years through primary health care organisations, with a focus on hearing and broader child health services. The strategy consists of four main elements: Child Hearing Health Sites : 30Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations were identified as the Child Hearing Health Sites to incorporate hearing screening and treatment into a comprehensive 0-5 year old child health program. Specialist hearing health workers have been employed in some centres to improve coordination and continuity of care between health care and education sectors at the regional level. Equipment and Training : An audiometric equipment and two-stage training program is being provided to Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations funded by the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (OATSIH). The equipment and training program is delivered by Australian Hearing Services through a MOU with OATSIH. - Since 1996, 466 Aboriginal Health Workers have participated in hearing health training, with 191 Aboriginal Health Workers having completed both stages of the training program;- To date, 95 sets of audiometric equipment have been issued to Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations together with an ongoing equipment maintenance and calibration regime. Capital Infrastructure Program : Soundproof testing facilities have been provided in 15 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (with a further 14 awaiting completion) to improve access to community based specialist hearing testing facilities.Strategic Research : The Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health in conjunction with the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Aboriginal community controlled health sector, have undertaken a process to identify agreed best practice evidence based protocols for secondary and tertiary treatment for hearing impairment. This has provided a framework for a more strategic approach to hearing health research which reflects the importance of otitis media and hearing impairment as a key health issue in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. In addition, this shifts the historical focus from medical and epidemiological issues to service delivery and action-oriented research. Two projects in this area have recently been funded through the NHMRC.An evaluation of the hearing services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, involving the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and the Office of Hearing Services will be conducted this financial year. (2) As indicated above, it is not possible to identify, from the funding provided to Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, the proportion going towards Indigenous hearing activities specifically. These services adopt a holistic approach to primary health care of which hearing health is but one component. The 1995/96 Federal Budget allocated $5.7m over four years for the specific Hearing Strategy described above for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. Australian Hearing Services (the public hearing services provider) is funded to provide a range of services as `community service obligations' (CSOs). Last financial year total funding for `community service obligations' was $26m. The funding is for the provision of hearing services to Australian young adults and children up to 21 years of age; eligible adults with special needs or living in remote areas; eligible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and for research.It is estimated that 2728 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people received services from Australian Hearing Services in 1998-99 through the CSO funding. In addition, about 100 applicants (out of a total of 130,000 applications for a Hearing Services Voucher received by the Office of Hearing Services) identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults and received hearing services through the Voucher System. These numbers are almost certainly an underestimate because they are derived from self-identification by the client on the Voucher Application Form.(3) As already noted, Australian Hearing Services is funded to provide a range of functions that together are called `community service obligations'. Last financial year total funding for `community service obligations' was $26m. The Government currently does not specify how the funding is to be broken down against these groups, but expenditure on all children (including Indigenous people) was approximately $17m in 1998-99.