2000-10-123917REPS2140702000-10-12—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills21407R116621407Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.2140709:31:0021407Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000 is a cognate bill to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000, which I introduced on 28 June 2000. The latter bill will establish the Administrative Review Tribunal, or ART, as it has become known.Four merits review tribunals—the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, AAT, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, SSAT, the Migration Review Tribunal, MRT, and the Refugee Review Tribunal, RRT—will be amalgamated in order to establish the Administrative Review Tribunal. The government is honouring its commitment to the veteran community by retaining the Veterans Review Board and providing for its decisions to be reviewed by the new tribunal.The establishment of the ART will be the most significant reform to the federal merits review system in 25 years. The ART will become the Commonwealth's principal merits review tribunal, providing ready access to review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. It will operate in a `user-friendly' manner and will have the capacity to tailor its procedures to suit the requirements of particular classes of applicants.The bill I am introducing today forms the second part of the ART legislative package. It makes provision for the following matters.First, it provides for the abolition of the existing tribunals, the AAT, SSAT, MRT and RRT, and for the repeal of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and of other legislative provisions that establish and provide for the operation of the existing tribunals.Secondly, it contains amendments to acts that currently confer jurisdiction on the existing tribunals, so that, on the abolition of those tribunals, that jurisdiction is conferred on the ART.Thirdly, it makes specific provision for procedures to be followed by the ART in reviewing specified classes of decisions.Fourthly, the bill contains provisions of a transitional nature. These include provisions for review by the ART of decisions made before the ART commences operations, where such decisions have not already been reviewed by an existing tribunal. It also contains provisions for appeals and references from decisions made by the existing tribunals where the appeals or references have not been completed by the time the ART commences operations. The bill also provides for the transfer to the ART of matters that, just before the ART commences operations, are before the AAT, SSAT, MRT or RRT.Preparation of the consequential and transitional provisions bill has been a very large undertaking, which involved all departments and many agencies. I therefore introduced the main bill before this bill so that the parliament and the community could examine the general provisions that will establish the new tribunal and provide for its structure, membership and procedures.The ART Bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee. The committee will also have the opportunity to examine this bill.The consequential and transitional provisions bill contains six clauses providing for the following matters: the short title of the bill (clause 1), the commencement of its provisions (clause 2), the repeal of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, AAT Act, (clauses 3 and 4), the amendment of legislation as set out in the schedules to the bill (clause 5), and the making of transitional and savings regulations (clause 6). There are 18 schedules to the bill. My comments provide a brief overview of each schedule.Schedules 1 and 2 will replace references in Commonwealth acts to the AAT and the AAT Act with, respectively, references to the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2000.Schedule 3 makes consequential amendments to various acts. The amendments are necessary as a result of the differences in structure between the current tribunals and the ART, and differences in terminology between the existing legislative provisions and the ART Bill. In some circumstances, the amendments to be made by schedule 3 effect more substantive, though minor, changes to the current review regime. Those amendments are designed to further the objectives of the ART reforms.Schedules 4 and 5set out procedures for the review by the ART of adverse or qualified security assessments. The Commercial and General Division of the ART will be called the Security Appeals Division when reviewing such assessments. Special procedures are currently used for such reviews, and will continue to be required. They are necessary in order to protect the confidentiality of security intelligence and information used by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in making security assessments and to protect other evidence and documents that may be given to the ART for the purpose of reviewing security assessments. Present procedures operate well and provide an appropriate balance between the right of applicants to procedural fairness and the needs of security. Consequently, the schedules make minimal changes to the present arrangements.Schedule 6 makes consequential amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in respect of the review of certain taxation decisions. In particular, it provides that the ART Bill is subject to the modifications set out in the schedule to that act, which is to be inserted by schedule 7 of this bill.Schedule 7 adds schedule 2 to the Taxation Administration Act, to provide for the modified application of the ART Bill to the review of certain decisions made under that act. Generally, the modifications will retain existing procedures for the review of taxation decisions.The Small Taxation Claims Tribunal, currently operating under the umbrella of the AAT, will be retained in the ART. However, its jurisdictional limit will be changed. Experience has demonstrated that the amount in issue in the review of an objection decision is not necessarily indicative of the complexity of the matter. Schedule 7 therefore raises the monetary limit in the Small Claims Tribunal to $15,000 and at the same time imposes an additional requirement that the matter must be able to be conducted quickly or easily and does not raise an issue of general significance.Schedule 8 makes consequential amendments to enable the ART to review decisions made by the Veterans' Review Board regarding veterans' entitlements. Such reviews are to take place in the Veterans' Appeals Division of the ART. Schedule 8 also provides that the ART Bill, in relation to applications for review of decisions made under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, is subject to the modifications set out in the schedule to that act, which is to be inserted by schedule 9 to this bill.The schedule to the Veterans' Entitlements Act that is to be inserted by schedule 9makes provision for reviews by the ART of decisions of the Veterans' Review Board to be treated as second-tier reviews. This is because the board provides first-tier external review of veteran decisions. Veterans will have a right to review by the ART of decisions made by the board.The retention of the Veterans' Review Board and veterans' rights to a second-tier of review is part of the government's commitment to the veterans community. The government accepts the need for a specialised review mechanism for veterans. Part 1 of schedule 10 makes consequential amendments to enable the ART to review decisions made under the Social Security Act 1991. Review by the ART will replace review by the SSAT and AAT. Social security reviews will be conducted in the Income Support Division of the ART. The amendments made by schedule 10 will incorporate many of the existing features of review by the SSAT into the ART regime. Part 2 of schedule 10 makes similar amendments in relation to decisions made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.Presently, decisions in relation to social security matters are generally reviewable internally, after which an application may be made to the SSAT. SSAT decisions are reviewable by the AAT. Under the amendments, after internal review, applications for first-tier review can be made to the ART, after which second-tier review can also be sought on the grounds set out in the ART bill. Schedule 10 also provides that the ART bill, in relation to applications for review of decisions made under the Social Security (Administration) Act, is subject to the modifications set out in the schedule to that act, which is to be inserted by schedule 11 of the bill.Schedule 11 replaces schedule 3 of the Social Security (Administration) Act, to provide for the modified application of the ART bill to the review of decisions made under that act. Most of the modifications involve changing references to `decision maker' in the ART Bill to `Secretary'. This is to take account of the fact that decision making powers under the social security legislation are vested in the Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services and then delegated.Schedule 12 makes similar amendments to those made by schedule 10 to empower the ART to deal with the review of decisions regarding family assistance payments. Schedule 12 will provide for applications for first-tier review to be made to the ART, in the Income Support Division, after which second-tier review can be sought on the grounds set out in the ART Bill. Schedule 12 also provides that the ART bill, in relation to applications for review of decisions made under A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, is subject to the modifications set out in the schedule to that act, which is to be inserted by schedule 13 of this bill.Schedule 13 adds a schedule to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act to provide for the modified application of the ART Bill to the review of decisions made under that act. Most of the modifications involve changing references to `decision maker' in the ART Bill to `Secretary'. This is to take account of the fact that decision making powers under the family assistance legislation, as with the social security legislation, are vested in the Secretary and then delegated.Part 1 of Schedule 14 amends the Migration Act 1958. These amendments will have the effect of creating a self-contained code for the conduct of immigration and refugee reviews, most of which will be reviewed in the Immigration Review Division of the ART. This code will effectively replace parts 4 to 10 of the ART Bill.Overall, the effect of the amendments will be to retain the general structure of review presently conducted by the MRT and the RRT. Currently, most decisions are reviewable by either the MRT (for most visa decisions made under the Migration Act) or the RRT (regarding protection visas). These types of decisions will be covered by the regime established under new part 5 of the Migration Act.A small number of decisions made under the Migration Act are currently reviewable by the AAT, namely, those relating to business skills visa cancellations, criminal deportation and the refusal or cancellation of a visa on character grounds. Schedule 14 will bring those decisions within the scope of part 5. Decisions relating to the registration of migration agents, currently not subject to part 5 of the Migration Act, will remain outside part 5. They will be reviewable in the Commercial and General Division of the ART under the procedures established by and under the ART Bill.The amendments made to part 5, and in particular proposed section 353A, adopt the mechanism in the ART Bill requiring the tribunal to comply with practice and procedure directions made by the minister, the president or the executive member of the Immigration Review Division.The tribunal's failure to comply with directions will not, in itself, invalidate a decision. This is the current position in relation to non-compliance with directions issued in respect of the MRT and RRT. Subject to significant exceptions, a participant will not be entitled to seek review of the tribunal's decision by the Federal Court under part 8 of the Migration Act on the basis of the tribunal's non-compliance with directions. The exceptions include the following: directions in subsection 353A(4) of the Migration Act, directions regarding a decision to undertake a `review on the papers', the control of appearances, the making of submissions by a representative of the applicant or the department, and the control of examination and cross-examination. The proposed subsection also allows for regulations to be made prescribing additional classes of directions falling within the exceptions.Proposed sections 362B, 362C and 362D of the Migration Act will allow the ART to end a review without making a decision where the applicant fails to provide information as requested, fails to appear, or fails to comply with a direction. These provisions will allow the ART to dispose more readily of cases where the applicant does not actively pursue his or her case, and are consistent with the provisions in the ART Bill applying to the other divisions. The applicant must be notified that the review has been terminated. However, the applicant's rights are not lost. He or she is then entitled to apply for reinstatement of the review. This amendment is designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of decision making in the Immigration Review Division and is consistent with the objectives of the ART reforms and the provisions of the ART Bill applicable to other divisions.A decision by the tribunal to end a review on this basis will not be judicially reviewable, but a decision not to reinstate the review will be reviewable. Therefore the onus is on an applicant first to apply for reinstatement before seeking judicial review.Part 2 of schedule 14 amends the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, and part 3 amends the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946, to take account of the fact that the review functions under those acts will be undertaken by the ART. Reviews of decisions made under the Australian Citizenship Act and the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act will take place in the Commercial and General Division of the ART, reflecting the fact that such reviews have been conducted by the AAT and not the MRT or RRT.Schedule 15 provides for the transitional provisions required as a result of the abolition of the AAT and the establishment of the ART.Part 2 preserves the existing entitlements of retired and serving deputy presidents of the AAT to pensions under the Judges' Pensions Act 1968. It also gives an entitlement to a pension to deputy presidents of the AAT who elected to be covered by the Judges' Pensions Act scheme but who would not have qualified for a pension under that scheme by the time the AAT is abolished. Part 3 deals with the transfer of records and documents between the AAT, ART, Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Service and part 4 makes provision for the final annual report of the AAT.Part 5, among other things, preserves a person's right to receive notice of certain decisions made before the AAT is abolished and notice of review rights in relation to them and to apply for statements of reasons for such decisions.Part 6 deals with applications for first tier review by the ART of decisions made before the abolition of the AAT.Part 7 provides that the ART is to conduct reviews that were before the AAT and were not completed at its abolition. Part 8 ensures that the ART can finish exercising certain other powers or performing certain other functions being exercised or performed by the AAT before its abolition.Part 9 preserves the effect of decisions made by the AAT and preserves rights to appeal to the Federal Court in respect of AAT decisions and AAT matters that were not exercised before the abolition of the AAT. It also preserves appeals in the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Service from the AAT which are in progress at the time the AAT is abolished. Current applications under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977or other review rights regarding decisions made by the AAT, for example, under section 75(v) of the constitution or section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903, will also be preserved.Part 10 contains a specific provision dealing with the continuing effect, after the AAT is abolished, of a certificate issued by the Attorney-General under subsection 38(2) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.Part 11 ensures the continuing effectiveness of appointments to the Administrative Review Council, and certain other matters, after the repeal of the provisions of the AAT Act providing for the establishment and operations of the council. The ART Bill makes provision for the re-establishment and continuing operations of the council.Schedule 16 makes similar provision, in relation to the review of migration decisions by the MRT or RRT, to that made in schedule 15 in relation to other classes of decisions that were reviewed or reviewable by the AAT. In summary, existing review rights are preserved, reviews under way in the MRT or RRT at the time the existing tribunals are abolished are to be completed by the ART, and appeal rights regarding MRT or RRT decisions are preserved.Schedule 17 makes similar provision, in relation to the review of social security and family assistance decisions by the SSAT or AAT, to that made by schedule 15 in relation to other classes of decisions that were reviewed or reviewable by the AAT.Schedule 18 amends section 20 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Subsection 20(2) currently provides that, where a matter comes before the Federal Court from a tribunal or authority, the members of which included a judge, it must be heard by a full Federal Court. The amendments made by schedule 18 will allow certain interlocutory and procedural matters in such cases to be dealt with by a single judge, rather than having to be dealt with by the full court.This bill, together with the main ART Bill, represents a major reform of the federal civil justice system. The new tribunal will retain the independence and effectiveness of the existing tribunals, while improving accessibility, flexibility and user friendliness. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills21411R116821411Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time. 2141209:52:0021412Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill contains minor and technical changes to improve the operation of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999, the GST act, and related legislation. As well as giving effect to the measures announced in the Treasurer's press release No. 90, of 14 September 2000, these changes address other issues that have been raised by tax practitioners, industry representatives, the Australian Taxation Office and some states and territories.Under the new tax system we now have around 3.2 million businesses and other entities registered with an Australian business number. We have over 2.1 million of these entities also registered for GST.These registrations far exceed initial expectations and provide an early indication that businesses, community bodies, government bodies and the charitable sector are actively addressing their responsibilities under the new system.The government too is continuing to monitor the implementation of the new system, and the measures in this bill demonstrate our credentials in making sure the system is finetuned to increase administrative simplicity and compliance whilst ensuring protection of the revenue. Under the intergovernmental agreement on the reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations many of the changes required the approval of the states and territories. I am advised that approvals are being processed expeditiously by ministerial council members, and the government expects there to be no difficulties in receiving all of the appropriate approvals prior to the passage of this bill.The bill contains no substantive policy issues, but there are several measures that will be welcomed by business.The main measures in the bill provide for:increased flexibility to cancel GST registrations;changes to the way debts are offset against business activity statement refunds;increased flexibility to revoke monthly tax period elections;finetuning the treatment of financial services;changes to the GST treatment of representatives of incapacitated entities;finetuning the treatment of re-importations and temporary importations; andbetter interaction between the fringe benefits tax and the GST.The changes to the refunding of BAS amounts is an important measure that will ensure businesses benefit from receiving BAS refunds without having them offset against other debts that are due but not yet payable. Some entities may lodge income tax returns and have assessments made early in the lodgment cycle, resulting in a gap of several months between the establishment of the tax debt and the date when the tax is due for payment.If these entities are GST registered and lodge a BAS claiming a net credit, the expected refund cannot be issued, as the Commissioner of Taxation is required to offset the amount against the assessed income tax debt, even though this may not be payable for several months.This bill will give the commissioner the discretion to be able to refund a running account balance surplus or credit rather than apply it against a tax debt, other than a BAS amount, that is due but not yet payable.Under the GST act an entity can choose to register for GST if it carries on an enterprise but its annual turnover is below the registration turnover threshold. Once an entity is registered for the GST it must apply to the commissioner if it wishes to have its registration cancelled. However, the commissioner cannot cancel an entity's GST registration unless the entity has been registered for at least 12 months at the time of application. The commissioner currently has no discretion to reduce this period. This bill will allow the commissioner, in certain circumstances, to cancel the GST registration of an entity where an application to cancel its registration has been made before the entity has been registered for 12 months. The commissioner will be able to decide on a cancellation date that is on or after the Royal Assent of this bill. This measure will avoid increased compliance costs for small businesses and, particularly, nonprofit bodies.Entities will generally lodge GST returns on a quarterly basis, although some entities are required to lodge monthly. Entities that are not required to account for GST monthly may still elect to account monthly by applying to the commissioner. This choice could be made by ticking the relevant box on the ABN application form. Once this choice is made, an entity may revert to using quarterly tax periods by applying to the commissioner. However, the entity must use monthly tax periods for at least 12 months before it can revert to using quarterly tax periods. The commissioner currently has no discretion to reduce this period.This bill will allow the commissioner, in certain circumstances, to revoke the monthly tax period election of an entity before 12 months after the election came into effect, if the entity so requests. The commissioner may backdate the effect of the revocation to 1 July 2000. This measure will substantially reduce the compliance costs of affected businesses and nonprofit bodies by reducing the frequency with which these entities are required to account for GST.Some of the other finetuning measures relate to:providing for the GST-free treatment of travel agents' fees for arranging overseas supplies;providing that the sale of residential premises that have been used as rental accommodation for at least five years will be input taxed; andensuring that the associates provisions operate in relation to nonprofit subentities.The changes in this bill demonstrate that the government is responding to minor problems identified by business and is prepared to make changes necessary to ensure that the government's original policy is maintained and that the revenue is protected.Full details of the changes in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills21413R116421413Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.2141310:00:0021413Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to enable schedule 1 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 (IMA Act) to be amended to reflect a change in the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) articles of agreement. Amendments made to the IMF's articles of agreement, such as the fourth amendment, make it necessary to change the IMA Act, since the schedule 1 of the act reproduces the IMF's articles of agreement. The bill will enter into force when the fourth amendment to the IMF's articles of agreement is formally accepted by the required majority of the funds' membership.The fourth amendment to the IMF's articles of agreement provides for a special, one-time allocation of SDR21.43 billion. Special drawing rights or SDRs are interest-bearing reserve assets, created by the IMF to supplement members' existing reserve assets. They also serve as the IMF's unit of account for its transactions and operations. Their value is calculated daily in terms of a basket of currencies of the five members of the IMF with the largest exports of goods and services. Currently, the US dollar, Japanese yen, euro and the British pound are included in the SDR basket. Since 1993, the executive board of the IMF has had concerns that there was not an equitable share of cumulative SDRs between members relative to their quotas. This is because some members, in particular those whose economies are in transition, had joined the IMF since the last general allocation of SDRs in 1981, and have not received an allocation. In particular, some East European nations have no SDRs because there have been no allocations since they became members.The amendment has been proposed as a means of ensuring greater equity between IMF members in terms of their cumulative SDR allocations relative to their quotas (or capital subscriptions) in the IMF, at a benchmark level of 29.32 per cent. Australia would receive SDR213.5 million, or about $A500 million of additional reserves.If accepted, the proposed fourth amendment to the IMF's articles of agreement would amend the text of article XV, section 1, and add schedule M to those articles of agreement. The latter sets out the method of dispersing this proposed one-time allocation of SDRs.The adoption of amendments to the IMF's articles of agreement is a two-stage process. The first stage was completed in September 1997 when the members of the IMF, through the board of governors, approved a set of amendments to the IMF's articles of agreement, known as the fourth amendment. Australia voted in favour of the proposed amendment. The second stage was initiated in October 1997, when members were asked whether they would accept the proposed fourth amendment. The proposed fourth amendment will come into force when three-fifths of the IMF's members, having 85 per cent of the total voting power, have accepted it. If it enters into force, the amendment would be binding on all members, including those who have not advised their view on the proposed amendment.I note that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) supports the proposed fourth amendment to the articles of agreement of the IMF and has recommended that binding treaty action be taken.Australia intends to formally accept the fourth amendment once this bill has been approved.I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills21414R113621414Debate resumed from 11 October, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.10:05:0021414Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I would like to finish the letter that I was reading to the House last night. The author of that letter was speaking about other people in similar circumstances to herself who deal with the child support system. It continues:I know, I meet them in the school yards and around after community activities I attend.With all due respect to child support, when you look at what they've got, it's frightening.The majority of their clients are upset, panicked by imminent foreclosure on bills, desperate to work out how the grocery bill is going to fit into it all.I believe there is a very substantial turnover of staff at child support and high stress leave. I am not surprised.The staff are usually flabbergasted that you're upset by their inane answers and goading of patience, when you point out that they haven't answered your question yet. That is if you're not so confused by jargon and misleading tactics, that the information you wanted in the first place still hadn't been obtained at the end of copious waterfall music and birds twittering, so that more irrelevant information could be retrieved from your file. It would be unrealistic for them to believe that their job would not entail hostility by its very nature; the same way it would be unrealistic for a nurse not to expect to come in contact with bodily fluids and excretions.I have no doubt that child support if asked, would answer that more resources for their department would help them to be supportive towards their clients. From my perspective, it is obvious that further training is needed in how best to deal with distraught members of the public.In other words, how can child support expect us to remain unemotional about such emotive issues that have such tremendous impact on our lives.When the children's father chose violence as a conflict resolution tool, he effectively raped our lives and stole our futures. Child support has encouraged and aided him in this endeavour, and I would be lying if I wasn't to admit that over the years, child support has been the source of tremendous angst, anxiety and trauma personally.I would like to thank you for your interest in my feelings and opinions. As you can see, I have one!I appreciate that this might appear a little disjointed. I am still full of complaints and the writing of all this has been quite challenging as I've had to drag up memories I'd much rather leave undisturbed. There are still many areas I've left untouched.In appreciation of your interestAnne.This letter reflects many of the concerns that constituents raise in my office and, I am sure, in the offices of all federal members in this place. This bill does make some small difference to the often seemingly insurmountable problems facing parents trapped within the structure that is child support. It is a difficult issue; it is an issue that is not going to be resolved overnight. I congratulate the government on going some way to addressing the contentious issues of shared care and second families—issues that are always raised in our offices and issues that, as I said, are not easily solved. I urge the government to look closely at the proposals put forward by the honourable member for Lilley. They are proposals that have been carefully thought out and they are proposals that have been raised and discussed with people who are involved in the child support system. As the honourable member for Lilley said, in these contentious issues it is vitally important that we come up with winners and winners, not winners and losers.I say to Anne, who I know is listening, that we do care about you and we do applaud the loving care you have provided for your children, despite all the hassles you have faced in your life. To you and all parents who are listening and to those who will read these Hansard debates on this issue, we know you are caught up in the child support web, I assure you that both sides of this House will work to ensure that your role in life is assisted rather than hindered, thwarted and put under stress by the child support system that you have to deal with daily and constantly. As I have said, I would like the government and the department to look seriously at the points raised by the honourable member for Lilley because they are constructive and we need winners and winners. I commend the bill to the House.10:10:0021415Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today to support this Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 and also to commend the previous speaker, the member for Franklin, who is, I know from my personal experience, a man of compassion. We come from different sides of the House, but I appreciate his concern and involvement in this area. It is a difficult area. There are no easy solutions to the problems that face us, and I want to commend the Minister for Community Services, Larry Anthony, and the senior minister, Senator Newman, Minister for Family and Community Services, for attempting to grapple with the issues and the difficulties facing us in this area. It is not that long ago that we had only 20 per cent of fathers paying child support. This percentage has now risen dramatically to a very impressive figure and we see that the great majority of parents are doing the responsible thing. The cases that have been brought to me in my office reflect problems on both sides of the equation. A common complaint is from custodial parents who have problems raising children without the support of the other partner who, it is alleged, ignore their responsibilities and try to limit their exposure in terms of the way they structure their business. On the other side you hear complaints, particularly from men, about what the whole child support scheme has done to them as individuals—there is little incentive left in their lives, they have little access to their children, and the cost of child support and taxation means that there is little left for them to live on. They outline complaints relating to the lifestyle of their former partner, who may have another partner in their lives, and the inequities that they see flowing from that. In my time as the member for Cook, which is now just on two years, that is the issue that has been brought to me most often. It is clearly an issue where you feel that something should be done, but the closer you get to it the more you realise how difficult it is to solve some of the basic problems. The key criterion is looking after the children who are involved through no fault of their own—their parents have separated and child support becomes an issue between the two parents. Our number one consideration is that the children get looked after. Then we need to make sure that the custodial parent is adequately looked after and that there is some contribution from the non-custodial parent but that there is some equity in the way the child support equation and formula are developed. I know that it has been a matter of discussion between the Minister for Community Services and a number of people in this House, including me. I am very pleased to see the changes that have been implemented here. It is clearly not a perfect situation, but it is a significant step forward. We will all be watching to see the general impact. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be further refinements as time goes by. The situation a number of years ago was clearly against the interests of the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent was simply ignoring their responsibilities. Now perhaps the pendulum has moved a little too much against the non-custodial parent, and this bill in a very small way tries to bring back the balance.So I commend both ministers in trying to address this most difficult and complex issue. I think the first important part is the lowering of the formula percentages. Non-custodial parents who were under the 30 per cent level of contact with their children did not have any relief in the percentage they had to pay for their children. Those who were over the 30 per cent level—30 to 40 per cent—received a four per cent reduction in child support payment, and those who were above that, in the 40 to 60 per cent level, were seen as joint custodial parents, both paying child support, and a formula was worked out between the two and sorted out on a joint basis. This provides the balance in recognising the difficulties of parents who do not have access to their children, where access is difficult, but also provides incentives for them to establish contact. As I am sure that all members of House would want to see, this means there is more contact between children and both custodial and non-custodial parents. So, if a parent sees their child between 10 and 20 per cent of the year, their child support percentage will be reduced by two percentage points. If the same parent sees their child more often—that is, they see the child between 20 and 30 per cent of the year— their formula is reduced by three points. So it is a real incentive to establish contact.The bill also recognises some of the costs involved for non-custodial parents in making contact with their children. One of the constituents that I saw had a fairly common problem. After his marriage broke down, his wife moved to the far North Coast. He found it very difficult to have access to the children. The cost of going up to see the children was, over time, difficult. So this is a real incentive and provides financial assistance to establish more contact with children. I think the incentive is a worthwhile change, which I support. I am aware that the opposition has expressed concern about the effect this move will have on custodial parents. Obviously, this is a move that has not been made without considerable consideration of that. The child support formula as it now stands does not consider the strains, both financial and emotional, placed on non-custodial parents by separation from their children. It is a real factor, and every member in this House would have had cases brought to them of the particular difficulties of non-custodial parents not having access to their children. The government strongly believes that non-custodial parents should be encouraged to maintain their relationship and regular contact with their children. So this move is welcome. The second aspect of the legislation is the lowering of the income cap subject to child support formula assessment. It also changes the measure of average weekly earnings that sets the upper limit, the cap, on the taxable income of a child support payer that is subject to assessment. The point at which a custodial parent starts to lose some of the child support payment is approximately $31,000 because that represents the `all employees average weekly total earnings figure'. The cap, which was $100,000 or just on $101,000, has been brought down to just under $78,400. The figure of $78,400 is 2½ times the all employees average weekly total earnings figure. So there is a relationship between the figure at which the custodial parents starts to lose part of the child support payment because of the amount they earn—and of course that tapers through—and the figure at which the non-custodial parent does not pay anything further in child support. Again, there is some controversy over this, but it is trying to recognise the problems of couples who have split up and who are trying to establish a new life, in particular with a new family. It still guarantees that the first child from the previous relationship will receive a child support payment of $12,000 per year, which is $1,000 a month; with two children, it is $18,000, which is quite considerable. So those amounts are guaranteed. Research carried out by the Department of Family and Community Services indicates that this is a fair way to go. This figure of $78,400 is realistic. It is 2½ times the all employees average total weekly earnings, and I believe it is an appropriate way to go and an important step forward.The third part is the income earned for the benefit of resident children. One of the common complaints from persons who have divorced and either remarried or taken another partner and established a new family is the difficulties they face in trying to provide for the new family as well as providing child support for the first family. For instance, a person with three children pays 32 per cent of their gross earnings. If that person is on maximum earnings, 48 per cent of their income is taken out in taxation. For that person to then support a new family is very difficult. That is part of the reason why this change in the formula on the cap is recognising the small residual that exists after both taxation and child support. The new provision allows for non-custodial parents who have a new relationship, have children from this new relationship and take on extra work or overtime to provide for their new family, to have excluded from their child support formula assessment up to 30 per cent of the parent's total income. That limit of 30 per cent is to ensure that the provision is not rorted.The final budgetary measures will allow child support payers with new families to claim the full amount of any child support they pay as a deduction from their new household's income. In the past, they could only claim 50 per cent of any child support payment for the purpose of calculating a new family's entitlement to the family tax benefit and child-care benefits. Under the proposals in this legislation, 100 per cent of the costs are able to be deducted. So again there is a fairness; again it is attempting to assist the individual's new relationship and his new dependents and allowing him to provide for his offspring in that relationship as well. It is about fairness; it is about equity in a very difficult area. As an example, if $2,000 is deducted for child support payments, that total claim can be for $2,000. The budget provides that this measure will receive $17.2 million over the next four years. In terms of non-budgetary measures, firstly, the bill makes a number of changes to reflect the fact that responsibility for the Child Support Agency has shifted from the Australian Taxation Office to the Department of Family and Community Services—so from Tax to FACS, which seems appropriate. They are the department, I believe, with the sensitivity and the understanding of this very difficult area to be able to administer it, so that is entirely appropriate. Schedule 6 will prevent those who persistently neglect their child support payments from leaving the country. That is also appropriate. Finally, the bill will clarify the legal position in the instance where a child has run away and is living with other adults against the parents' wishes. This happens from time to time. It means that, in the future, unless the express permission is given by the parents for the child to live with a certain individual or foster parents, child support payment is not given. This bill provides the definition of `eligible carer' so that child support cannot be received unless the custody is taken with the parents' consent. This provision will not stand if the children have left home because of violence, sexual abuse or any other serious risk to their wellbeing. Again, it is a balance in looking after the welfare of the child, and I am sure that all parents would welcome that provision.In conclusion, I want to commend both ministers for bringing this bill forward. The bill does recognise the problems of parents who separate for various reasons and the difficulties of non-custodial parents in particular. By the time they pay the child support and their taxation, they are in a whole circuitous problem of trying to break out of a very difficult financial position, especially if they have a new family. These provisions to lower the formula percentages where non-custodial parents have regular access to their children are going to encourage that access, which can only be good for the children's development. The lower cap on the amount of income does provide help for the individual who is establishing a new family. The individual's ability to exclude from the child support formula overtime earned or additional earnings is very much welcome. Also to be supported is the fact that you can deduct the whole of the amount of child support in order to establish the family tax benefit and the child-care benefits. The other administrative provisions are also very much appreciated.It is a difficult area and it was a job well done by those people in the Department of Family and Community Services. You have all done very well in regard to these provisions. Time will tell whether there are any particular difficulties and how the community will support it. I suppose non-custodial parents can see some real benefits in it and custodial parents may have some difficulties, but it is a balance. So I commend the bill to the House because it is a move forward in an area that is probably the most contentious and most difficult of all the areas dealt with by the federal government.10:27:0021418Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—The Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 gives effect to the four measures that were announced in the May 2000 budget and includes, in addition, six non-budget measures. The Labor Party has decided to oppose a number of these measures and to propose some amendments, so I think it is very important to state for the parliamentary record why we are contemplating doing that. In our view, some of the measures that are to be introduced in this legislation are almost certain to lead to increased disputation between the parties. I have had that feedback too from some of the groups who will be affected, including the partners of nonresident parents, who say it will be extremely difficult for them as well. In addition, the measures will almost certainly add to the poverty of custodial parents, of resident parents, and do not effectively deal with the problems of low income nonresident parents either. So, unlike the previous speaker, I am not going to congratulate those who put this policy together because I think it has lost sight of the reason for having a Child Support Agency in the first place. Indeed, the measures in this bill run contrary to the original intentions of the Child Support Scheme. For instance, we want to quell, rather than encourage, disputes and we want to encourage families to establish their own arrangements for supporting children without necessarily having to go through a clumsy and often offensive bureaucratic process. In addition, we want to ensure that children are clearly the focus of our policy, and indeed of the government's policy, rather than at this stage having winners and losers amongst the resident and nonresident parents. I think it is important that we keep children firmly in our focus. It was, after all, why the scheme was established—that is, to reduce the level of child poverty in this country. I think it is important in these debates to reflect on the history of the Child Support Scheme and its original aims and objectives, some of which I think the government, either intentionally or otherwise, is effectively undoing in this legislation.The Child Support Agency was created in 1988 by the Hawke government in response to continued breakdown of families where non-custodial parents were not paying any form of child support. Indeed, in 1982 only 12 per cent of all children living in sole parent families were benefiting from any level of child support payments. Research at the time on the relative poverty of children in these families prompted government action. It was serious. This was the group that you could readily identify as being most at risk not only to be in poverty at any one time but also to continue to be in poverty for lengths of time that were clearly unacceptable in a society such as ours. The government at the time took the view—and I think this is widely shared in the community—that the social security system should not bear all of the responsibility for children where non-custodial parents capable of doing so did not pay any adequate support for their own children. In many ways we were ahead of the world on this. An explicit aim of the Child Support Scheme, then and now, was to help alleviate the high level of poverty among sole parent families—the focus always being on the needs of the children. I think it is fair to say that the scheme has been successful in both promoting this responsibility, ensuring that parents understand that they both have responsibility, and protecting children against the most extreme levels of poverty. Recent research by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, NATSEM, found that in the absence of the Child Support Scheme an additional 58,000 children would have been in poverty in a particular year—and one can multiply that over the period in which the scheme has been in operation. At the time of its implementation, there was a fair degree of controversy and it was a major change in the way we thought about supporting children. Family breakdown is always going to be an extremely difficult area for any government, but the federal government at the time decided that it was too important to be ignored. Over the years the scheme has been modified—and that is appropriate; no policy is perfect from the outside, particularly one dealing with contentious issues such as this—in response to legitimate concerns about its operation and, in my view, has improved considerably. That is not to say the scheme is without its problems. Any of us who run an electorate office know that that there are complaints—some of them justified, some less so—about the operation of the scheme and the unfairness that can emerge from time to time. It is the subject of valid criticisms from both resident and nonresident parents. We as policy makers therefore bear the responsibility of balancing these interests. It is important to hear the points of view that are expressed to us, but we also need to do the research and not just listen to the individual case studies that can often result in an unbalanced outcome. So we have to balance the interests in a way which is fair to all parties and which, as I said at the outset, above all else, protects the interests of children. They must be the focus of our policy in this area. We see several problems with the amendments the government is proposing to the scheme, and they build on some problems that were inflicted on us in the last round. One of those is the lack of research that underpins this. I think this is a serious problem. We are particularly concerned that that research has not been available as these proposals have been developed and we have not seen any research either into the consequences of some of the changes that have already been made. That is not to say that we are opposed to any review or restructuring of the Child Support Scheme; we are not. Indeed, there is a good case, in my view, for a renewed analysis of the real cost of raising children in Australia and ensuring that those costs are borne fairly. Of course there is always room for improvement in the administration of such a scheme, although in my view the relevant agencies have always done a splendid job in dealing with extremely difficult circumstances. But I think the government needs to present not only to the opposition but also to the community at large a much more convincing case for change. More work needs to be done. I think this is policy which has not been developed out of a careful analysis of the circumstances of families, the relative poverty of families, the respective roles of government and individuals in supporting children and the best way to ensure, as I say, that children are not left languishing in poverty.One of the things that worry us most is the shared care payments in this scheme. The government proposes to lower the child support liabilities for non-custodial parents exercising care between 10 and 30 per cent. For such a change to be supported, we would first of all need to know more about the relative costs faced by resident and nonresident parents and we would need to establish the extent to which costs for nonresident parents vary with the time spent in care. Do they actually vary proportionately, for example, as is suggested in the legislative change? Or are there some costs that remain at a high level whether you have the children for five out of seven days or all of the seven days? There is a lot of suggestion that that is the case. We have been diligent in this: we have asked repeatedly about the research foundations for the shared care arrangements applying in the first instance to the family tax benefits, which were already in place, and the proposed variation in the child support formula for parents exercising contact in excess of 10 per cent. We have been singularly unsuccessful in eliciting that information from the government. Indeed, when Senator Evans asked the department what evidence it had to support the relationship between costs and level of contact—and that is what we are being asked to change here—the response provided was: `The truth is very little.' For such a major change to occur, I think that is, frankly, inadequate. Labor believes that it is not acceptable to address the concerns of one group of mostly poor people—the minister has cited poor non-custodial fathers, and we recognise there are problems there—by taking from another poor group. The example the minister gives is single mothers with primary responsibility for care of their children. The evidence shows very clearly that it is that latter group—the custodial parents, single mothers with primary responsibility for children—who are the poorest on average in the community. So it does not make any sense to us or to the wider Australian community to take money from that group to give to another group who have been identified as having problems with their income levels. Creating losers in that circumstance is not good social policy and, as I say, is likely to lead to further dispute and unhappiness in an already difficult area. Continuing disparities in post-divorce household incomes mean that single mothers are still poor. They are less likely to repartner and they are more likely to remain out of the work force, despite their best efforts. Even in the 1997-98 survey referred to earlier, children living in families headed by a female were twice as likely to be living in poverty as in those headed by a male. Similarly, the poverty risk faced by children was greater for those living in families where their parent was separated and divorced. So we have a hierarchy of poverty which we understand, but we are not being told how in these circumstances we can possibly endorse a system which disadvantages the already most disadvantaged group in the community. If it is decided to assist those non-custodial parents on low incomes, we believe that there are other and better means of doing it than by creating further disadvantage for parents who have custody of their children.In addition, the shared care provision proposed by the government ignores the reality of the lives of separated and divorced families. It seems in some respects to be very naive. This measure in fact reduces the capacity of each parent to be flexible after the very tense period of initial separation is over. Each time indeed in this legislation, a child or parent wants to change a standing agreement on custody—to accommodate, for instance, sporting commitments, a change in parental work requirements, school camps, birthday parties or other special occasions—there could well be financial consequences following that decision, because it could change the balance of the amount of time that each of the parents is spending with the children. Of course, the pressure then goes on in both respects: for the person who might benefit financially to take more time, whether it is really generated by an interest in the child; and equally for the parent who has custody to hang on to those arrangements because they will otherwise lose funding.We do not believe that this is in the best interests of any of the family members—not of the custodial or resident parents nor of the nonresident parents and certainly not of the children. Each change indeed could introduce a new period of hostility as new financial agreements and care provisions are made. Frankly, we have not had a look at the consequences of the existing changes in the tax regime, which have some of the same elements. Anecdotally—and I am reluctant to rely on anecdotes but that is all we have—there are suggestions that it is creating greater problems, even with that relatively modest change that we saw in the family tax benefit. I think we need to remind ourselves that the first guiding principle of the scheme was that the level of financial support provided by parents for their children should be determined by their ability to provide financial support; and we continue to support this principle.I turn now to one of the other elements with which we have disagreement, and that is a reduction in the income cap for child support liability from $101,153 to $78,378. Clearly here we are talking about relatively high income earners—indeed, quite high income earners, if you look at the distribution of income in Australia. The government proposes to reduce the income cap, as I have indicated, for child support liability. My concern and that of the Labor Party with this measure is that it provides no assistance to child support payers on low to middle incomes. It is poorly targeted. It does not provide relief to those people whom the government and, I think, the community would identify as actually needing assistance—those people on incomes below $35,000, for instance. These gains for the nonresident parents on higher incomes mean losses—indeed, substantial losses—in child support benefits for resident parents. So you might be giving relief to those high income earners, but there are consequences for that. Sometimes the loss is very considerable to the other partner, and that will not be offset by any changes to the family tax benefit. It is very hard, I must say, to see—given the principle I mentioned earlier that children should benefit from the affluence of both parents, regardless of the family situation—what the government's case for this measure might be. Indeed, it is not clearly enunciated at all. In some of the case scenarios where you can look at winners and losers, it is clear that there are some very substantial losers. Modelling of this initiative in a paper by the shadow minister has suggested that some sole parents could see a loss in child support of up to $90 a week for one child. That is a very dramatic change in circumstances. Again, the effect is most likely to be on the child's wellbeing. As I say, we cannot give support under those circumstances.One of the other changes that is proposed is to disregard additional income earned for the benefit of second families. Here we have some sympathy with the intention of these changes. We believe that the measures to support second families are worthy of consideration. We are keen to see how they will be implemented in detail. We would support policy directions which recognise and reward efforts to support second families, but I stress that this must be without diminishing responsibilities and standards of living for the children of first families. On this particular measure, to disregard additional income earned for the benefit of second families, the CSA has provided a commitment to develop and administer clear guidelines, and we welcome that. These will ensure that patterns of work and earnings cannot be manipulated with the objective of reducing a parent's support liability. We already have problems in this area with people manipulating their work patterns in order to reduce their income tax and, thereby, what they might be required to pay.We note