(4) Australian Hearing Services has a full-time National Indigenous Services Manager. In each State and Territory there is a senior audiologist who is the Australian Hearing Services Indigenous Programs Co-ordinator. Each Australian Hearing Services Hearing Centre has a designated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander contact officer. All of these people work closely with local Indigenous community organisations and individuals. Australian Hearing Services works collaboratively with various government and non-government agencies who are also involved in the provision of services to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. An example of this would be the Australian Hearing Services program of assistance to the Tiwi people on Bathurst Island, where they work closely with the Menzies School of Hearing Research and the Northern Territory Health Department.During 1998-99 Australian Hearing Services audiologists made a total of 260 visits to 97 Indigenous communities and sites. Many of these visits were for a period of up to one week.Specialist audiologists who deal with these children are able to relate to and work with Indigenous individuals and communities, and to have a thorough knowledge of otitis media and its sequelae, especially as it affects Indigenous children. Services are delivered to Indigenous Australians either in a Hearing Centre, or through an extensive outreach program. There is emphasis on working with the family and community to get the best outcomes. Ongoing arrangements for outreach services are negotiated with the community, taking into account the numbers of new and on-going clients who require services, and the level of support required by Aboriginal Health Workers and teachers. Australian Hearing Services also provides appropriate individual and classroom amplification devices.(5) Essentially there is no medicine to absolutely prevent hearing impairment diseases which are the result of the interaction of a complex number of factors. Factors including inadequate accommodation, overcrowding and limited access to clean water, contribute to high rates of cross-infection. Poor diets also place the population at risk because of lower immunity to infection.(6) In addition to the above, in October 1998 the Government, recognising the need for further research in this area of hearing health for Indigenous people, called for expressions of interest to conduct research into the priority areas identified as primary prevention, secondary prevention, social and behavioural factors and surgical issues. The criteria used in the selection process included, in addition to scientific merit and relevance to the objectives of the program, three others specifically identified as relevant to research in Indigenous health. These were the transferability and sustainability of the research and the level of community participation. The two projects recently approved for NHMRC funding include a focus on the major priority areas identified for research including surgical and social/behavioural issues. The first project at $178,840 to be administered by the Kimberley Public Health Unit is to conduct a two-year scientific project; “Evaluation of tympanoplasty in Aboriginal children in WA and factors associated with successful outcome”. The project will evaluate the outcome of operations done to repair ear drums in Aboriginal children and identify factors associated with a successful outcome. The second project at $153,458 to be administered by TVW Telethon Institute of Child Health Research is to conduct a two-year scientific project; “Socioeconomic risk factors and treatment-seeking behaviour for otitis media in the Aboriginal population of Kalgoorlie-Boulder region.”The project will investigate socioeconomic factors predisposing to ear infections and their effect on compliance with treatment in Indigenous populations of the Kalgoorlie-Boulder region.15382(Question No. 1068)106815382Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr Ripoll83EOxleyALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 December 1999:(1) How many aged persons does the Government estimate will qualify for the Aged Persons Saving Bonus component under subsection 12(1) the A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Act.(2) How many qualifying persons does the Government expect will receive less than $500 under the scheme.(3) How many aged pensioners does the Government expect will receive no bonus at all.(4) How many self-funded retirees does the Government estimate will be eligible to receive the Self-Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus component pursuant to subsection 12(2) of the A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Act.(5) How many qualifying self-funded retirees does the Government estimate will receive less than $500 under the scheme.(6) How many self-funded retirees does the Government expect will receive nothing at all. 15383Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 1,160,340.(2) 838,818.(3) This will be known once the final number of claimants is known.(4) and (5) Subsection 12(2) refers to Family and Community Services customers of aged pension age, who are neither in the tax nor social security system. Between 15,000 and 20,000 of such persons are estimated to receive the Self-Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus. Of these, few are expected to receive less than $500 of the Self-Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus, as they are expected to have savings and investment income and spouse income high enough so as to make them ineligible for the pension.