that the Sole Parents Union support for this measure is contingent on such guidelines—as is ours. I think it is important to ensure that this provision is not misused, and I am reassured that the Child Support Agency will consider the financial circumstances of both families in determining whether a departure from the formula is possible. In our view, that is absolutely critical. The CSA will have the ability to contact previous employers to ascertain the work history of the paying parent, and proof will be required to ensure that the additional income must have been obtained by the applicant to benefit the children in that parent's current family. These guidelines will be developed in detail, following consultation with all the parties, and we believe that these checks and balances, if conducted and monitored appropriately, can deliver a fair outcome for everybody.One of the other changes that is somewhat contentious is the restriction of access to documentary evidence provided by the other party. At the hearing of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee last week, witnesses for the Law Council of Australia, the National Council for Single Mothers and Their Children, the Sole Parents Union, Parents of Paying Partners and the Lone Fathers Association opposed the restriction of access to supporting documents. We share the view that denying the parties access to information which may be considered by the Child Support Act in the course of making an assessment determination is, in fact, a denial of natural justice; and we would agree with the Law Council, who told the hearing:Instead of a reduction in the exchange of information as proposed in the Bill ... there should be an improvement in the quality of that process so that there are means of ensuring that both parties and the CSA have, before hearing, information which is accurate and comprehensive. Otherwise you are always paying catch-up; there is a worry that some documents are being withheld, and that again accelerates dispute. Our task is clear, and that is to ensure that both resident and nonresident parents support children appropriately; and anything that can be used to assist in that process, including transparency of information, should be endorsed.In conclusion, it is important that we do again remember who the original child support legislation was designed to benefit. We have tried to keep that clearly in our focus. That is why, while we are sympathetic to improving this legislation, we are against a couple of the propositions. The Child Support Scheme, in its original form, stated that those primarily responsible for children are the parents, both parents, of that child. These responsibilities do not diminish when a relationship ends or when one of the parents faces hard times financially. That may reduce their commitment, but it is still there. When these situations occur, and in these times of insecure employment they often do, there is a role for governments—and I think the government needs to have a look at this—in providing family support and social security. Instead of taking money, as with this legislation, from the pockets of the already poor to put into the pockets of the not quite so poor, the government should be looking at what contribution it might make to these children.But governments cannot replace parents as those who are first and foremost responsible for the wellbeing of children, both in a financial and a more general sense. At the heart of this issue is whether we should address the concerns of poor non-custodial parents by redistributing income away from an even poorer group: sole parent families. Such a strategy, as I have tried to indicate briefly, is clearly detrimental to children.The Child Support Agency is not, as the minister claimed in an interview recently, a sacred cow, unable to be changed or challenged in any way. Indeed, my experience is that, of all the agencies of government, this is the most likely to be challenged on a daily basis and, indeed, to come under the heaviest fire, because people get extremely angry under these circumstances. I think it needs to be said that we would want—all of us—to ensure not only that the agency operates efficiently and effectively but also that it is respected in the tremendous work it does under pressure.The Labor Party will continue to consider and support measures which heed the concerns of both resident and nonresident parents. We do not need to have losers in these circumstances. We will do so with the view that both parents are responsible for the wellbeing of children; and that the living standards of children, as I have said before, and therefore their ultimate wellbeing are our primary concern.10:47:0021423Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Child support is an area of government policy that is extraordinarily difficult and a very emotive area of our work, as some of the previous speakers have spoken of. To legislate for every conceivable eventuality, for every individual circumstance that may come before us, is an extraordinarily difficult and hazardous task. But our efforts must be to try and develop the best system we can, the best and fairest framework for families to work within.It is important to recall that, of the 560,000 cases handled by the Child Support Agency, almost half now involve private collection. That is a terrific positive mark for the Child Support Agency: half of the participants in the scheme are now able to maintain the type of reasonable adult-to-adult productive, healthy relationship where they can at least agree privately on the way these funds are provided for the raising of their children. Those 560,000 cases deal with almost 825,000 young people, so this is a big issue. You can just imagine, amongst that type of range of family circumstances, the complexities and the varieties of the little idiosyncrasies that go on. Those 560,000 cases we think are maybe 85 per cent of the total number of families in our nation that have experienced separation and now have kids being raised with the parents living apart. So this is an enormous challenge for all of us, and it is an enormously complicated area—and, believe me, if anybody had the answer that could account for every conceivable set of arrangements, it would have been arrived at by now. My colleague the ALP member for Chifley knows how difficult this task is. His committee did some excellent work when Labor was in office, recommending 163 changes to these arrangements. Something happened with 52 of those; 111 sat on the shelf. That was when the ALP was in office. That gives you an understanding that there were 111 hot potatoes there that people were not keen to tackle. Some of the reforms that the government have introduced have tackled some of those recommendations; they have introduced some new ideas designed to look after the kids—because, at the end of the day, this is about the child support system. It is for the sake of the kids. That has to be our main focus, and that is what is behind the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 that we are discussing today.I might add that this is actually the fourth instalment of reforms the Howard government has introduced to the child support system. We are working towards trying to develop a system that can create an environment that encourages parents to sort out their responsibilities with each other for their kids—one that is supportive of that, that encourages arrangements that need not involve the government. When the Child Support Agency becomes involved, of its very nature, you introduce another factor into an already highly emotive and highly contentious area. In some cases, it is an element which goes to the darkest part, the saddest moment, of their lives when their families have had to break down.So to say that there is some easy formula or some way forward is just to misunderstand what is going on and the variety of circumstances we are trying to deal with. I think the insight in one of the closing remarks from the member for Fremantle pretty much summed it up. She said: `What contribution might the government make?' That was her closing comment: why have we not looked at that? That is a nice way of saying: let the taxpayer make a greater contribution so that the people who introduced these young people into the world need not make such a larger contribution.The people whom I talk to in the community, whose families are in whatever shape, strive to raise their children in the best way they can—and surely that has to be our starting point. How can we ensure that the parents, the people who brought these little people into our nation, are fulfilling their responsibilities wherever and however it is possible? First address that question, and then let us talk about what the broader community might need to do by way of taxpayer supplementation. You have seen taxpayer supplementation through family allowances, family tax benefits and government policy. So it is wrong to gain the impression from the comments of the member for Fremantle that the taxpayer is not already playing a role—they are, and it is a significant role. But it is important to try to ensure that the parents, the adults who introduced these terrific little people into this world, are doing what is expected of them—what we all expect of them.That is one of the hazards with this debate. We can talk about abstract ideas and we can say, `Gee, maybe this would work for this case.' Bear in mind that there are 560,000 people. Just think about your own friends and their family circumstances. You know how different they are. Trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all arrangement is just inconceivable, but we continue to strive to find out what we can do to make this a fairer and better system. All of us would have experienced the situation where child support payments are not being made, despite orders of the Family Court, clear and undisputed Child Support Agency assessments, the best efforts of the Child Support Agency and the assertions of custodial parents that their former partner is earning money and it is being hidden from the Child Support Agency. We are all familiar with those. But can I pay tribute to the Child Support Agency. I have had some of the ugliest arguments with the Child Support Agency since I have been elected. It has got pretty willing and it has got pretty direct, because it is important stuff. But I have to say the traffic coming through my office about Child Support Agency complaints has dropped dramatically. I think we are getting it right or at least heading in the right direction. The establishment of Child Support Agency offices out in areas like Frankston to provide a more immediate contact point is assisting that task. But we still have some way to go when a constituent of mine cannot get an answer because he has not been assigned a case officer. That was an internal issue for the Child Support Agency that caused him great grief for a number of months. We still have work to do with little things like that. Perhaps we are not as decisive as we can be about chasing up complaints, hidden income allegations and things like that using the full suite of enforcement tools that are available. Perhaps that is somewhere we can look to as well. But bear in mind that, when the Child Support Agency becomes involved, it is because reasonable conduct between the parties is not quite what it should be and you are already working within a fairly sensitive environment.All of us have experienced a situation when non-custodial parents who have paid every cent required of them and have done the right thing have been denied fair access to their children. Sometimes that can be born out of spite and sometimes out of a change in circumstances, but at the end of the day we know there is a parent wanting to make a broader contribution to the raising of their children who is making the financial contribution but is not able to provide the human input. That gets them upset as well, and I can understand that. We still have work to be done in that area. This is complex, but you cannot walk away from it and say it is too hard. You just have to keep trying to find a way of making it work.That is one of the terrific things about this package of legislation. There is something quite historic in this. I have been arguing for it for a long time. I know people do not always agree with me, but at last through one of these measures the Child Support Agency, the Family Court and the custodial arrangements, which used to orbit one another, will actually have some contact point where the amount of care the non-primary care giver provides is taken into account. That could reduce the financial contribution that needs to be made to the custodial parent. That at least acknowledges that there is shared care going on. The member for Fremantle suggested that some of those shared care arrangements were not very good. My experience is that there is no common formula to work out who is more impoverished, whether it is the primary carer or the part-time carer. There is no formula. It is wrong to say that the situation of the primary carer is of its very nature the most impoverished. Some shared care arrangements take account of both parties having a role in the raising of the children of between 10 and 30 per cent and have that amount of care reflected in the child support payments, but saying that that situation somehow of its very nature disadvantages one group in relation to another is just nonsense. But that is the sort of selective, black-and-white argument you tend to get with some of these issues. It is wrong to portray them that way.I think it is a very positive measure. Some people say that it is a measure that may encourage some primary carers to deny access to the other partner because it will have some financial consequence. That sounds like spite to me. That sounds like evidence that there is some imbalance in the power, influence or opportunity to contribute in the raising of the children. If that imbalance exists and if the argument is that trying to redress that is a bad thing, it sounds like we are already giving up. If a primary carer says, `Gee, if you're going to look after your child 20 per cent of the time and that is going to result in a 20 per cent reduction in your child support payments, I am not going to let you do it so that I get the 20 per cent,' doesn't that sound like the sort of relationship where help is required and where structural changes to deal with that are needed? The argument against this is the exact argument in favour of it. I would encourage the member for Fremantle to have a second think about the argument she put forward there. The other point the member for Fremantle raised was about putting a cap on average weekly total earnings. The figure used in the assessment formula for the payee's disregarded income figure is based on the all employees average weekly total earnings. The measure in this bill will ensure that income figures used for both parties are based on the same series of income. The maximum income level for child support purposes will be reduced from $101,200 to $78,400. That means that, if you earn above that, it does not become part of the calculations. The member for Fremantle is saying that that is another pathway to primary carer impoverishment. You hear that and you think, `There might be something in that.' But drill down into the facts. Have a look at the facts. The measure means that the 4,000 payers who earn above $78,400 on average will be able to save $60 a week. They are up in a higher income bracket. Maybe they thought the current formula discouraged them from pursuing career opportunities or whatever the case may be, but it is worth remembering that those payers will still be contributing on average $15,300 per annum in child support. So we are talking about $60 a week on average, but even with that reduction it is still $15,300 per annum for child support. Most children I know can be quite comfortable on $15,300, or $12,000 for a single child, a year in child support. To put this in perspective, the child support system is not necessarily designed to maintain certain living standards for separated parents. It is about looking after the kids. With $12,000, there is a substantial opportunity for a child to be well cared for.The third important change addresses one of the most serious issues faced by non-custodial parents who are trying to get on with their lives. Families and relationships do break down and some people are immobilised by that for the rest of their lives. It so profoundly affects their person that they find it very difficult to get on with the rest of their life. If they do decide to get on with the rest of their life and pursue a second relationship, that can of itself be an enormous problem. The financial contribution going towards the first relationship makes it very difficult for them to start a new life and maybe form a new family. A package of measures in here at least allows child support contributions to the first family to reduce the amount of income that is used to calculate family benefits for the second family. So we are not saying, `Don't value and take very seriously responsibilities to your first family.' We just recognise that the child support contribution greatly affects your capacity to support your second family.Another measure in here, which is something that I have been arguing for for a great length of time, is the opportunity to seek a departure order—in other words, something different from the standard formula—where you have gone out of your way to earn extra income. That is a very positive measure. If you are in the circumstance of having a second family, you might think, `I love my kids from my first relationship, I don't want them to miss out on anything and I will willingly pay my child support, but I don't want any kids I might have in my second relationship disadvantaged either.' Some people go out and get a second or third job or work that extra bit of overtime to earn the income to be able to support both families in the way that they feel they should be supported. That has to be encouraged, and the package in this bill actually does that. That is all terrific stuff. I have said in this place before on a number of occasions that what bothers me most about the child support system is something I call the `stuff it' option, where the system is so overwhelming that people just say `stuff it' and are not productive in their lives—are not engaged in employment and do not play an active role in their kids' lives at all. We have to make that `stuff it' option less attractive and we have progressively done that. The package in here does make the `stuff it' option less attractive. When people take the `stuff it' option, everybody loses. We lose a productive member of the community, there is the very modest $5 a week—or whatever it is—payment made for child support out of their income support, they are not productive members of the community and there are some issues in the family of which they are a part. That is an unattractive option all around.I will wrap up now because time does not permit me to go into so many other areas of this. Can I just say to the minister: terrific. This is tough stuff and the government is having a red hot go. We have a little bit more work to do in this area—I would like to talk about some other ideas I have—but we are heading in the right direction and I encourage all people in this parliament to get behind what is a productive, constructive and forward move.11:03:0021427Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 is the second bill this government has moved this year that amends the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. I move to speak on this bill because I witness, through my electorate office in Burwood in my electorate of Lowe, an increasing level of dissatisfaction with the legislation in respect of the fundamental reason for the legislation's existence. I ask: what is the fundamental reason? The answer is found in the collapse of family life as we know it in Australia. I cite from the Australian Bureau of Statistics statistical profiles for marriages and divorces. In 1998, there were 110,598 registered marriages and 51,370 divorces granted—that is, in 1998, for every two marriages registered, there was one divorce.I now refer to the second reading speech of this bill by the member for Richmond and Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Larry Anthony, in his address in this House on 30 August 2000. I will read it in part:This government values families and children and has worked to improve the circumstances of all Australian families. The minister goes on to say in that speech:This bill ... [addresses] key issues for the wellbeing of Australian families following separation. It provides for a fairer child support scheme that addresses the needs of parents and children alike and that encourages parents to continue to be involved in the lives of their children.We have heard much about this government's approach to so-called family values. I recall a doorstop press release by the Prime Minister in respect of in-vitro fertilisation for lesbian couples. The Prime Minister's press release was a colossal stunt. The press release, and subsequent public statements and legislation, portrayed a picture entirely opposite to his real intentions of divesting Commonwealth responsibility in defending the family through proposed changes in the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. The same is true of this bill today. The Minister for Community Services opened his speech to the House with a litany of motherhood statements in support of the family and children. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. We only need review the statistics to see that the plight of children and the family has materially worsened as a direct result of what is now clearly seen as a totally defective field of legislation which this bill will only make worse.The three relevant statistics that condemn this government's performance in the defence of the family and children are (1) the crude divorce and marriage rates, (2) the failure to collect child support payments and the necessity to enact further draconian measures as contained in this bill to clamp down on child support evasion and (3) the increasing incidence of child order contraventions as indicated by the increase in form 49 applications with the Family Court. The ABS notes that the crude divorce rate has increased in every year that the Liberal government has been in power. So too has there been an increase in support for ill-conceived legislation that has not supported families. Sheer financial and bureaucratic stresses on married families are largely to blame for the disastrous rise in the crude divorce rate. Instead of turning to these fundamentals, the government has seen fit to enable the rise of an entire multimillion dollar industry built upon divorce and child support. An entire infrastructure now exists which preys, then feeds off, marital break-ups. The benefit for the legal profession and the bureaucrats in the Family Court and the Child Support Agency, who rely on a steady flow of divorce applications and child support claims for their day jobs, is now truly one of the real legal growth areas in Australia. This bill is a classic example of this government practising what it does best—hypocrisy. The hypocrisy lies in the bill's complex series of amendments to the existing legislation. I took the trouble to read the minister's two explanatory memoranda on this bill. The first explanatory memorandum is an exhaustive list of proposed changes. There are so many that time precludes me from being able to go into any detail. However, two facts are clear. The first fact is that the overall scheme of child support in Australia is set to become more complex than it already is. The second fact is that yet more power is being absorbed by the state in a desperate bid to avoid the reality that, if this government were truly serious about the words of the Minister for Community Services that `this government values families and children', it should seek to make an economic and social environment that supports families and children. Instead, in this legislation we see a further worsening of the environment for families and children.The child support legislation is a fantastic disaster. The Child Support Agency will boast to its ministers how efficiently it is collecting money. The CSA will also boast how well Australia performs relative to other jurisdictions in the world. Such comparisons are what are called in the computer industry MIPs—meaningless indicators of performance. These MIPs are used to give a gloss over of an otherwise disastrous bureaucratic system which is predicated on its own existence, for it is the bureaucratic regime's own existence that lies at the heart of this legislation. This legislation does not attempt to bring resolution to the ultimate causes of the problems of family separation. Nor does any other Commonwealth legislation. Rather, the legislation of this government has done everything in its power to send messages out to the general public that divorce is a seamless, simple and painless process. The average spouse out there holds the belief that in society divorce has been made simple: just fill in a form 7, wait 12 months and, bingo, you are a free man or woman and all will be well. It is not until a person actually goes through the divorce that they realise with absolute abhorrence the implications of the jurisdiction of the Family Court. But there is worse to come. The Child Support Agency then intervenes and imposes all sorts of financial constraints on the parties which are increasingly questioned. It is this reaction against the role of the Child Support Agency that has compelled me to speak this morning. I have seen an increasing incidence of complaints against the Child Support Agency in my first two years in this House. The typical complaint concerns the frustration people feel when they are mechanically assessed for paying amounts that, in my humble opinion, defy reason. The mechanics of the Child Protection (Assessment) Act and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act contain provisions detailing complex but highly impractical formulae which often yield thoroughly ridiculous outcomes. I have received complaints from both payers and payees under the system. Payers complain that the amounts being statutorily extracted from their salaries are totally unrealistic, unsustainable and ludicrous. Payees are also complaining but for the opposite reasons: namely, that the money they receive is insignificant compared with the sums required for the care and control of their children. This brings me to the process whereby adjustments are made. These are known as departure applications. The bulk of complaints that come to my electorate office concern not so much the cumbersome departure system but the bureaucratic incompetence of the CSA in administering departure applications. I refer to one case that occurred in 1999. At first, all went well. Following my representations for a departure application, a favourable notice of decision was made for my constituent on 7 July 1999. What followed has been a truly deplorable set of circumstances. All manner of excuses were raised. Chiefly, the CSA would not or could not take action to recover moneys. This was so even though the CSA and the Australian Taxation Office have substantial powers to compel payment or commence legal proceedings. The matter reached a point where my constituent could no longer sustain herself. In frustration, she came back to me seeking further intervention. At first instance I contacted the Commonwealth Ombudsman. I was advised by the CSA through the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office that a complaints officer within the CSA had been appointed. I referred the matter to that complaints officer. I have learned that, rather than the complaints officer treating the matter as an internal review, the matter was simply referred back to the line officers who had previously refused to take decisive action. I then referred the matter for a second time to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, this time adding to the complaint not only the issue of inaction by the CSA but also a complaint about the complaint process itself. In all, the matter is now 15 months old. I have still not received an outcome from the complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This is but one example, and I could cite many more.Perhaps there are members in this House who think that I stand alone in my criticism of the CSA, the ATO and the Family Court and their charters as issued by this government. Unfortunately, I am not alone in this criticism. I cite the authority of Justice Joseph Kay in the reported judgment of Kness v. Kness. At paragraph 22 of the judgment His Honour states:One passing comment and final matter is that this whole process contained in the—Child Support Assessment Act—legislation appears to be amazingly cumbersome and may have the effect of grinding parties down to a point where they find the whole exercise overwhelming. It is dealing with the day to day needs of people to survive economically. It is dealing with the needs of the parent who has the care of the children to provide for the children. It is dealing with the strained financial circumstances of the other parent who is often trying to set up a new household and has to stretch funds which previously were available for one household to meet the needs of two. In many cases there is no capital base and no savings to draw upon.His Honour notes that the processes that are built into the legislation lull the payer into a false sense of security so that he or she spends money for which he or she is subsequently found liable to pay to the payee, and there is no money to make up the backlog. His Honour observes that this money has to come out of future moneys needed to be spent on the children or on self-support. His Honour concludes at paragraph 24 of the reported judgment:It is hard to see the reason for such monumental bureaucratic hurdles as are created by Part 4B.This is legislation that shatters not only the existing family but the capacity for the individual parties to get on with their lives. In effect, this legislation is an ambush for those persons who are lulled into that false sense of security which I referred to which in turn hits home only when the payer or payee attempts to get on with their lives, ultimately attempting future relationship building. They are simply left to wallow as they are unable to cope financially. The bill before us this morning simply adds more bureaucracy. I now want to speak on two particular provisions of this legislation. The first provision is detailed in the CCH Australian Family Law child support news report No. 16 of 13 September 2000, which notes the proposed reduction in the child support formula percentages where a nonresident parent has contact with children for between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of the time. The second group of provisions is examined in detail in the minister's first explanatory memorandum for this bill, and is also reflected in the CCH article I referred to. To put it bluntly, this bill adds, not detracts, from the complexity of the child support legislation. A listing of the amendment headings demonstrates at a glance that the practical intent of this bill is to make child support legislation in Australia even more complex than it already is. The amendment areas are: introducing a shared care formula; lowering the income cap on payer taxable income; creating a new ground for eligibility for making departure applications; increasing the family tax benefit and child-care benefits income test deductions; enabling the registrar to issue a departure prohibition to deny a payer leaving Australia if he or she persistently fails to meet their obligations; establishing a minimum amount of payer's income to be exempt from child support; and expanding the definition of an eligible carer.The concern about these amendments is that the emphasis towards reduced child payments will mean lower amounts in the payee's hands. It is provisions such as those called the `travel ban' provisions and the overall increased complexity of the legislation that demonstrate yet more government intervention in and control over the daily lives of citizens. The legislation has been drafted in a desperate bid to further control the lives of citizens while denying real responsibility for dealing with the problem at its source—family separation. Instead, this government has further dug its talons deep into the bodies of the payers and, by the same stroke of the pen, made the payee and his or her children more dependent on the child support system. It is a vicious cycle. In doing so, the bureaucratic system and the divorce industry are not only preserved but also enhanced in their pursuit of ensuring greater dependency on the state apparatus. These provisions now go further in restricting or denying movements altogether, lowering payment thresholds and allowing further invasive powers over the financial affairs of its citizens. Rather than attempting to create an environment that furthers the prosperity of families and children in Australia, this government is creating a living hell for people seriously contemplating raising a family within either the married state or a de facto relationship. Whether people are married or not, the provisions of the child support legislation apply. This legislation is indiscriminate whether one is formally married or not, and applies to de facto relationships as well. The legislation is merciless in that it seeks to patch up a social policy that is morally bankrupt. The ultimate solution to these intractable problems is not to pass more legislation that denies each individual their liberty; the solution lies in enacting legislation and making a socially cohesive economy that encourages family formation and survival.For all the rhetoric of this government parading itself as a champion for family and children, this government has miserably failed both. One only needs to look at the statistics of the rapid increase in form 49 children contravention orders that are lodged in the family courts throughout Australia to see that, according to Family Court statistics, there was a 12 per cent increase in the number of contravention orders made between 1998 and 1999. In short, this government has, through this bill, demonstrated that it cannot legislate out the problems relating to marital breakdown through punitive measures in the guise of child support legislation. I am compelled to remind this House of the meaning of criminal legislation for, whilst the two enabling acts the subject of the bill are administrative in nature, they nonetheless contain provisions or can rely on provisions which invoke punitive punishment. This House will know that the Child Support Agency comes under the administrative umbrella of the Australian Taxation Office. The whole scheme of child support collection was brought under the administrative umbrella of the ATO precisely so that it could hard-wire payments for child support directly within the taxation system, tapping into the PAYE taxation deductions of payers, thus purportedly improving on child support collection. In reality, the system has given the Child Support Agency a range of Sampson and Goliath powers that are largely impotent. The provisions of evasion and avoidance powers under the Taxation Administration Act and the Income Tax and Assessment Act are the proverbial cracking of a nut with a sledgehammer. The basic questions are: what if the payer simply refuses to or cannot pay the money? Then what? These are the questions on which my constituents in Lowe turn to me for answers. I turn to the ATO and the CSA, only to be told, with lamentation, that if they do commence prosecution against the defaulting payer it is all but futile.The purpose of law is twofold. The first purpose of law is to prescribe minimum standards of conduct. The second role of law is to espouse a moral code which says that, so long as you fall within a minimum level of conduct, you are not only acting legally but also acting morally in the social contract between citizen and state. The combination of family and child support laws here say: divorce is easy; there is no fault in divorce; once you are divorced you are entitled to child support as a statutory right; the state strives to but cannot guarantee you payment, although it will lull you into the false sense of security of believing that the system can squeeze blood from a stone; once you find that your matrimonial home is divided between you, your ex-spouse and the lawyers, you are ultimately destitute; the collection processes utilised by the CSA are truly deplorable, making it extremely difficult for the beneficiary of the payments to get their money within a reasonable period of time; and, once you are locked into the child support system, you are effectively dissuaded from using the CSA for the collection of moneys.It is apparent that the government is actively seeking to have parties enter into private arrangements to recover money. This is demonstrable proof that the bulk of payers do not pay. The government has created a bureaucracy that is making payees, invariably women, and their children dependent on the system or self-help remedies. I oppose the measures relating to shared care unless the government supports amendments to relax family tax benefit maintenance income testing. I further oppose the reduction of the cap for high income earning for non-custodial parents. Finally, this bill is a deliberate and calculated approach by this government to intervene in the lives of individuals and have them bear the many costs of this government's economic decision making rather than take the tough decisions to make a social and economic environment which supports families and children.11:22:0021431May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—The Howard government firmly believes that the family is the most important institution in our society, contrary to what the member for Lowe has claimed here today. It rightly deserves to be nurtured, because it is the most basic and most fundamental building block of our nation. The product of stable and successful families is healthy children who will make a positive contribution to the future prosperity of Australia. There is convincing international research that indicates that childhood experiences and circumstances are an important influence on outcomes in later life. Although most Australians would agree that the ideal family situation involves both parents living together and raising their children together, it is essential that a fair child support scheme is in place to meet the needs of separated parents and children. It has been found that initiatives that aim to enhance family support and the child's environment result in such benefits as higher employment, reduced welfare dependency, improved school performance, less involvement in crime and less child abuse and neglect. These should be major goals of any government, and that is why, since the first day the Howard government was elected in 1996, we have been working to give families and their children better opportunities. This government has introduced a raft of initiatives of major benefit to the family unit. The initiatives contained in the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 build upon the family friendly policies the Howard government has previously introduced, such as the $240 million Stronger Families and Communities Strategy and the family assistance package. The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy is the biggest commitment any government in Australia's history has made to this important sector of our society. The strategy is essentially a preventative measure to quell the incidence of family break-up. It contains major initiatives to help families with parenting, provide children with development opportunities, help balance the needs of work and families and provide further resources to deal with relationship problems. Unfortunately, no government can put an end to family break-ups altogether. Governments can only attempt to lessen the incidence of separation and ensure that separated families are well provided for. With 40 per cent of marriages now ending in divorce, it is essential that the measures introduced in the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 are adopted.This bill addresses some of the serious issues facing families following parental separation. It also introduces new initiatives to encourage parents to involve themselves in their children's lives, even if they do not live under the same roof. The fundamental purpose of the bill is to make the system of child support more equitable. If a system is seen to be fair by all parties involved, then compliance with the rules will naturally increase. And the winners from improved maintenance compliance are, of course, our very own Australian children.According to research conducted by the Child Support Agency in 1999, 91.5 per cent of child support payers are male and only 8.4 per cent of payers are female. On the other hand, the majority of payment receivers, or payees, are female—91.7 per cent. Only 8.2 per cent of payees are male. These statistics clearly show that when a relationship breaks up the mother is usually the primary carer of the children, while the father is generally the non-custodial parent who pays child support. When dealing with families and the deep emotions that are involved, it is always difficult to establish and implement policies. In drafting this bill the government has done what is right for the majority of Australian families who have separated, while still ensuring that there is enough flexibility in the system to cater for those in unique personal situations and relationships.This government's record shows that good policy comes from solid research and an understanding of the standards that the vast majority of the Australian people expect. Following the recommendations of the Price report in 1994, the Howard government introduced changes to the child support legislation in 1997 and 1998 and now in 2000. This government's amendments have made the scheme more flexible and responsive to particular situations, given more recognition to the increasing number of second families emerging in society and encouraged and facilitated private arrangements. The measures in this bill will add to the good results achieved through previous reform, by creating a fairer system and striking a balance between public and private forms of support.This bill also ensures that there is an appropriate balance between allowing enough flexibility to meet individual family needs and enforcing maintenance compliance. Naturally, these measures will be carried out in the spirit of nurturing cohesive family relationships, so that parents and children enjoy participating in each other's lives. Our proven method of increasing compliance with Child Support Agency laws is to encourage non-custodial parents to become actively involved in their children's lives by having regular contact with them. But, currently, there is no allowance in the child support formula for shared care cases where one carer provides less than 30 per cent of the care. This part of the legislation has remained unchanged since the introduction of the formula in October 1989—11 years ago. However, during the ensuing decade shared care has become more common, and therefore it is proper for our social policy to reflect those changes. Therefore, this bill will introduce a reduction in the amount of child support payable if a non-custodial parent has contact with their children between 10 and 30 per cent of the year. This measure is a commonsense one which acknowledges that, just because a parent does not live with their child permanently, they do not still incur costs when caring for them. It is supported by Australian research which shows that the cost of contact with children is high due to establishment costs, such as providing a bedroom, furniture and clothing, and the recurring costs of food, transport and entertainment. It must also be pointed out that, while the non-custodial parent—usually the father—is caring for the children, the custodial parent—usually the mother—is not incurring child-rearing costs. In addition, the government's recognition of these realities will improve the incentives for nonresident parents to remain active in their children's lives. It will also distinguish between those parents who do not make the effort to see their children regularly or even at all and those who do.A major criticism by non-custodial parents of the current child support arrangements has been that they are expected to pay child support while being denied access to their children. By promoting and rewarding this sort of parental contact time, the bill also addresses this issue. By encouraging non-custodial parents to devote time to their children it will help to erase the feeling among some non-custodial parents that child support payments are some kind of punishment inflicted upon them for a failed marriage. The parent will be able to see how their payments practically contribute to their child's upbringing. Back in 1994—six years ago—the Price report identified problems with the 30 per cent minimum, and it is a credit to this government that it has had the courage to address this issue.The second major measure in this bill reduces the cap on a payer's income that is subject to the child support assessment formula. Essentially the cap on payer taxable income that is subject to child support formula assessment will be aligned with that used for the payee's income. Currently the level at which the income used to assess the amount of child support payable is capped at 2½ times the average weekly earnings of full-time employees. However, the payee's disregard income amount is set by the average weekly earnings of all employees. So by aligning these two measures the cap will be reduced to around $79,000. Again this measure will introduce equality into the system and reflect more accurately the costs of raising children.At the moment the level of the cap requires those who make higher payments to contribute more in child support than it actually costs to raise their children. When the level of child support payments exceeds the actual gross cost of raising children the payments cease being child support and effectively become transfers to the person's former spouse. This is clearly inequitable and serves only to act as a disincentive to work and to encourage payment avoidance. The Howard government recognises that children should be able to benefit from their parents' wealth, and that is why the resident parents of these children will still receive payments of over $12,000 for one child, $18,000 for two children and higher amounts for three or more children. Under the current legislation there is no allowance for non-custodial parents to take on a second job, extra overtime or other additional work to improve the financial situation of their second family. In fact parents in this situation have described starting a second family as a poverty trap. The Howard government does not believe that any person should feel that there are these sorts of disincentives to starting a family. We must all recognise that the needs of the second family and the children being raised in it are as important as the needs of the first family. No child takes precedence over another.The government's aim is to ensure that both households have the security and financial wellbeing to feed, clothe and educate our next generation properly. This bill strikes that balance by allowing parents who take on additional work to support their new family to apply to have that extra income excluded from the assessment of child support. The safeguards in the bill will make sure that the income will be disregarded only if it can be clearly demonstrated that it was earned for the sole purpose of supporting the children in their new family. By limiting the amount of income that can be excluded to 30 per cent of the parent's total income, this measure will enable parents to improve the position of their new family, while not disadvantaging their first family.As part of the Howard government's reforms of the Social Security Act in 1998, we allowed 50 per cent of a parent's child support payments to be deducted from their household's income when their entitlement to family assistance was calculated. This initiative was a step towards equity and a huge help to many Australian families. At the time the 50 per cent deduction drastically improved the fairness of the means test system. Today in this bill the government has gone a step further. Child support payers who have formed subsequent families will now be able to claim 100 per cent of any child support paid. Payers and their new families will benefit from dollar-for-dollar deductions for any child support paid.This will mean that the payer's second family will have their family tax benefit and child-care benefits assessed on income that reflects the actual amount that their household has available to spend. It will ease the burden on new families and promote further compliance of proper and timely maintenance payments. I would like to point out that this measure implements the Price report's recommendation and has received the endorsement of the Australian Council of Social Service. The 100 per cent deduction is a real practical initiative designed to assist Australian families. It is this sort of compassionate policy that reflects the level of this government's commitment to building a strong future.The Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 is fundamentally equitable legislation. It underpins this government's belief that the family is the single most important unit of our society. If we are to progress as a nation and meet the challenges that lie before us, we must give our next generation every opportunity to grow up in stable, secure and loving environments. The measures introduced in this bill encourage both parents to take a stake in their child's future. This bill increases the fairness of the child support system, thereby maximising the chance of the non-custodial parent complying with their maintenance duties.No-one would deny that parents who separate from their partner have a lifelong duty to care for their children. That duty is not lessened just because they start another family. However, this bill ensures that the scales are equally weighted. The results are favourable to both parties because the new family will not feel impoverished as a result of child support responsibilities and the first family has a better chance of receiving the payments that are rightly due to them. The Howard government has a proud record of visionary initiatives designed to improve the circumstances of Australian families. This bill adds to that record by looking out for the needs of separated parents and children. I commend this bill to the House. 11:37:0021435Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I acknowledge and thank the member for McPherson for her thoughtful contribution on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. It was always disappointing to me that the then Labor government did not change any of the policy on child support but only picked up on some of the administrative changes recommended in the report. When speaking in this place I have never failed to acknowledge the fact that the government has in its way picked up some of the policy issues in the report, although I confess that it still remains largely unimplemented—but that is life, I guess.Before I turn to the provisions of the bill, there are a couple of things I want to put on the public record. I notice that, in earlier contributions, some people talked about the strength of different men's groups around the country—I have had the pleasure of speaking to most—but it is the case that there is not a proper national organisation. It is one of the tasks I have set for myself—to try to facilitate a proper national men's group, basically, because, although some say diversity gives strength, in the case of lobbying for change, diversity can be confusing. United under a common achievable agenda a lot more can be accomplished. It is also easier to have dialogues with other groups who are stakeholders in this area. Whether we are looking at people representing resident parents or people representing nonresident parents, there is a lot in common. In different ways both can be disadvantaged under the current system. I certainly hope to get out again in 2001 to talk to different people across the country. The federal parliamentary party has gagged me on section 121—well, I will be out there in voter land talking about section 121. If I am currently embarrassed by that condition, then others in the caucus may, in the long run, be embarrassed by the position that caucus has adopted on section 121. I will start my contribution by acknowledging the efforts of our shadow minister. It is nice to be able to talk about a bill whose principles, by and large, we agree with and whose measures we are either adopting, or adopting in principle. Frankly, this has been a sea change for us—both in the latter period of Labor in government and certainly in opposition. A lot of the credit is owed to his considerable efforts. It is nice to get into caucus meetings where we can, perhaps through compromises on both sides, have an intelligent and informed discussion about what are essentially quite difficult and often emotional issues. So I congratulate our shadow minister. To start I will talk about a measure we are opposing, the reduction in the cap. As I have said before—and by the way, I support the position put by the shadow minister; I want to make that quite clear—the reduction from $101,153 to $78,378 is a proposition that does have a rationale behind it. Firstly, the formula was originally fixed at 2.5 times average weekly earnings. The 0.5 per cent was there to reflect the cost to resident parents of seeking a departure in the Family Court. Whether you agree with it being set at that level, that was the decision that was taken. Once a departure mechanism was introduced into the agency—and I have always sought to acknowledge the work of Con Sciacca in that regard when he had responsibility for it—the rationale for that 0.5 per cent was no longer there, and no government has sought to address that issue until this particular measure we are discussing today.The other point is this: perhaps there are inadequate studies into the measure, but you do reach a point in the quantum of child support payments where it can no longer be claimed that the amount of money is actually going to meet the needs of children. For the Labor Party it would have been more acceptable had there been other measures associated with these bills that looked at the bottom end of the families. We could have then, I suppose, more readily accepted that change. We are opposing it in this measure and I do not resile from that. The other measure I would like to comment on is the acknowledgment of the nonresident parent's costs when contact is between 10 and 30 per cent. At the moment it is at 30 per cent. One is very much aware of the trench effect that establishes—there is a great deal of contact up to 30 per cent but it falls away dramatically because of the financial implications once you reach 30 per cent. Do I think this breakthrough in acknowledging the costs of nonresident parents in having contact with their children is a good thing? Yes, I think it is an exceptionally good measure. It is the case that, whenever you change the balance points in the formula, you engage in winners and losers. It is not possible to make a change without there being a loser. One can argue about whether the loss is significant, but that is a different argument. I commend the shadow minister, the member for Lilley, for applying his mind to the idea that perhaps, in the principle of recognising additional costs, we ought to ameliorate any losses by the resident parent. I think the idea of a targeted contact payment is not a bad one. But he might want to look at the exempt income of a nonresident parent. You could actually make a provision for a flat amount that could also operate that way, but, again, if you did it by way of an adjustment, you would still have a loss by the resident parent. I think it is important that we look at the principles underlying the bill, and all sides agree that this is a good principle, and that is the case. I think it is also appropriate for us to have a decent debate about the best method of implementing it and how we can do it in a way that there are not winners and losers. It is really easy to rack up the equity and the fairness in the scheme if you are prepared to expend quite a few Commonwealth dollars. One of my great criticisms of the Child Support Scheme—there are many benefits and I have enumerated those often enough—is that, by and large, the primary objective is the clawback of Centrelink payments. To remove that as the primary objective, as I say, requires a great deal of money. The important thing is that there has not been an outright rejection of the proposal. In principle it is supported; there is an argument about methodology.The other issue that I want to comment on is that of second families, particularly in relation to second job and overtime. This is an area where I regret that that report of so many years ago was not a lot stronger. There is a great deal of evidence around that there is a lot of pressure on second families, and we need to do something about it. In the report we resisted the temptation to exempt second income or overtime, which was something that was pushed upon us. I congratulate the Minister for Community Services for bringing this measure forward. There are some very stringent guidelines associated with the measure to ensure that there is no abuse of it. I know that there was no intention on the part of either the agency or the minister that there could be I think this measure goes some way; it is a good start. I think we ought to develop the principle further. I was toying with a proposal in the last parliament that we should have a departure based on discrimination against a child. The essence of that was that you should actually look at the household income—not the formula income—of the two families, and, if it became apparent that there was significantly more capacity to support a child or children in one family vis-a-vis the second or the other family, we ought to allow departure on that basis. I do not think that that is an unreasonable basis.I am not going to speak about other measures; they have been covered very well. I want to pose a question which I think is of greatest interest to me, and I hope other honourable members might be interested as well. The Child Support Scheme was a radical and revolutionary scheme. It replaced a disgraceful situation. I think, of all the achievements of the Child Support Scheme, the one that we cannot comment on enough is the fact that, wherever you go in Australia, you actually do not have a debate about parents being responsible for their children. You might get a debate about the degree of financial responsibility or the burden of responsibility in the Child Support Scheme, but not that the parents should not be responsible. This has been a huge sea change in community attitudes. If there is any benchmark