(6) The Department of Treasury does not hold income information for the entire Australian population of self-funded retirees. As such, it is unable to reliably estimate the number of self-funded retirees who will receive no bonus at all.15383(Question No. 1106)110615383Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:(1) Enter all parts of the question as they appear on the notice(2) How many nursing homes and aged person hostels are there within the electoral division of Prospect.(3) How many of these nursing homes and aged person hostels are operated by (a) private companies and (b) church organisations.(4) What sum of Commonwealth funding did each nursing home and aged person hostel within the electoral division of Prospect receive in (a) 1999-2000, (b) 1998-99, (c) 1997-98 and (d) 1996-97.(5) How many beds are there in each nursing home and aged person hostel.(6) How many beds are being used in each nursing home and aged person hostel.(7) How many beds were there in each nursing home and aged person hostel in (a) 1998-99, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1996-97.(8) How many persons are on waiting lists for each nursing home and aged person hostel.15383Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The answers to questions 1 to 6 are provided on the attached table.Question 7 cannot be answered as we do not collect information on waiting lists, which are managed by individual residential care services.I am releasing this information in respect of 1996-97 and 1997-98 under the National Health Act as being in the public interest. 97 - 98Needs bits from TO1996 / 19971996 / 97OUT_ELECTORATEOUT_OUTLET_IDOUT_NAMESumOfPAY_AMOUNTPROSPECTSPARC0350CHARLIE WOODWARD LODGE$104,100$55,540$159,640$96,970PROSPECTSPARC0357HEIDEN PARK LODGE$578,467$249,411$827,878$482,013PROSPECTSPARC0397ROSARY VILLAGE HOSTEL$400,037$200,290$600,327$356,142PROSPECTSPARC2504FAIRFIELD NURSING HOME$1,822,129$594,978$2,417,107$2,458,056PROSPECTSPARC2536VILLAWOOD NURSING HOME$2,322,707$812,260$3,134,967$3,260,288PROSPECTSPARC2569MERRYLANDS NURSING HOME$2,331,924$739,456$3,071,380$2,940,794PROSPECTSPARC2703BOSSLEY PARK NURSING HOME$2,309,884$769,870$3,079,753$3,229,310PROSPECTSPARC2822NYORA GARDENS NURSING HOME$1,617,848$251,130$1,868,978$360,976Sum of Sum Of Amount ($)YearRACS ID297-10FY95/96FY96/97Grand TotalSPARC2504594978.22268762.222458055.745321796.16SPARC2536812259.753003597.043260288.47076145.19SPARC2569739456.142560561.712940793.796240811.64SPARC2703769869.572915543.863229310.436914723.86SPARC2822251130.02360976.14612106.16Grand Total3167693.6810748464.812249424.526165583.01RACSAmountPeriod35055539.697-10357249411.2297-10397200289.5897-1035096970.05FY9697357482012.6FY9697397356141.65FY9697Sum of AmountPeriodRACS97-10FY9697Grand Total35055539.696970.05152509.7357249411.2482012.6731423.8397200289.6356141.7556431.2Grand Total505240.4935124.31440365RACS ID2NameSumOfAmount ($)YearOUT_ELECTORATESPARC2504FAIRFIELD NURSING HOME594978.297-10PROSPECTSPARC2504FAIRFIELD NURSING HOME2268762.22FY95/96PROSPECTSPARC2504FAIRFIELD NURSING HOME2458055.74FY96/97PROSPECTSPARC2536VILLAWOOD NURSING HOME812259.7597-10PROSPECTSPARC2536VILLAWOOD NURSING HOME3003597.04FY95/96PROSPECTSPARC2536VILLAWOOD NURSING HOME3260288.4FY96/97PROSPECTSPARC2569MERRYLANDS NURSING HOME739456.1497-10PROSPECTSPARC2569MERRYLANDS NURSING HOME2560561.71FY95/96PROSPECTSPARC2569MERRYLANDS NURSING HOME2940793.79FY96/97PROSPECTSPARC2703BOSSLEY PARK NURSING HOME769869.5797-10PROSPECTSPARC2703BOSSLEY PARK NURSING HOME2915543.86FY95/96PROSPECTSPARC2703BOSSLEY PARK NURSING HOME3229310.43FY96/97PROSPECTSPARC2822NYORA GARDENS NURSING HOME251130.0297-10PROSPECTSPARC2822NYORA GARDENS NURSING HOME360976.14FY96/97PROSPECT15385(Question No. 1206)120615385Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:(1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an invention called a Face Emplaced Services Support device, designed for use in the underground coal mining industry (Patent Application Number PCT/AU92/00555 and PCT/AU95/00038).(2) If so, who (a) has owned the intellectual property and (b) is the current owner.(3) Are any Australian and international companies involved in underground mining using the Face Emplaced Services Support device; if so, which companies.(4) What is the estimated value of the intellectual property to Australia.15385Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes.(2) IP Australia's records indicate that the ownership details are as follows: PCT/AU92/00555 Patentees: John Edwin Pink (Patent No.668524) Brian Lesley Joseph Buffier; Barbara Joan O'Brien PCT/AU95/00038 Applicants: John Edwin Pink; Barbara Joan O'Brien According to IP Australia's records, both the patent and the application have lapsed. (3) There are a large number of Australian and international companies involved in underground mining. My Department does not have details of the particular types of technology all these companies are using.(4) The Government is not in a position to determine the value of this intellectual property. This is a matter determined by the market, and is dependent on many factors. Success in the marketplace is the ultimate test of the commercial worth of an invention.15386(Question No. 1275)127515386Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 16 March 2000:(1) Have mobile phone complaints increased by 42% nation-wide in the last twelve months.