for success, I think this is a very useful benchmark. Where do we want the scheme to be in five years time? Where do we want the scheme to be in the year 2000? I think we need to start reflecting on all that has been achieved under the scheme and the next most important iteration of it, rather than going back to a report that is now a bit of ancient history. Having complimented everyone about the scheme and the change of community attitudes, it is still a point of great disappointment to me that the scheme is not universal and that the many loopholes that were identified so long ago still exist, to the extent that if you are self-employed or a professional it is still the case today that you can drive a horse and buggy through it—notwithstanding some, but not all, of the measures recommended to address it. So I am really pleased to be standing here in this debate supporting the position put by the shadow minister. As I started perhaps I could finish: I congratulate him for all that he has achieved with this measure.11:53:0021437Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—A lot of my views are along the lines of the previous speaker, but we come at these things from different angles. In speaking today to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, I will begin by saying that the government has regularly maintained the best social welfare program yet devised, in that it recognises the family unit as the most important unit of society. While the make-up of a family can vary considerably, the value of a strong family unit in the development of children cannot be overstated. Strong and healthy family relationships are often the best guarantee of strong family and community relationships. That is one of the main reasons the coalition government has put in place the $240 million Stronger Families and Communities Strategy. This strategy represents a new policy direction of prevention and early intervention for Australian families and communities—in other words, solving the problem before it occurs. In addition to the strategy, the government has introduced a major simplification of family assistance as part of the new tax reform package. This has condensed 12 types of family assistance into three. These measures, which include the replacement of the family allowance and the family tax initiative with a family tax benefit, will provide families with both increased levels of assistance and better work incentives. Reforms have been made in child care to ensure that assistance is better targeted to low and middle income families and to promote access in regional areas of the highest need. This bill being debated today builds on these reforms and initiatives by addressing key issues faced by Australian families following separation. It sets out improved child-care arrangements that will promote better relationships between separated parents and encourage them to maintain contact with their children after separation. The Child Support Scheme was first developed in 1988 to assist separated parents to take responsibility for the financial support of their children. The Child Support Agency today has more than 2,500 staff around the country assisting about one million Australian parents. Since the inception of the Child Support Scheme, approximately 90 per cent of child support liabilities have been paid and approximately 70 per cent of parents pay regularly. In the 1998-99 financial year, about $1.3 billion in child support was transferred between parents. But I must be honest: I have never been a great devotee of the Family Court—certainly not as it is currently structured—nor the Child Support Agency as it developed under the previous government. In fairness to the previous speaker, it was a monumental change in direction. It was very bold and I do not particularly hold that mistake against the previous government. I certainly do not condone parents not paying for the upkeep of their children, but I have little respect for a system that has been, until just recently, inflexible, bureaucratic and in many instances—and I cite non-custodial parents with second families—quite unjust. It staggers me that the previous government had in place a system that offered virtually no recognition to the nonresident parent who, after divorce, took on the children of a new partner. In this area, I see many grave injustices. In fact the system went so far as almost to entrench government induced poverty. So often I heard people come into my office and say: `My new wife has no support. She doesn't have a job and her previous husband was a loafer'—or he was on a pension or disability pension—`There's no income from that side.' I think a lot of the theorists who devised these schemes thought of a perfect world where, when you separated, new relationships were created but the money would automatically flow irrespective of the circumstances. Of course that is the unreal world. That is not how it happens. Thankfully, this bill and some other measures go a long way to correct this injustice. It is a simple fact of life that the social engineers do not have the week to week responsibility of feeding kids and creating a lifestyle for second families. To understand what the Howard government has done to enhance the Child Support Agency, let us review some of the measures over the last three years. Firstly, there was the introduction of a minimum child support liability of $260 a year. Admittedly, that was aimed at the non-custodial parents, but it was a recognition that, no matter what your circumstances were, you were required to make some contribution, albeit token, to the support of your children. The government also put in place measures to protect parents at risk of family violence to ensure that recipient parents were protected from violence and that they would have the opportunity to obtain child support. One of the most significant measures was the increase of the payers' exempt income by 10 per cent. This meant, in effect, that the exempt income that was equivalent to the basic social security payment increased by 10 per cent before the child support formula was applied. I personally would have liked to have seen 20 per cent, and the minister knows my views on that matter quite clearly.One of the first moves in correcting the injustices to payers with second families was a change to the family payment income test. This meant it took less payee income to reduce a payer's child support liability and that child-care costs were no longer an automatic component of the child support formula. The crediting of non-agency payments was also important. Now, by arrangement, families can agree that payment of certain things for the children shall be taken as being legitimate child support. Up to 25 per cent of the payer's monthly child support liability may be credited in relation to payments such as medical and dental expenses, school fees and even the payee's rent. That can happen without the agreement of the payee. An important provision that removes some of the bureaucracy of the child support system was that parents are, by agreement, free to undertake private collection of child support at any time. However, where private collection is unsuccessful, the Child Support Agency will operate as a safety net and recommence collection. I think that is another good provision, taking the bureaucracy out of it, getting down to simple arrangements that can be made by two people with a solicitor. A great change was that calculation of child support assessment was amended so that the most current taxable income available is used in the child support assessment. Where non-custodial parents were in business, information could be up to two years old before enacted. Business returns were not required at the same time as the normal PAYE returns and, if you got an extension because of some difficulty in the business, you could have to wait up to two years before you got a result and the assessment was changed. If the business then went down during the next year, even though it would have fallen within that 24-month period, the payer could have been seriously disadvantaged. There was also an amendment to not backdate payments for 28 days. That might sound like a small measure but, when you put it into the context of the non-custodial parent generally leaving the family home, generally having to find a unit or a flat, generally having to buy new furniture and sometimes even having to buy a new car, and on top of that having four weeks of payments even before the arrangement had officially started, bringing that back to the day of application was also a very good move. The introduction of an internal review mechanism also saved a lot of matters going to the Family Court. I might say by way of slight diversion that I am a great supporter of the Attorney-General's view of having a Federal Magistrates Service. I think that is very important. If the Family Court is as gummed up and is so heavily burdened, as Justice Nicholson says it is, a Federal Magistrates Service will go some way to solving some of the problems, as will this measure of allowing internal reviews to take place. Further, the registrar of the Child Support Review Office has been given streamlined powers to initiate reviews to increase and decrease child support payments. Parents are now able to appear without having to lodge a formal response, and that takes a lot of the angst out of the process as well. There were other flexible arrangements which I think were very good but I will not touch on them. One arrangement that I do think was fair to custodial parents was that, if a child turned 18 during their final year at school, the non-custodial parent should be required to continue support until the child left school. There are four new arrangements introduced in this bill today. The first measure involves a changed formula for child support payers. Currently, there is no allowance in the child support formula for the costs of caring for a child for less than 30 per cent of the nights of the year. The costs of contact for the nonresident parent, the non-custodial parent, is high and includes transport costs as well as providing a bedroom, clothing, food and other necessities. Under this new measure, where a child support payer maintains contact with their children for between 10 and 30 per cent of the year, their child support formula percentages will be reduced. This is intended to encourage parents to maintain contact with their children following separation. Contact with both parents is to the benefit of not only the development of the children but also the scheme, because it has been found that where there is a healthy relationship between the non-custodial parent and the children the non-custodial parent is more likely to pay. So there is financial benefit to the government there as well. This proposal brings the child support arrangements into line with the provisions of the new family tax benefit where parents who have care of their children for at least 10 per cent of the time will be entitled to receive assistance for that child. The second measure will change the upper limit, or cap, on a child support payer's taxable income. The amount used in their child support assessment will be aligned with the income amount that is disregarded for their child support assessment. The result will be a lower cap of around $79,000. This is an important change because currently the child support formula requires some high income payers to pay more than the actual costs accrued by caring for the child. I do not think the scheme was ever meant to do that; it was meant to ensure that the non-custodial parent provided a good income that reflected the actual costs of caring for the child. This new cap will still see resident parents receiving child support of $12,000 a year for one child, $18,000 a year for two and so on. This measure seeks to address some of those anomalies. The measure I want to talk about most—and I return to the theme of second families—deals with where the whole child support system ground to a halt and there was a lack of willingness on the part of payers, non-custodial parents, to sometimes make any effort. It stifled initiative and it stifled their willingness to pay. Under the old tax arrangements you could go out and work your tail off and pay 48c in the dollar on what you earned, and then you might have had to pay anything between 24 per cent and 32 per cent of what you received to the Child Support Agency. There was no incentive to do any additional work. In fact, it almost meant that there was no willingness on the part of people to participate and, as I said earlier, second families were being ground into an almost government-induced poverty.Under the new arrangements proposed in the bill, where a person demonstrates that the extra money they have earned is to the benefit of the current family, generally the second family, and where it can be demonstrated that there is mandatory overtime or specially designated payments, the amount of overtime or the second job can be excluded from the child support assessment. It will be devoted where it is intended to the current, generally second, family. This can be as high as 30 per cent of the worker's total income. The measure will assist parents in their efforts to improve the position of the new family without unduly affecting the status of the first family. The means testing arrangements for government provided family assistance will be changed—this is the fourth measure—with child support payers with new families being able to claim up to 100 per cent deduction for child support. We have been asked to shorten our presentations today, but I would like in conclusion to touch on another matter. I think this might be something that the government considers in the next tranche of measures to streamline the Child Support Agency. I suspect that this will not be liked by the `social dietitians', as the Prime Minister called them, but I have a very firm conviction about this. I have seen too many custodial parents really manipulating the system, ringing up the non-custodial parent when access and custody times designated by the Family Court have become due and saying: `The kid's got a cold; I can't send him' or `If I send the child he won't be able to play football in the semifinal on Saturday, but I won't agree to any other date so you can either have him or I'll have to take him away from the football' or `Look, I'll send him down from Townsville to Toowoomba, but there are no winter clothes; you'll have to buy them.' That sort of manipulation has been going on too long. Of course, some of those manipulative non-custodial parents have been getting away with it.What I would like to propose is this: where a non-custodial parent does not carry out the periods of access and custody laid down by the Family Court, then, for the number of weeks that the non-custodial parent is deprived of his or her children, the custodial parent should be deprived of the payments that are due in those weeks. In other words, if a manipulative custodial parent holds on to children for, say, four weeks against the directions of the Family Court—and sometimes the non-custodial parent does not have the legal means to challenge that—as an automatic fact of life the payments due for those weeks should not be deducted from the non-custodial parent. I think you would find that a lot of these manipulative custodial parents—who see children as a mere negotiating tool, just a means to an income, or who have some possessive hold over their children and try, just to frustrate the non-custodial parent, to make up as many difficulties as they like—would soon come to heel if, every time they did that, a penalty attached to it. Generally they are money hungry, and being deprived of that family payment would help a lot. I know the purists will say, `Oh, what the Family Court says about child custody and what we say about child support are two different things.' They are not; they have never been; and no social dietitian will ever convince me otherwise. 12:12:0021441Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise today to speak on this important legislation, the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. It touches on something that I think most members of parliament deal with a lot in their day-to-day work. We receive a lot of representations, both from custodial and from non-custodial parents, and I understand that the minister has probably been under a lot of pressure when it comes to this legislation, because I know that the Lone Fathers Association and other men's groups are very well organised when it comes to this sort of legislation.But I think it is important for a parliament to keep in mind not the pressure groups that are active around a particular issue but, in fact, the substantive issues that are involved. I think for us today the most important issue is: what is happening to children in this arrangement? What is happening to the living standards of children in families after divorce? For that reason I have a number of concerns about this legislation. The Child Support Agency was set up because there was an understanding that a lot of non-custodial parents were not contributing to the costs of raising children—and indeed those costs are substantial. For the most part, although there is always a lot of criticism of the Child Support Agency, the vast majority of cases go through with little contention and contest. The principle, of course, is that both parents are financially responsible for children and that the needs of the children come first.This legislation, while it has some measures that do consider the needs of children, has a number of measures that are responding merely to calls from non-custodial parents who are expressing concern about the fact that their income is affected by having to make child support payments—and it is affected detrimentally, of course. It shows to a certain extent how captive this government has been to lobby groups such as the Lone Fathers Association. I noted with interest some time ago that the president of the Lone Fathers Association expressed his enthusiasm for the Prime Minister, saying that he had been very pleased to have an hour with the Prime Minister and, when the last budget was brought down, he was thrilled to see so many of the measures proposed by the Lone Fathers Association in that budget.I understand that the Prime Minister may be responsive to such a well-organised lobby group, but there is another consideration at stake: are these people arguing for the best interests of their children or are they arguing from a more selfish point of view? I think the answer is that, as one constituent said, `I have moved on in my life,' and by that he meant he had moved on from his emotional relationship with his former partner and included, in that emotional relationship, his emotional relationship with his children and therefore his financial responsibility for his children. He had `moved on'. The children, of course, do not have that sort of luxury; they cannot just decide that their life circumstances have changed and so they can forget all about the family as it once was. They are still dependent on both parents, and this legislation governing child support payments must reflect that.The measure that I see as being of particular concern in this legislation is the proposal to change or to lower child support liabilities for non-custodial parents who have 10 to 30 per cent care of children. This is an attempt to bring child support liability into line with what has happened with the sharing of family tax benefit. At the time of the changes to family tax benefit being discussed, the Labor Party raised concerns about there being very little evidence that someone who cares for their child for 10 per cent of the time—that is, less than a day a week—really bears such a great percentage of the costs of raising that child. Also, with such low levels of care by the non-custodial parent, there is very little diminution in the costs of raising that child which are borne by the custodial parent. The Labor Party has consistently and constantly asked the government to provide decent research to show that, at the level of 10 per cent of care by the non-custodial parent, a custodial parent's costs are so substantial that they warrant changes in the financial relationships that have been set up—or, indeed, that the costs borne by a parent who has care of a child for 90 per cent of the time are somehow so much less than those borne by a parent who has care of a child for 100 per cent of the time. It really is commonsense to understand that a parent who has children for almost every night of the year has to provide the rent for the extra room that the child needs and has to provide all of the major expenses that that child incurs: clothing, schooling, medical and dental. Most of those costs would be borne by the parent having care of a child for 90 per cent of the time.There is, however, perhaps an argument that someone who has care of a child for 28 per cent of the time has similar costs to those had by someone who has care of a child for 30 per cent of the time. I think the government could make that argument. But what I would really like to see are decisions like this not based on ideology and not based on the activism of lobby groups but actually based on some decent research. We have now had the experience of the change to the family tax benefit. I would like to see some real accounting to show what changes that has delivered for both custodial and non-custodial parents and, most importantly, for the children of those relationships—to have a look at some real research on what has happened with family tax benefit and see whether, from those changes, we can deduce whether these further changes will be of any benefit at all to children.The Labor Party says there may be some argument for saying that the costs of parents with almost a 30 per cent care level are similar to those borne by someone who has the care of their children for 30 per cent of the time—but we would like to see research. The other thing we have been very clear about with this legislation is that there seems to be no real reason why every time we create a winner we must also create a loser.The real problem with this legislation is that non-custodial parents have said, `I'm finding it difficult to make ends meet, I'm finding it difficult to manage'—and that may well be true; I have a lot of sympathy for people in that situation. But the government's response is to take money from an even poorer group to deal with the financial problems of the non-custodial parents. It really defies logic, when every piece of research that we have about poverty in this country is that the people who are most likely to live in poverty are custodial parents after divorce, usually women, who are supporting children—and particularly those whose primary responsibility is giving care to those children. Every piece of research that we have suggests that that is the demographic most likely to be living in poverty. And yet the government's response to another group coming to them and saying, `We're finding it really hard to make ends meet and to manage in this context,' is to say, `Well, that's fine we can solve that. We'll solve that by taking money from an even poorer group.'In many instances, members of the government might say that it will not be a huge amount of money. For someone on $15,000 a year, the change will be $1.73. That is probably not a lot. Someone on $35,000 a year who cares for their children 10 to 20 per cent of the time will have their child support liability reduced by almost $10 to $9.43. When you are taking $10 a week away from a custodial parent, that is already making a substantial difference to the family budget for a lot of people living on low incomes. I know that government members might find that hard to believe, because they are not used to dealing with people who live in straitened circumstances in some cases, but I know that for many of my constituents $10 a week makes an enormous difference to the family budget. If you look at higher levels, if you look at someone on, say, $55,000 a year who has care of their children 10 to 20 per cent of the time, their liability will be reduced by $17.13. Someone on $65,000 a year who cares for their children between 10 and 20 per cent of the time will have their liability reduced by $20.97. Someone on $75,000 a year who cares for their children 10 per cent of the time—remember this is less than a day a week—will have their liability reduced by $24.82. That rate and the loss of almost $25 a week will make a very substantial difference to an ordinary family or to a custodial parent who is seeking to care for children. Labor have been very clear about the fact that we do not see why, if the aim is to deal with non-custodial parents who are expressing difficulties making ends meet, the solution must be to take money away from people who are perhaps living in even more desperate circumstances than the non-custodial parents. In the end, the answer is that of course they are also taking money away from the children of that relationship.There are a number of other possible approaches to dealing with this problem. One of the possible approaches that the government should think about exploring is that, to offset this decline in custodial parent income, it could bring the treatment of maintenance income into line with that of ordinary income when it comes to the calculation of family tax benefit A. That would really target low income custodial parents in particular, whether they are sharing care or not. There are some instances where it would not be a benefit—where the non-custodial parent's income is less than $17,000 per annum or where they are not paying enough child support to affect the income of the custodial parent for the purposes of the calculation of the family tax benefit—but that is something that the government could explore. The government could also explore something like a contact payment—a payment made at a rate of $5 or $10 per child per week. A fixed amount like that would of course make a great deal of difference to people on very low incomes. That is another issue that the government could explore.The other measure under this legislation that has really concerned me—and I know it has concerned a number of my colleagues—is the reduction in the income cap. Currently of course, once someone earning $101,153 a year begins to earn more than that, their child support liability has reached the maximum and they will not pay any more than they are already paying. The government proposes to reduce that cap to $78,378. This is a measure that is likely to affect about 4,000 non-custodial parents, because the vast majority of non-custodial parents in the upper income bracket have in fact made private arrangements to provide for their children. They do not do it through the Child Support Agency. Many of them would pay more than they need to because, very rightly, they want to share their prosperity with their children.The dropping of the cap is a measure that is completely aimed at high income earners. It benefits only high income earners. I see it as very difficult to justify a measure that benefits high income earners at the expense of their own children. When the Child Support Agency was set up, one of its guiding principles was that children should continue to benefit from the changing circumstances of their parents. As their parents became more prosperous, so the children should benefit as well. It seems like a fair principle, yet this drop in the cap completely reverses that principle and, as I say, it affects wealthy non-custodial parents exclusively. The numbers involved are quite substantial and could lead to drops as large as $90 per child in child support payments. When we consider that we are not talking about non-custodial parents who are experiencing hardship—they are in the upper income brackets—it seems pretty hard to justify. The reason that various people have given for this change is that there are all these non-custodial parents out there—usually men—who are choosing to throw in their high paying jobs so that they do not have to pay child support for their children. There may be some people like that in the Australian community—it is a big country; there are probably people who do all sorts of things—but they would have to be a tiny minority of very resentful people to give up jobs that pay $100,000 a year so that they avoid paying child support for children that they have fathered in previous relationships. I have seen no research that supports the suggestion that there are such people in the community. Commonsense would tell you that, if you are earning $100,000 a year, you are still much better off after paying child support than someone who is on a much lower income level or who is, as the allegation goes, going on the dole to avoid these liabilities. The suggestion that people would be taking these sorts of measures defies logic. Basing government policy on such an argument is an absurdity and, once again, it means that the people who are suffering are the children of the relationship.There are several other measures. I want to congratulate the government on the measure that says that people who have child support liabilities may not be allowed to leave the country until they have discharged those liabilities. That is very important. I myself have had a number of people come to my electorate office who are trying to pursue the other parent of their child overseas for money that is owed to them. It is virtually impossible. The Child Support Agency has very little ability to get money from people once they have gone overseas. I think that is a very good measure. But, in general, I think there are serious problems with this legislation. The legislation will create a number of losers and those losers will be children.12:32:0021444Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry it took me a little while to get here. We have just launched Corals of the World by Charlie Veron, a landmark document from the Chief Scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I am sure that has a lot to do with the bill before the House.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand what you are saying. In relation to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, some very good work has been done over the last 4½ years in addressing and satisfying some of the many concerns about this particular area of child support. The previous speaker identified and referred to many of those concerns and I am sure that she gets a lot of feedback in this area, as I do in my electorate office. It is interesting that it seems to go in cycles. It will go quiet for a little while and then you have a lot of people in. I guess you find this in your electorate office as well, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the great things that happened very recently was the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service to allow very inexpensive and very timely access to resolving the issues of child support, custody, division of property and so on. In that sense, a lot has happened and I think there is a general will on both sides of the House to make more happen.All members of the House of Representatives—and, indeed, all senators—have some sympathy for trying to, as expeditiously and in as timely a way as possible, make sure that we can do as much as we can for families who have separated and are in such distressing circumstances. I am pleased to support the measures in this bill, because they go some further distance to addressing the inequities in the system. But, at the end of the day, it would not matter how much legislation we put through this place, it would not solve the fundamental problem of families who separate and the bitterness that that sometimes generates—the problems of one parent using the children against the other parent and so on. They are social problems. They are not problems that can be addressed by the parliament of Australia. All of us hope that, when couples have children, they stay together and do not face the kinds of things that the child support legislation unfortunately has to address. The bill addresses four measures relating to child support. They were announced as part of the budget this year—and there are non-budget measures as well. There has been a lot of feedback to me from parents who are despondent over the current child support for children with whom the liable parent has only a 10 to 20 per cent contact. As a side issue—and this is not addressed in the bill—there is a lot of concern about non-custodial parents who have to pay child support but have no contact with their children at all. They have a valid complaint in that regard, and that is one of the areas where the Federal Magistrates Service can be very effective. We recently put a bill through the House which also deals with the penalties involved if there is a court order to provide contact with children and that order is not adhered to. The people who come to members of parliament and express their concerns about the amount of child support they have to pay generally accept that they do have a financial responsibility. The first thing they will tell you, up front, is that they understand that they are responsible for a child and that they should help support the child or children. However, it is increasingly apparent that these people feel as though they are being punished by the amount of contact time that they have with their children and also the financial implications that are associated with the inevitable separation that occurs.Currently there is no allowance in the child support formula for the cost of caring for a child for less than 30 per cent of the time. Under this measure, if a non-custodial parent does have contact with their child or children between 10 and 30 per cent of the time, the child formula percentages will be reduced. That will be welcomed. I might also add—and we should always be careful to recognise this—that this is not a male or a female thing; it is not an attack upon a custodial or a non-custodial parent. It is not to say that it is the man being looked after instead of the woman in whatever the union was; it applies equally to both sexes. You do see circumstances where the female is disadvantaged and you do see circumstances where currently the male is disadvantaged. So this measure in the bill will recognise the extra costs of contact faced by non-custodial parents and will encourage parents to maintain contact with their children. Isn't that terrific? It is designed to encourage us to maintain contact with our children. It does make sense: the less allowable time a parent has with their child or children should also be reflected in the amount of financial assistance that is required to be paid.On 1 January 2001 the measure of average weekly earnings that sets the upper limit on payer taxable income used in the child support assessment will be aligned with that used for the payee's disregarded income amount. That is a pretty big mouthful. It is sometimes hard to understand this technical language. Unfortunately, sometimes it is difficult to understand the way the legislation and the Child Support Agency apply these sorts of measures. It is unfortunate that you have to talk about the payee's disregarded income or the payer taxable income. Unfortunately, it seems to be the way of the world these days that we get these very technical comments. I think we as legislators should be mindful all the time of trying to keep things as simple and as straightforward as we can and that we use plain language so that everyone can understand what it is that is being proposed. The payee disregarded income amount is currently set by the average weekly earnings of all employees. However, the level of income used to assess child support payable is capped. It is currently set by using 2.5 times the AWE of full-time employees. Aligning the measure of AWE will give a cap of $78,373 compared with $101,153 under the current arrangements. I think that measure will certainly be welcomed and will reduce the financial pressures on some parents paying child support. The previous speaker quite rightly gave examples of people on high incomes who have simply chosen to toss in their jobs and do something else because of the poverty trap that they have found themselves in as a result of the current situation. I think this measure will reduce the financial pressures on parents paying child support. The current level of the cap is not supported by research on the costs of children. People who come and make representations to us in our electoral offices look us in the eye and say, `Well, what I have to pay is not the cost of supporting my child.' They say they are paying large amounts of money every fortnight, but they ask, `Where is the money going?' It is not going to the child. It is being spent on overseas holidays or on stereos or on a high lifestyle of some description but it is not being spent on the child. They say it does not cost that kind of money to maintain a child. Quite naturally, the other side of the coin is that a child from a marriage where the working partner or partners were earning quite a high income would have benefited from that high income, so the system expects that benefit to continue. The problem is that the government cannot legislate in practice that money that goes towards the support of a child should be exclusively spent on the child. It is a very difficult area indeed.Yesterday I was in trouble with the whips' clerk. I promised the whip I would speak for only 10 minutes, so I will terminate my comments at this stage. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. It certainly has my full support.12:43:0021446Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Most of the child support changes in the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 were telegraphed in the 2000-01 budget. The changes are generally positive and genuinely support the ideal of improving the system for the benefit of the family. But, most importantly, as most speakers have indicated, the child is the key to the whole system. While I am willing to support the bulk of these changes, I want to make some comments on where I feel the legislation falls short in a number of areas. Unfortunately, many of the child support reform recommendations made in the 1994 joint committee report remain to be addressed. It was two years before some reforms were legislated and now another two years have passed before further reforms have come through. While this legislation is a positive step, it does seem to fall short of the kinds of reforms needed in some key areas. The `gently, gently' approach to such a sensitive portfolio area is understandable, but I wonder if a far more vigorous approach to some of the reforms necessary might not be in the best interests of all parties to child support, and particularly the child. Child support has consistently been among the top three constituent concerns that come through my office. I can say that the number of seemingly unresolvable cases is on the decline. I should also add that the Child Support Agency staff with whom my staff and I have contact are of an extremely high calibre, and this assists no end. The change from tax office oversight of child support to its supervision now by Centrelink was perhaps the single most important reform of the past few years. Regular meetings with child support staff, public forums to explain changes to the legislation, the location of child support offices in the region and the visits by expert staff from Canberra to my office—and no doubt to those of all members—to conduct interviews with clients have all contributed to a far more efficient system and a reduction in the angst that surrounded child support. However, some underlying problems with the unfairness of the formula still apply, as far as I am concerned. I said amendments in this bill complete the Child Support Agency's transition from Tax to the Family and Community Services portfolio; it also ensures that close links remain with the tax office for the purposes of assessment, collection and enforcement of child support. But it is done on a much more user-friendly basis these days. I want to make particular note of some of the provisions in the billfirstly, the one that recognises greater contact between the paying parent and the child through reduction in child support payments depending on the level of contact. For a long time, payees who care for their children less than 30 per cent of the year have not been recognised for the care they provide in terms of child support liability. I am pleased to see parents who have regular contact with their children have been distinguished from those who do not. This was a key area in the minister's budget statement. I was quick to contact him and say that he had hit one of the necessary nails right on the head with a well-targeted reform. This measure recognises that there are significant costs of having the children in care by the non-custodial parent, and that cost should be deductible from their child support liability. I well remember a case in 1996, one of the very first that I had to deal with, when a young man outlined the costs of looking after his children, including the costs involved in providing sleeping accommodation in his flat and presents for their birthdays—he could not afford things like trips and excursions at that point—and said how unfair it was that his overtime was lumped on top of his very mediocre wage, leaving him in a fairly parlous situation.The departure prohibition orders do not need much comment; they are logical and they are obviously necessary. I am not convinced of the merit of possible amendments flagged by the opposition in the Senate providing for some extra payment to resident parents to compensate for the part loss of child support, but I will comment on that in a moment. The positive changes proposed for parents who are supporting a second family include parents improving the circumstances of their second family not having overtime or income earned from a second job assessed as income for child support purposes. Payers with subsequent families will be able to claim up to 100 per cent of any child support paid as a deduction from the household income used for determining the family's entitlements to the family tax benefit and child-care benefits. When I contributed to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill in 1998, I said then that the proposed 50 per cent allowable deduction was inadequate. While I am pleased to see the government has recognised that fact—expressed by others as well—here we are amending the legislation again when we could have got it right a couple of years ago.While I am happy to support the majority of changes proposed in the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, I have got particular reservations about the decrease in the cap on income subject to child support formula assessment from $101,153 to $78,378. The measure is justified by the government in two ways. Firstly, it is fairer to use the all-employees average total weekly earnings as the scale than to use the full-time adult average weekly earnings scale. It is ironic that this government is willing to do this in the name of fairness and reduce the cap for the most wealthy. Secondly, the government argues that the reduction in the cap means that high income earners who have been paying more child support will no longer pay more than the costs of their children. Regardless of this, I find it a little absurd that the reduction in the cap proposed in the bill has been made when there are literally thousands of cases out there of wealthy parents who manage to pay nothing because they are able to disguise their real income through the use of business structures or trusts or by operating in the cash economy. I really question the reasoning behind reducing the cap on the ones earning the most while there apparently is no will to prevent wealthy parents with clever accountants using business structures to blur their income level when they can afford to pay child support. Thus they still avoid their responsibilities. I wonder why such a cut in the cap has occurred, given that about one per cent of current payers apparently will be affected. It smacks of special help—or will be perceived as that—to the wealthier, as those below $78,000 have no such belief. I recall in recent times a constituent of mine who was in dire straits because her ex-husband was channelling all his income into the family business and company trusts. Legally she could not do a thing. While he was driving around in luxury cars which were company owned, she could barely afford to feed or properly clothe the kids. Yet I see nothing here to suggest that such avoidance of responsibilities has been addressed. I also despair somewhat as to when this parliament will seriously look at reviewing the structure of payment on a per child basis. I firmly believe—and I have had discussions with custodial and non-custodial parents on this, men and women—that the existing 18 per cent for one child, 27 per cent for two and 32 per cent for three, without those adjustments that the bill allows for, and so on, of gross income earned, is no longer appropriate. The proposed change in the bill to exempt income earned from a second job, regular overtime or similar sources earned to benefit the children of the payees' current family is a positive move. But I remain concerned that there will still be no reasonable level of exempt income percentage for payers with a number of children for whom child support is paid. The 10 per cent increase in exempt income in 1998 remains, leaving many payers with several children with very little to live off. In 1998 many groups recognised that a 20 per cent increase was more appropriate. I know the opposition supported at least a 15 per cent increase, but this has not happened.In 1998 the government made a 10 per cent increase in the amount of exempt income for child support assessment purposes. I wonder how this will assist the father—and perhaps the minister might address this—with five children under the age of 14 in my electorate paying a small fortune in child support. He has got about $30 a week to start a new life after he pays board and reasonable living expenses. However, schedule 3 of this bill, providing as it does an exemption for income assessment of 30 per cent of money earned from a second job or regular overtime, does go some way to help some cases like this. But the person in the case I mentioned is a schoolteacher—and these kids are now aged about 16 and younger, the case is about two years old, and there is a pretty long time frame out there ahead of him for these child support payments. And there is no overtime in school teaching in the public system. Particularly for a person with a second family, it appears there is little prospect of a second job in a profession like that.But I am satisfied this bill can alleviate some of the pressure on non-custodial parents, particularly those who have remarried or have a new partner along with second families and perhaps the ability to earn that extra money. But for those who have not repartnered and those with three of four or even five children at a young age the prospects are particularly bleak. And virtually every one of those parents wants their kids to have a fair go. They are not walking away from that.I take the point of the member for Lilley in his concerns that providing a direct link between contact and liability might intensify disputes over access, with many resident parents likely to try to limit access to the other parent so they do not lose financially. This is perhaps quite likely, given the level of bitterness surrounding many situations that have been monitored by the CSA, because of the complete breakdown of communication and trust between the parents. That, unfortunately, will continue, and it is up to the court—or, indeed, the magistrates now—to determine that those access orders are enforced. I take a further point from the member for Lilley's contribution about additional compensation for custodial parents to offset the loss of any portion of child support under these changes. As I said, I am not convinced the existing percentage formula is fair as it stands, but I do concede that at lower levels of income for both payer and payee any reduction for one becomes a potentially major problem for the other. There appears to be a need to look at compensation at such levels of income, and I would support that recommendation, which I think would be best addressed with a full and thorough inquiry into the fairness of the existing formulae per se.With the child support regime, the only option where there is a lack of communication between the parents, there is little chance of the sort of flexibility that can be arranged in an agreement outside the child support structure—although there are some very positive things being done within the Child Support Agency to wean people off the agency. I was speaking to one of their very thorough officers. He did say at a public meeting on this, explaining changes to the act, that perhaps the Child Support Agency is one of the few agencies run by a government where those who are committed to it actively discourage clients from remaining as clients, that they would rather see them outside that system and working things out for themselves—and so say all of us! These people, recipient parents as well as payers, are locked into a system, mostly, that on the one hand cannot ascertain exactly how much a person earns and on the other imposes a formula that is often crippling and the source of much bitterness about how it is expended, and if indeed it is spent on the child or children.Just finally let me comment on the child support system in general. When I came to this job I had no experience with child support. I was horrified at the number and types of cases coming before me. In the years 1996 to 1998 I would say a third of my workload was child support related. It was gruelling work, with custodial and non-custodial parents often at wit's end, angry, suicidal and in some cases homicidal. I arranged courses for my staff to help deal with what was essentially a counselling and support role. I saw the need for a network of people to discuss their problems at least and helped form a local branch of the Lone Fathers Association, which I would prefer was a `lone parents' organisation. Nevertheless, in my region it has served the needs of both custodial and non-custodial male and female parents.Recent reforms by this government have dramatically improved the situation at least as far as proper communication between the agency and the clients goes, and the government has to be applauded for that. The scheme as it stands is a whole lot better, at least in its administration, than the scheme that had operated until the past few years and which I came face to face with back in 1996. I simply urge the government to push on to remove the remaining inequities. I suspect we will see the bill back here with amendments, surrounding the issue of the cap in particular, so with these reservations I will reserve any further comments until then. I commend the bill, to the extent I have supported it as it stands, to the House.12:58:0021449Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I join with the member for Calare in his comments with regard to how the issue of child support in general impacts on an average politician's electorate office. If I were to pick the top five issues, CSA issues would rank in the top two. It is an issue, which, unfortunately, is part of the reality of modern Australia—in fact, the modern world. I must admit I was surprised to see some statistics as I researched this speech that showed that, in this day and age, we have nearly one million children living with one natural parent and another natural parent living elsewhere, and that there are in fact 860,000 fathers in Australia not living with their children. This is an issue which of course will not go away. Based on more recent trends it is an issue on which we are going to continue to see the statistics grow. It is an issue that I think that we as a society must have far greater interest in and play a far greater role in if we are to bring up the next generation of children in as stable an environment as we possibly can. It is an area that is extraordinarily difficult to come to terms with and it is a very sad area. For those children affected by marital or relationship breakup, we, as a government and a parliament, need to take whatever steps we can to ensure that the children affected by the deterioration of these relationships are given every means of support, guidance and counselling that we can possibly give them. It is an area that unfortunately also sees great anger between the separated partners. One of the objectives of these amendments is to try to assist people to adjust, emotionally in particular but also financially, to the new regime of living separately from each other and separately from their children.Speaking in support of the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, I am eager to point out that this bill represents yet another significant move by the federal government to provide a fair system for the benefit of the men and women of Australia, and, importantly, for the benefit of their children. I constantly receive, as I am sure the member for Calare does, letters and visits from constituents who say the system is not working. The aim of this legislation is to bring about a fairer system, a system in which there is more opportunity for people to comply, particularly voluntarily, to ensure the wellbeing of children. We see situations where there is non-payment of child support, where the custodial parent does not abide by Family Court rulings in terms of access, where resentment continues to grow and fester. The people who really get hurt in that situation are, of course, the children. This legislation aims to address some of those areas.In recognising the rights and needs of resident and nonresident parents who separate for a wide variety of reasons, the bill gives effect to four key measures relating to child support announced as part of the government's 2000-01 budget. Each measure has been developed as part of an overall package that addresses key issues for the wellbeing of Australian families following separation. It provides a fairer basis for determining assistance to children of second families and encourages parents to maintain contact with their children. The package is supported by and complements the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, which will address the local needs of families and communities through a wide range of prevention initiatives.One of the things I am pleased to see in this bill is an initiative which will allow people to move on in their lives, particularly men—most nonresident parents are men—who find themselves able to start a new life with a new partner and a new family. As the member for Calare said, these men are able to supplement their finances, although he was marginally mistaken in terms of the amount of income that can be excluded. There is the opportunity under this legislation for a father to go out, earn income and bolster the income of his new family without that being stripped away in additional child support payments. One thing we always need to do in legislation in Australia is to keep, in whatever we do, the incentive for people to do more to look after their own situation, to improve their own wellbeing and to have the opportunity to better their own lives.It is anticipated that these reforms will build on reforms that have already been made to child support schemes and make them more flexible and responsible in particular situations. The balance between the needs of those who pay child support and those who receive child support has shifted. There have been increasing measures to help second families of those who pay child support as well as to set the formula for adjusting those payments. That is basically what is entailed in this legislation. The child support maintenance formula makes no allowance for shared care cases where one parent provides less than 30 per cent care to the child, which is particularly the case for nonresident parents who have access every second weekend and half of the school holidays. That formula is not uncommon in rulings handed down by the Family Court, and the numerical result of that is around 22 per cent. Those parents who take on the responsibility and who wish to maintain contact with their children through that process of every second weekend and half of the school holidays get no acknowledgment under the existing system for the time they have the children and no financial incentive to do it. While I am sure that in most cases parents take on these arrangements to maintain contact with their children, I think at the same time we need to applaud and encourage this.The measures being introduced today that have been outlined by a number of preceding speakers will recognise the contribution that the non-custodial parent makes and will hopefully encourage more nonresident parents to maintain contact with their children. Again, if I go back to the earlier statistics that I quoted, one of the problems we are facing in society, particularly for young boys, is the lack of a male role model in their life. It is therefore important that we provide incentives to encourage the fathers of separated families to keep up their involvement with their sons and daughters, to keep up their part in raising balanced, healthy young children and young adults. Right down to 10 per cent contact there will be a change in the formula as it relates to child support payments. The cost to the federal government of this initiative is some $47½ million over four years. With the legislative amendment, the government is also working to lower the cap—and I have heard some discussion about the cap and its potential to impact on CSA payments to the residential parent.Can I just say that part of the aim of any legislation has to be that the legislation is fair and that it can be justified, and the justification in a nonresident parent paying more to the custodial parent than it actually costs to support and raise that child makes any discussion of fairness on the issue of child support very difficult. What we have done through investigating this issue is to establish the real cost and the real cap that is required. So we have introduced a cap that instead of being set at 2½ times average weekly earnings for full employees will now be lowered.Although it only affects one per cent of our population, I have no problem with moves to bring about fairness. I think one of the problems I often have when I speak in this chamber is hearing comments from the other side that are targeted at our high achievers in Australia, and high income earners are our high achievers. It is symptomatic of a tall poppy syndrome which I would very much like to see dismissed from this great country that we live in. Just because someone earns a lot of money, they should not be dragged down or be excluded from reform. In addressing this issue of the cap and how people on high incomes are treated under child support, I think the government should be applauded and supported by all sides for bringing some fairness and equity into the system.We heard some comments in relation to trusts from the member for Calare. Hardly a time goes by when we do not hear something from the other side about tax avoidance and what