(2) Do the majority of complaints relating to mobile phones relate to users not being made aware of the terms and conditions of the contracts they have entered into.(3) What action is the Government taking to ensure that users are aware of the terms and conditions of their contracts.15386McGauran, 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:The Government does not have data on the total number of complaints about mobile phone contracts and therefore cannot confirm whether complaints have increased by 42%. The Government would expect that most complaints would be made directly to the telephone company. Complaints may also be made to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), and various State and Territory courts and tribunals such as the New South Wales Office for Fair Trading.As the Government is not a party to complaints made to telephone companies, the TIO, the ACCC or State and Territory agencies it is unable to confirm whether the majority of complaints regarding contracts relate to users not being made aware of the terms and conditions.The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts sought input from the TIO and the ACCC regarding complaints related to mobile telephones, and in particular complaints relating to contracts.The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), the body responsible for handling complaints about mobile phones that are not resolved by the telephone company, has supplied the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts with a breakdown of mobile telephone complaints received by them over the last two years:. In the period 1 March 1998 to 28 February 1999 4,782 complaints about mobile telephone services were received by the TIO; and. For the period 1 March 1999 to 29 February 2000 the total number of complaints rose by 22% to 6,150:. Over this period the proportion of complaints related to mobile telephone contracts remained steady at around 63% of all complaints to the TIO. This suggests the increase in complaints to the TIO is probably due to a greater awareness by consumers of the TIO scheme, and not due to increasing problems with mobile contracts.The ACCC has informed the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts that it received 241 complaints regarding mobile telephones for the period 1 March 1998 to 1 March 1999. In the period 1March 1999 to 1 March 2000 the total number of complaints received by the ACCC increased by 13% to 278. The ACCC is not able to say how many of these complaints related to contracts.There are a number of existing safeguards to protect consumers from unfair or misleading contracts:. The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) has made a requirement that all telephone services, including mobile telephone services, that are supplied under a standard form of agreement must be accompanied by a plain language statement outlining the terms and conditions of the agreement.- At present mobile telephones that are supplied on individual contracts do not have to be accompanied by such a statement. . General rights under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA). The TPA is administered by the ACCC.. Access to the TIO scheme.. Industry codes of practice developed by the telecommunications industry's self-regulatory body: the Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF).In September 1999 the Communications Law Centre (CLC) released a report into the usage of mobile phones by young people. This work, which was funded jointly by the Commonwealth Government and the Victorian Consumer Credit Fund, found that a large number of young consumers did not fully understand the individual contracts that they were asked to sign. The CLC report recommended that:. All mobile phone contracts should be accompanied by a plain language statement explaining the terms and conditions of the agreement; and. The Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF), the telecommunications industry's self-regulatory body, should develop an industry code of practice that:- Incorporates the plain language statement explaining the terms and conditions of the agreement; and- Includes a cooling off period, and guidelines allowing consumers to change mobile plans without penalty, other than the reasonable costs of effecting the transfer.The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts subsequently wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of ACIF on 21 January 2000 to draw its attention to the findings of the CLC report.The Government believes that ACIF, as the telecommunications industry self-regulatory authority, is the appropriate organisation to develop a code of practice for mobile telephone contracts. If ACIF chose not to develop a code of practice for mobile telephone services the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts may issue a Direction to the Australian Communications Authority to develop a compulsory code of practice that all telephone companies must adhere to.