we are not doing about it. Of course the reality is that the government is introducing some very significant changes on trusts. We are introducing a system where we will be able to identify the beneficiaries of trusts and their income. I thought the member for Calare would probably be aware when he talked about expensive luxury company cars that of course company car benefits are now shown on the group certificate and do have a direct impact, particularly in the area of child support payments. I think the lowering of the cap to $78,378 from $101,153 under current arrangements will be applauded in the community. The average weekly earnings figure that sets the cap on the payer taxable income that is subject to child support formula assessment will be aligned with that used for the payee's disregarded income figure. Sure it is only one per cent, but it does result in the lower cap and thousands of child support payers will benefit from it. The issue of the income from second families is one which again the member for Calare raised. It is an issue which I personally am very keen to see progressed. All too often as the separated parent tries to rebuild his or her life, we have a situation where their net income levels are so low that it is difficult for them to establish that new life and, when they have a family of their own, very difficult for them to actually regain their position and wellbeing. What we have agreed to in this legislation and what is proposed in this legislation is a situation where extra income not directly related to income already earned will be able to be earned up to a level of 30 per cent of the existing child support assessment. This gives an initiative for the non-custodial parent to earn some extra income, knowing full well that after they have paid tax they will be able to use that income either to support themselves or, more likely, their new family. This again is going to be well received in the community. It comes at a cost to the government, because we will need to increase the payments to custodial parents as a consequence, and that cost will come at about $2.4 million a year. I just was not quite sure when the member for Lilley was talking about custodial parents losing out under this system whether he was fully aware of that. The federal government has moved to bridge some of the drop in the custodial parent's income through extra assistance. That is something again that we need to applaud.The tax deductibility and the family tax benefit of the child-care benefit will also be changed under this legislation. We heard previous speakers applaud it; the member for Calare applauded it. The move from 50 per cent to 100 per cent will be welcomed across the board. It again comes at a cost to government, but government here, as I say from the outset, is attempting to give non-custodial parents who establish new families an opportunity to re-establish their lives. This increase in the deductibility to 100 per cent is an extremely valuable benefit which is worth about $4.5 million a year to families.Finally, to assist nonresident parents—and I spoke earlier of this—o improve their post-separation relationship parenting skills, two pilot programs worth a total of $600,000 will be offered. One will be via an advisory service attached to the Men's Access Line and one by face-to-face community based advisers. As the House must surely see, the measures contained in this bill are bound to ensure the payment of a fairer and more feasible child support system for the benefit of all parties involved.Media reports soon after the budget suggested that groups representing payers were pleased with the government policy direction. In fact, Lone Parent Association President Barry Williams was reported to be amazed at the success of his lobbying. I am, of course, very pleased to be able to debate a bill which pleasantly amazes members of our community. But the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 is not necessarily amazing; it is simply fair. In providing for our children and the future of Australia, it is vital that this government offers support in the form of a balanced and just system to benefit all concerned. The bill supports that notion and I commend it to the House.13:14:0021453Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise to speak to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 before us today. I widely welcome the amendments to child support, as have previous speakers. Having had first-hand information and having had to deal with the pain and suffering and division characteristic of many child support cases, I find it a good bill and I commend the amendments. In my electorate of Petrie, demographically there is a high proportion of single parents, and the disputes by separated couples over child support payments constitute a large percentage of the problems brought to my electorate office by constituents. These cases are never easy. They are some of the most heartbreaking cases that I think any members of parliament have to become involved in. They cause considerable pain and suffering for all concerned. In my electorate, they result on the rare occasion, unfortunately, in violence. I guess that that is something that none of us really likes to see too often, but it is not something that we can push under the carpet. Whilst the courts try to do the very best they can to come to the fairest decisions possible and to do so in the best interests of all concerned, including children and separated parents, it is often very difficult to find the best financial solutions. Sometimes the conditions imposed may seem untenable for both sides involved—and I have as many representations from women as I do from men involved in child support cases—but it is important that in these cases the interests of the children always be put first. That is really what part of this legislation is about. They have to assume the first and utmost priority in all of these matters and all of us would agree that the children are the number one priority. With this in mind, the coalition government has announced in this year's budget several changes to the child support legislation arrangements.I would just like to take a moment to cover some of the changes that have been recommended and are part of this bill. The first relates to a pilot program to help nonresident parents improve their relationship with previous partners as well as parenting skills. There is nothing more distressing than hearing of cases of partners not speaking to each other sometimes for years on end—the feuding seems to continue and manifest itself over a period of years. No relationship break-up is easy, but the interests of children must always be served. It is always easier on children to have parents able to cooperate with each other in their best possible interests. So I welcome the increased funding put into this pilot program and the $600,000 that has been provided there, particularly so men can access counselling services. Men very rarely admit that they need counselling. I think it is a very good measure.The previous speaker, the member for Groom, mentioned the lack of role models, particularly in boys' lives, as a very important aspect we need to consider. I am on the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations inquiry looking at boys' education. The social and cultural factors being raised in evidence are clearly showing us that boys at the moment are suffering considerably at school and are not doing as well academically as girls are. I think we need to have a totally holistic approach and look not just at academic things but also at cultural and family situations. I know that particular inquiry has received submissions from a wide range of areas, and I look forward to hearing the evidence. Certainly separation and loss are important aspects of family life and will be considered.Parents who do not have their children permanently in their custody will be able to access services such as parent skill training—peer support is very important—and relationship management help as well as legal and financial counselling. I want to commend those particular aspects of counselling. It will also give nonresident parents the opportunity to get expert advice. I commend the government for introducing such an innovative and worthwhile program.The next amendments deal with financial payments and the assessment of child support. To ensure that child support payments are assessed more fairly, there are numerous changes to the method used to evaluate the level of child support to be paid by parents. One of the good measures that has been introduced is that, where a nonresident parent is caring for a child for between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of nights for the year, this will now be accounted for in the child support formula. I know a number of people have expressed their happiness with this amendment in the bill. The bill also acknowledges that we are trying to encourage non-custodial parents to increase their contact with their children. It also acknowledges the fact that when a child is with another parent there is greater expenditure on things such as food and other activities. The new measures also align the measure of average weekly earnings, which sets the upper limit on payer taxable income used in their child support assessment with that used for the payee's disregarded income amount. Using very specific criteria, the child support payer will now be able to have income from a second job, regular overtime or other additional income excluded from their child support assessment. That was never the case previously; all of that income, particularly from second jobs and overtime, was used in the formula. I have had many fathers come to see me who are placed in terrible financial situations, particularly when they are supporting a second family. It has been very, very difficult for them. This measure means that they can get that second job, they can work and not incur penalties from having a second job or working overtime. Payers with second families will now be able to claim 100 per cent of child support paid as a deduction from household income used for determining family benefit and child-care benefit entitlements, and that is another very good measure. These particular changes make it easier for both parents to keep in contact with their children. All of my colleagues agree that sustained contact with the child is in the best interests of all concerned. The optimum is to maintain constant contact. Whenever legislation changes are made to child support, there is always a flurry of debate in the media about mums being the winners or dads being the losers. There always has to be a winner or a loser in this particular debate. I think this amendment results in a win for both parents. I find that sort of winner-loser mentality very, very destructive. It is certainly destructive for the children of such families. All that we have to consider in applying this sort of legislation is what is fair and what is equitable. One must always ask the question: are these arrangements fair and do they benefit the children? That should be utmost and foremost the most important thing to consider. Do they also balance the financial and living arrangements so that both parents have an opportunity to contribute emotionally and financially to their children? It is not always about finance; it is about emotional involvement, encouragement and being there to participate in activities and events and being part of a child's life. The amendments before us today have dealt with all of these questions and have made some long-needed changes to address these particular issues.I would like to quote from an article I came across at the time of the budget announcement. I thought it presented the government's changes in a thoughtful and balanced way. Bettina Arndt, in an article published in the Age a week after the budget, addresses some of the ludicrous debates that arise around child support issues. She writes in this article:How absurd was media speculation that changes to child support arrangements introduced in the federal budget were due to last-minute lobbying by angry dads.She goes on to say:The truth is very different. Many of the changes stem from the 1994 report from the Joint Select Committee into Child Support.She continues:Since then a growing body of evidence has revealed that the dire financial circumstances of many non-resident parents, which contributes to the difficulties they have maintaining contact with their children after divorce. Given the known benefits to children of regular contact with both parents—now enshrined in family law legislation—the government has decided to foot the bill to help these dads to stay connected with their children.The journalist goes on to point out that at present only 11 per cent of divorced men spend more than 30 per cent of nights with their children in a year. We have to admit that these are very sad statistics indeed. It was rather a lengthy article so I will not continue any further with it, but it does go to the very core of the Howard government's intentions with this particular bill.This bill is about improving family relationships after divorce by facilitating much fairer financial arrangements. It is a recognition of the fact that existing arrangements did, in some cases, provide a disincentive for the non-custodial parent to see their child. It is a tragic reality that not all marriages last a lifetime and, very sadly, more and more marriages do seem to end in divorce. The breakdown of any relationship is a very painful and extremely emotional one for many, many people, not just the two people involved and the children. It has far wider consequences for greater family members as well.In a situation of shattered expectations and concern over the welfare of any children involved, the last thing that we need is to have continuing animosity between the parents over financial circumstances regarding child support. It is in these very highly emotional situations that the government's role should be just to provide a fair system of regulation of payments, and that is what it is all about here today. I believe that these amendments will address that and that they will do so very effectively. I would like to congratulate the minister for his hard work in this particular area and I commend the amendments to the House.13:26:0021455Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—Australia's five million families are an integral part of our society and their existence is crucial to the foundation on which our whole nation is built. The family unit, whether it be large, small or just the average of 3.1 people, is a key social building block of society. We know that there are other factors and influences which are also important but it could be said that the social and economic benefits of families are immeasurable.Whether a family is made up of one or two parents whether married or in a de facto relationship, caring and responsible relatives or step fathers and mothers, it does not really matter. They are all important and hopefully all involved are concerned about and committed to each other, especially any children. Without this commitment, young lives have an unwanted hurdle in their growth and maturity. It helps children to develop a positive outlook on life. It helps young people to be outwardly looking, yet firmly focused inwards on core values and aspirations.The Liberal Party's 1998 family policy document sums it up—our families, our strength, our future. Families are the very heart of Australian life. Our families give us strength and support to carry us through difficult times. Families are also the best social welfare system ever devised. Stronger families and strong family life mean a stronger and better Australia. Nowhere is this more evident than it is to us here as members of parliament, being constantly under the strain of separation and isolation from our own families.In government, the Liberal Party has focused on families and family issues. We have a Prime Minister who is well known for his commitment to his own family, even though some of the less charitable commentators are derisive of his outward expression of such commitment. We have a senior cabinet minister in Senator Jocelyn Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services, bringing the portfolio of family services directly into cabinet. And of course we have had tax reform, which affects the whole nation, and various improvements to the family payments system, all helping to improve the financial circumstances of families. It is an unfortunate fact that the stresses and strains of modern living create difficulties within marriage and de facto relationships. While many couples are able to work through their difficulties, some find their differences cannot be resolved and it leads to permanent breakdown of the relationship. In 1998, nationally there were 51,400 divorces, with 12,300 of those being from my state of Victoria. Just over half of these divorces involved young people under the age of 18. In absolute terms, around 11,800 Victorian children were directly affected by divorce in that year alone. Governments cannot legislate to keep families together, even though there may be one or two constituents who come into my office often pleading for that very outcome. If families do not want to work together, it cannot be legislated. Accordingly, the Commonwealth provides a legal framework that seeks to overcome some of the practical difficulties arising from family breakdown.Given that these issues are always going to be emotional issues, issues of the heart, it is natural to expect feelings of anger, frustration and bitterness and that hurt will be felt. And, being emotions and matters of the heart, they cannot be legislated away. Men and women and their children must by necessity work through their issues and make some sort of sense out of the inherent conflict, separation and dislocation. No-one involved can be completely happy. As we know, human reconciliation can be difficult to achieve. Reconciliation within families is made all the harder when those involved simply do not want to be reconciled.My office and I regularly come into contact with people working through the pain of relationship breakdown and its consequences. It has been stated by a number of speakers today that issues of child support would make up the top one or two issues that come into every member of parliament's office. Often, those issues make us feel helpless in terms of what action we can take. My own contact with groups in the area—the Lone Fathers Association, Fathers for Family Equity and various women's lobby groups—indicates to me how important this is as an issue and how the individuals involved often feel desperate at the situation in which they find themselves.As I mentioned before, we can identify and empathise with that. I have had constituents coming in to me saying, `You don't understand, this doesn't affect you.' There may be some policy areas which as members of parliament we are immune from, but when it comes to issues of family we are not immune and we can very well empathise and understand the hurt and the burdens which some of these constituents have when they come to us. Since I first entered this parliament in 1996, to my knowledge at least eight or nine members of parliament have gone through some sort of marriage breakdown or separation—and that is only those whom we know. So we are not immune. We do understand.We are in the situation of having high divorce rates and high separation rates, and I believe in the need for legislation such as this for a number of reasons. I proffer one reason for the high separation rates amongst many: as we are moving more and more towards becoming a consumer society, perhaps we are also starting to view relationships as disposable. Perhaps we are starting to seek that quick fix—whether it be to overcome our cold, our flu or to achieve our first million dollars by the time we are 30 years of age—in material things permeating our relationships. As soon as a relationship becomes difficult, as soon as there is a slight sense of a problem that needs to be resolved, we move into that disposable frame of thinking that perhaps the grass is greener on the other side. We cannot prevent this, except perhaps to continue to promote the value of the family unit and also, through the Attorney-General and the work he has been doing, the marriage counselling services offered through the Family Court and various community groups. I am pleased to say I have a number of those services in my electorate. The pain of this is made all the harder when children are involved. Unfortunately they are often used as bargaining chips, as pawns, in a game of revenge. This is not said as a criticism but as an observation by me as a third party looking into others' personal affairs. It is too easy for us to be critical of children being used as pawns. The rational side of us condemns it. But the test of course would be: what would we do if we were placed in that situation? Emotion does get in the way of what is right. And of course we all think we know what is right for the children. For them to be treated as unfortunate collateral is something that we all condemn, at least as legislators.The guiding principle behind the government's approach to family law issues is that the focus should rightly be on children. The needs of the child should be prioritised above the needs of parents. After all, the children did not choose to be placed in that situation. The Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 that we are debating today implements a series of measures announced in the 2000-01 federal budget. The changes address key issues associated with the wellbeing of estranged families following separation. They provide a fairer basis to determining assistance to the children's second families and encourage parents to maintain contact with their children. As with other areas of public policy, the coalition has been active in reforming the child support system since 1996, and the reforms to child support announced by the government in 1997 and May 1998 were approved by parliament in December 1998. All of these reforms have now been implemented and we have further reforms going through today. I am pleased to say that I had a part to play in some of those reforms, having been part of a number of task forces and working parties with the minister before he became the minister with this portfolio responsibility.I will now go through some of the changes in this bill which need to be put on record. The first is lowering the child support percentages paid by nonresident parents who care for their children. The CSA estimates that almost half of all nonresident parents—that is, child support payers—have contact with their children for between 10 and 30 per cent of the time. During this time these parents face fairly significant costs. Accommodation, food, clothes and entertainment are just some amongst a whole lot of others.As the law currently stands, there is no allowance for the cost of caring for children. Changes in this bill mean that if a nonresident parent has contact with his or her child for between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of the time, they will pay less child maintenance. This reduction is over two levels. First of all, contact between 10 per cent and 19 per cent of the time will lead to a reduction in the child support percentage by two percentage points. Contact between 20 per cent and 29 per cent will lead to a reduction in the child support percentage by three percentage points. The income earned for the benefit of resident children is another measure in this bill. Under this change, parents who take on extra or additional work to provide for subsequent children—that is, a new family—will have this additional income excluded from the assessment of their child support. This is a measure which has long been pushed for by those affected and I am pleased to say we have delivered on one of their expectations. It applies only to income earned from sources not existing when the original family was together; that is, earnings from beyond the normal pattern of earning established before the relationship broke up. The exclusion provisions disregard income for mandatory overtime or normal incremental increases.The amount of income to be excluded is limited to a maximum of 30 per cent of the parent's total income. I would also like to refer to the increase in the family tax benefit income test deduction for payers with subsequent families. Australian families are the big winners from the coalition's changes to our tax and social security laws and it is too easy for us to forget some of those tax changes, because once they have been introduced we move on and set new standards of what we want from governments in terms of tax deductions and reductions. They were introduced and families have been the big winners. In this context, the families of nonresident parents, that is subsequent families, would benefit through the increase from 50 per cent to 100 per cent of deductible maintenance expenditure for the purposes of calculating an entitlement to family tax benefit and a child care benefit. It will mean nonresident parents with children in a new family will have the family tax benefit and the child-care benefit entitlements assessed on the income levels actually available to them. Another change announced last May was the provision of post-separation counselling and support for nonresident parents. Of course that does not need a legislative amendment.As it is part of the government's package, I wish to briefly outline what it actually means. The trial program across two sites would provide intense practical assistance and ongoing support by assisting nonresident parents to access existing community and government programs such as parenting skills, peer support services, relationship management programs and legal services. As I mentioned, there are a number of these programs in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne which the constituents of Deakin can avail themselves of and I am pleased that the Attorney-General was able to launch one of those programs in the eastern suburbs a while ago. Given that males are often reluctant to seek assistance and professional support, it is sincerely to be hoped that these new pilot services will make a real difference in people's lives.The changes in this bill are part of the government's commitment to all Australians. However, even with these changes, not everyone will be completely happy. I am sure the Lone Fathers Association and the Fathers for Equity will continue to knock on my door and ask for further changes. As I said earlier, human emotions can never be legislated away. I agree with the comments of my parliamentary colleagues that child support is a very difficult area and that Australia's laws will never be perfect. The minister and the government will continue to monitor the application of our current child support laws and they will continually search for balance and fairness, always keeping the rights of the child prominent in their thinking.I wish to acknowledge the Deakin residents who over time have passed on their comments and opinions. Not surprisingly, similar concerns are held throughout Australia. For example, there is still concern about ensuring nonresidents pay their assessed liabilities on time; that payers, often fathers, do not minimise their assessable income in order to avoid paying for their responsibilities; that administrative systems are regularly reviewed and, if necessary, improved to ensure information is not lost, is up to date and is used appropriately; and that the ATO and CSA are able to take necessary action to ensure defaulters are caught and their unpaid debts cleared. The coalition is committed to making Australian families stronger and keeping them together. As this is not always possible, our child support laws are focused on the needs of the child. While the law in this area will never satisfy both parents and children alike, it is my hope that the government and interested parties, along with individuals, can collectively and corporately address these remaining concerns.13:42:0021458Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—Child support is a difficult issue and that has been recognised by every speaker that I have heard who has contributed to this argument. Issues surrounding child support have been the most consistent to come through my office, as was the case with previous speakers. When there is a Telstra issue, it comes and goes. Fuel prices have come and, hopefully, will go. But the consistent underlying problems with child support consistently come into my electorate office. People who come in are invariably frustrated with the difficulties that they are faced with, be they the payers or the payees. As I am sure with all members here, we get representations from both sides; but in my office those representations have been overwhelmingly from the fathers, who, again generally speaking, are the payers. We certainly get issues brought into the office by the mothers who are looking after the children—again, generally speaking; there are exceptions, of course—and there are genuine mothers who are doing the right thing as parents and who have genuine reasons to complain about the treatment they receive from the fathers. But by the same token almost all the fathers who come into my office have genuine and defendable concerns about the way they have been treated by the system and their ex-partners. I have had representations from throughout the electorate, mainly in Dubbo and Forbes, where there are very strong lone fathers groups. Like most members I have attended lone fathers meetings. There was one in Forbes where the meeting was organised at half a day's notice and 70 people turned up to the meeting. Such is the feeling and the expanse of the problem in a town the size of Forbes that with such short notice we could get such a great turnout.As the previous speaker said, this legislation is not going to solve everybody's problems. No previous legislation has, and I would anticipate that no matter what legislation were brought in, it would not solve all problems for everybody. The emotion attached to people's care and concern for their families invariably means that there is not going to be a solution that will suit everybody. This government and the minister have taken various steps over the last few years to address the anomalies that have been raised with me, and I welcome the changes by and large that are being put forward in this Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. Certainly the introduction of the federal magistracy, I believe, will go a long way to addressing a lot of the issues raised through my office as far as timeliness and the cost of getting family matters heard through the courts are concerned. It is important, however, that when the federal magistracy gets up and going it deliver those outcomes.I note that the opposition, too, has by and large recognised this as a difficult area, and I understand it is largely supportive as well, though I guess, as oppositions do, it has to move some amendments. I think that, by and large, every member who has spoken here recognises that in such an emotional area it is very difficult, if not in fact impossible, to please everybody.It gives me great satisfaction to speak in favour of this bill because of the heartache and turmoil that it has the potential to alleviate. It is no exaggeration to say that for some estranged couples with children the move to separate can be followed by a nightmare. Our best efforts to make arrangements to better provide for the children caught in the crossfire of separation have in some cases inadvertently contributed to that nightmare. In the last few days we have had the Youth Roundtable meeting in and around Parliament House. One of the committees or groups that spoke about family matters raised the issue of the impact divorce has on children. One of the things they suggested is that the government look at providing more counselling services for children of divorced couples. So there is no doubt that it is a nightmare for those involved. Nobody plans to go down this path. When people start a relationship and have children they have the best will to succeed.This bill is drawn from our experience with the shortcomings and unforeseen scenarios that are unfortunately inevitable where legislation covers millions of individual cases. The ledger of misery and conflict in family break-up is familiar to all of us. This bill identifies those aspects of child support legislation that were in some instances unfair, inflexible or restrictive, and it aims to rectify the situation for the benefit of all parties, but especially the children. This bill would lower the child support formula for parents who are in contact with their offspring between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of time. This alone is probably one of the major issues that gets brought forward into my office and, I am sure, others as well. I refer to cases where the paying parent regularly has the children over weekends and school holidays. Up till now there has been no financial recognition of the time and money that it costs these parents to care for these children and provide a roof, furniture, bedding and food when they have them, and often clothing too. Previously the costs incurred by nonresident parents in caring for their children during visits taking place up to 30 per cent of the time were not taken into account. Australian research indicates that the cost to the nonresident parent can be very high once factors like transport, bedding, furniture, clothing and food are taken into account. I am confident that this proposal will offer an incentive for non-custodial parents to pursue more contact with their children, especially in the case of low income earners.Regular and positive contact with children has been shown to greatly benefit the child, as well as resulting in a much higher likelihood that support payments will be made. A lower cap on the payer's income that is subject to inclusion in the child support formula will bring the amount more into line with that used for the payee's disregarded income figure. This step was required after research showed that under the existing system high income earners could in effect be paying to a former spouse more money than the total gross costs of caring for the children. One of the most welcome parts of this bill concerns an overhaul to the formula for calculating child support owed with regard to extra income earned after the break-up to provide for children in a new relationship. Until now, one of the big complaints coming into my office has been that it is almost impossible for the payer to make a new life for themselves and start a few family. This particular aspect of the bill will go some way towards assisting people in this area, because it allows the breadwinner to take on a second job or work more overtime to provide for any children residing with him or her without being penalised.In the past, many men—men in particular but not exclusively men—were discouraged from striving to provide for the children in a new relationship, be they natural, adoptive or stepchildren, because that additional income was then assessed as part of their child support obligations to the previous relationship. This major reform will have a great stabilising effect on the circumstances of both families. It is important that we respect both families. It is important that the children and the families of the previous marriage are looked after and the children cared for. But we should not do this without any thought for the new family, who often struggles to meet the payments and costs associated with day-to-day living.Along similar lines are moves to give payers 100 per cent credit on child support paid, an increase from 50 per cent, when determining family tax benefit or child-care benefit eligibility. This will result in child support payers in a new family arrangement having these benefits calculated on real income available after child support payments. The legislation would also be altered where necessary to accommodate the transfer of the child support jurisdiction from the Treasury portfolio to that of Family and Community Services.In a replica of legislation to prevent people fleeing overseas with unpaid taxes owing, moves will be made to prevent those owing child support from leaving the country as well. One would perhaps think that the member who represents the western districts of New South Wales—places such as Dubbo, Parkes, Forbes, Cobar, Nyngan and Brewarrina—would have only a minor concern about people fleeing overseas to avoid their child support payments. But it is certainly not nonexistent. We have reasonably regularly had people who have found themselves in this position. Under this bill, in order to depart, the payer would first have to discharge all debts or make satisfactory arrangements to do so. This measure is aimed squarely at preventing estranged parents with the capability of abandoning their children by returning or migrating to a foreign country beyond the reach of Australian authorities from doing so. Steps will be taken to permit certain amounts to be excluded from being considered income. So the existing $260 minimum child support liability will no longer apply. A requirement that so-called supporting documents, to be submitted as part of an application process to have payments reassessed, be presented to the estranged partner will also no longer apply. The most recent case of child support that I was involved with concerning this requirement to supply the supporting documents was the biggest issue that the father faced. He had no problem at all with making the child support payments. In fact, he made it his business to regularly update the Child Support Agency with any change in his circumstances. There were, inevitably, increases; but he was most put out by being forced to supply the supporting documents when something was being reviewed because he felt it impinged on his privacy and he did not have the same access to documents from his spouse, probably because she was not working and did not have as much to offer. He felt that that was an unfair impost on his life. This requirement that the supporting documents no longer be necessarily presented to the partner will be most welcomed by this particular gentleman. Both the application and/or response correspondence between the two parties will have been fully disclosed but not the specifics of either partner's more confidential particulars. A clearer definition of a carer who is eligible to receive child support payments is also necessary to prevent the possibility that a child could leave the family home without due cause and then have that move effectively funded by payments from his or her parents. The system should operate as a financial safety net for children who lose the security of a two-parent household, not as a convenient source of de facto income for rebellious teenagers. Of course, where a child has fled a home to avoid abuse, such restrictions will not and should not apply. Similarly, if a child has parental permission to reside elsewhere, their new carer will receive child support. In short, this provision will mean that, on the whole, people who are not the parents or legal guardians of a child cannot be deemed eligible carers and cannot therefore receive child support. I sincerely and wholeheartedly commend this bill as a long-awaited remedy for arguably the greatest source of preventable misery, hardship and emotional turmoil in our communities today.There is not a town in my electorate from which we do not receive representations on child support issues. The contact I have had with the Child Support Agency has always been tremendously helpful. The staff are tremendously courteous to me and my staff. It is not a job that I would covet. Some of the issues that these people are faced with minute after minute, hour after hour, day by day would not lend themselves to a very pleasant working environment. Mostly when people contact the Child Support Agency they are in a state of agitation.I commend the minister for opening a Child Support Agency within the Centrelink office in Dubbo earlier this year. I understand there are several other Child Support Agency agencies now linked to Centrelink offices throughout Australia. This has been a very important initiative. For people who are under stress from dealing with their spouses or who turn up to pick up their children on a carer's visit and find that they are not there, the experience is tremendously frustrating. I have found that, usually by the time people tend to contact the Child Support Agency, their level of agitation is high and the person at the other end of the phone is often in the difficult situation of having to try to defend a position that is not their position, as they are really only presenting the legislation as it stands. The impact that the depression, heartache or tension felt by feuding former partners has on their day-to-day activities in relationships with relatives, friends and work colleagues can only be guessed at by those who are fortunate enough not to have to go through the same thing. Please God, it is something that I will never have to go through. Broken hearts tend to lead to broken lives and that often translates to antisocial behaviour in the form of substance abuse or simply a spiritual withering that robs our fellow citizens of their drive and potential. That loss must eventually make its mark in broader terms on us as a nation.This bill addresses many aspects of the difficulties faced by those in the unfortunate position of having to deal with the Child Support Agency and having to pay child support. It is not a position that any of us would like to be in, though many of us are. It is not an area for which there will be a miracle solution, as I mentioned earlier, but a reduction in the hostility and bitterness in the home life of the children of estranged parents must be and is a worthy priority of this government. A fairer system for providing financial and emotional support for the children of today is an invaluable investment in the adults of tomorrow. There will be many people in my part of the world who will welcome these changes under the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. There will be those, I accept, who do not think that these changes are for the better. In my experience, through the cases in my office, many of the issues that are raised on a regular basis have been addressed by this legislation and I am sure it will be welcomed.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. I presume the honourable member for Parkes has concluded his speech. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.Ministerial Arrangements2146214:00:0021462Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that I will be absent from Australia from Friday, 27 October until Monday, 30 October attending the Pacific Island Forum in Kiribati. As a consequence, I will be absent from question time on 30 October. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services will act as Prime Minister during my absence and answer questions in the House on my behalf.Questions Without Notice214622146214:00:0021462Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Does the minister recall the government's 1998 election commitment in relation to Telstra that:... unless and until the independent inquiry certifies that service levels are adequate, there will be no further sell down beyond 49 per cent.Minister, is it not the case that today the Besley report found that key aspects of services in rural Australia were not adequate? Minister, consistent with the government's election commitment, will you now undertake that the government will not introduce legislation to further privatise Telstra until the government's so-called action plan has been fully implemented and unless and until an independent inquiry certifies that service levels in rural Australia are adequate?21463McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—As the honourable member asking the question should be aware, the Besley inquiry found that Australians generally have adequate access to a range of high quality basic and advanced telecommunications services. Senator Alston announced today that the federal government are committed to addressing the concerns that have been identified. We established the inquiry to do such a thing and we will not proceed to sell off the remaining 50.1 per cent of Telstra Corporation until those concerns are addressed. That is as plain and simple and as direct and honest as it can be—in stark contrast to the secret plans and deception of the Labor Party. Fancy the shadow minister trying to use the Besley inquiry findings against the government! This was an inquiry that they totally opposed—that they prevented in the Senate from being established by way of legislation so that we had to resort to administrative means—and then attacked from the very first day, going on to attack the character of the people leading the inquiry. I remind the honourable member for Perth of his own personalised attack on Mr Besley when, on 27 March this year, in regard to Mr Besley, he said, `There is a perception of an actual conflict of interest.' He went on to say, `The government should do the decent thing today and junk this inquiry.'As for the Leader of the Opposition, from the very first moment on 21 March 2000 he said, `The inquiry has all the hallmarks of a classic whitewash job.' You have no policy, you have opposed any constructive move by this government to address the issues of rural and regional Australia in the field of telecommunications and you have opposed the hundreds of millions of dollars that we have directed by way of Networking the Nation. You have no credibility and certainly no policy, but you do have a plan, and that is to privatise Telstra if you are in government.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—May I interrupt to indicate to the minister that, yes, I do have a plan, and that is to ensure that he addresses his remarks through the chair.2146314:04:0021463Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House what new practical support for suicide prevention the government is providing to mark the significance of National Mental Health Week?21463Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Aston for his question. As the House is aware, this is National Mental Health Week. This morning I announced the establishment of the new National Advisory Council on Suicide Prevention, which is to be chaired by Professor Ian Webster of New South Wales. One of the major obligations of that council will be to advise the government on the most effective distribution of most of the $48 million, funded over a period of years, for suicide prevention announced in the election campaign of 1998.I think members from both sides of the House would be very aware of the devastating and traumatic effect of suicide on the families of people who take their lives. The sad fact is that, despite so many other endowments, Australia has one of the highest youth suicide levels—particularly among young men in non-metropolitan areas—of any nation in the world. All of us on occasions have been touched—some very directly, some more indirectly—by the damaging consequences and tragedy of suicide. The government does not pretend that the establishment of this council is by itself a comprehensive answer to the problem, but it is an attempt at a national level—and Professor Webster made this comment when the council was launched this morning—to coordinate the efforts of governments, private welfare bodies and others, particularly health professionals, to see if we can make a difference.Australia has been more successful than most in marshalling the resources of both the public and private sectors to tackle these national health problems. It is fair to say that the campaign against HIV-AIDS in the 1980s, which was launched by the former government and carried on by the present government, has been relatively more successful than similar programs in many other countries—although there is no cause for complacency on that front. It is that same streak of collaboration between the private health sector and government health authorities which will underpin our approach. The new council will give highest priority to community based suicide prevention services. It will seek to build partnerships, within local communities, between government, community and non-government organisations. I have today, in earnest of the government's commitment in this area, announced details of funding of $2.9 million to various organisations spread throughout Australia for suicide prevention projects. We are also providing additional resources on an annual basis over the next four years of $100,000 a year for the youth counselling service, Kids Help Line, which is going to make it possible for that organisation to handle another 15,000 to 16,000 calls a year.As an example of how Australia has, in a sense, pioneered behaviour and attitudes, it remains my understanding that the first ever phone help service for people who were in need of immediate counselling was established in Australia by the then Central Methodist Mission, by Sir Alan Walker, in Sydney in the 1960s. That has now grown into the modern manifestation called Lifeline, and the pattern of that organisation has been copied around the world. That stands today as a marvellous example of Australian innovation in providing grassroots help to people. There are thousands of volunteers in Australia who, seven nights a week, make their services available to organisations like Kids Help Line, Lifeline and many other worthy organisations to give people in desperate need of help some encouragement to continue struggling against some of the burdens life has given them. All those organisations need to be commended. We all need to work harder at tackling the terrible problem of youth suicide. It is an awful tragedy and an awful blight. I hope that our national council makes a small but important contribution towards alleviating that problem.2146414:09:0021464Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Acting Leader of the National Party and acting minister for regional services. Minister, do you recall saying on ABC Radio earlier today, in response to the Besley report:So it is absolutely essential that a plan be put in place to address these concerns. We want to see it working. We want to see the action programs actually delivering results.Are you also aware of the comments of your colleague the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, Senator Boswell, who said of the Besley report:That has determined that services aren't adequate out there, therefore it also determines that the Government can't go ahead with the sale of Telstra until those services are up to the mark. I think this puts the sale of Telstra off for sometime.Minister, consistent with both the National Party's 1998 election commitment and these comments today, will you now undertake not to allow the government to introduce legislation to further privatise Telstra until the government's so-called action plan has been fully implemented and unless and until an independent inquiry certifies that service levels in rural Australia are adequate?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. I beg your pardon, I call the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.21464Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can understand that, with the length of the question, you may have forgotten whom it was originally addressed to. I thank the honourable member for drawing attention to the quite appropriate response of National Party figures to the Besley report. This report clearly emphasises, as the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation quite correctly identified, that Australians have the advantage of one of the best telecommunications systems in the world. But there are parts of Australia where services are not yet adequate. The report endorsed comments made by the National Party, and indeed by many people in regional Australia and representatives from country electorates, that there are areas such as the adequacy of business telecommunications, mobile phone coverage and the like where more work needs to be done. This government has already made a very substantial contribution and real commitments in that regard. The Networking the Nation fund, which is providing considerable improvements, was something that Labor voted against—Labor was opposed to all of these sorts of measures. They have no trouble developing secret plans to sell off the whole of Telstra, but when it comes to actually making constructive developments towards improving the service, their minds are utterly vacant. They have no proposals whatsoever to deal with these issues.In response to the Besley report, this government has announced its determination to develop an action plan to address the issues of concern. As has already been pointed out, the legislation to sell more of Telstra will not be introduced until the plan to address these issues has been put in place. That is a commitment which the National Party is happy to subscribe to. This report has been an excellent observation on the state of telecommunications in Australia. It appropriately acknowledges the achievements that have already been made and it identifies the concerns that still have to be addressed. The National Party along with the rest of the coalition government is determined to get on with addressing those concerns.2146514:13:0021465Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the September labour force figures released this morning by the Australian Bureau of Statistics? How are the government's economic policies continuing to contribute to a healthy growing economy in areas like my electorate of Moreton and indeed all of Australia?21465Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Moreton for his question. I am pleased to hear that the Australian economy is growing strongly in the electorate of Moreton, no doubt due, in part, to his strong work on behalf of the constituents. The labour force figures for September released this morning show that seasonally adjusted unemployment fell again to 6.3 per cent—the lowest for the decade since the Labor Party's recession in the early 1990s. Full-time employment increased by 9,700; part-time employment fell by 40,200. This followed two very strong months of growth in July and August where employment rose by 100,000. Averaging out over the quarter, that is, for July, August and September, employment increased by around 23,000 jobs per month, similar to the average employment growth in 1999-2000.What that means is that, since the government was elected in March 1996, nearly 800,000 new jobs have been created in the Australian economy—in fact, I should have said `more than 800,000 new jobs have been a created in the Australian economy since the government was elected in March 1996'—and nearly a quarter of these jobs, 248,000, were created last year. In addition, the good news in relation to teenage unemployment is that the teenage unemployment rate fell to 19.6 per cent in September. That is the lowest teenage unemployment rate since August 1990, below the peak of 34.8 per cent under the Labor Party in July 1992. Under the Labor government, the peak of teenage unemployment in July 1992 was 34.8 per cent; today it is 19.6 per cent.ZD4Howard, John, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—The Prime Minister asks who the minister for employment was in July 1992. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will not respond to interjections.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, forgive me for naming the Leader of the Opposition, who was the minister for employment in July of 1992. They are some of the results that you get from running a strong economy—an economy which for 13 quarters has grown above four per cent—on low inflation, a new tax system, improved industrial relations, low interest rates and structural reform. It is my belief that, if the Australian economy continues to grow at around this level of four per cent, we will not only achieve the budget forecast of 6 per cent unemployment by June next year but actually do better than that. We could do better than that if the economy were to grow at four per cent. But it will not grow unless the government continues to maintain its determination in relation to economic reform, fiscal policy, tax reform and structural reform. Fortunately, to date, the Labor Party has been unsuccessful in blocking the reforms which have created jobs. The good news for young Australians in particular is that their chance of getting a job under a coalition government is much greater than it ever was under the Labor Party, and as a result they have brighter futures. 2146614:17:0021466Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that the summary of the standard contract which Telstra issues to telephone subscribers includes the following:You are responsible for all use of your services, even unauthorised use. This means—and this is bolded in the Telstra advice—that, if someone uses your telephone without your permission or knowledge, you have to pay for the calls.Prime Minister, if it is good enough for all other Australians to be held responsible for all calls on their phones, including unauthorised calls, why isn't it good enough for Minister Reith? Irrespective of the views of the Solicitor-General, why don't you simply insist that Minister Reith do the right thing and immediately pay the $50,000, like every other Australian would have to?21466Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have already indicated that this matter has been referred to the Solicitor-General. I intend to await the advice of the Solicitor-General before adding anything further to what I have said, except to make the comment that at no stage has the minister derived any financial benefit of any kind from the circumstances of this matter. I intend to follow the right procedure, and the right procedure is to await the advice of the Solicitor-General. When that advice of the Solicitor-General is to hand, I will of course have something further to say.2146614:19:0021466Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Minister, would you inform the House of all of the recommendations of the Telecommunications Service Inquiry? What is the government's overall response?21466McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for his question. He, like all members on this side and anybody interested in the welfare of regional and rural Australians and, indeed, of people in metropolitan areas, welcomes the Besley report as a very constructive and even necessary advancement on debate on the way forward for communications. We have been very open and forthright in our communications policy. We do not duck and weave and deceive and mislead, unlike the Labor Party, whose only plan in this area is to send out the members for Perth and Melbourne to swan around boardrooms at merchants banks, testing the water. Instead, we do the hard work; we have the policies. On coming to government, we introduced the customer service guarantee, we strengthened the universal service obligation and we put aside $2 billion from the partial privatisation of Telstra to upgrade regional and rural telecommunication networks. The Labor Party has totally abandoned the interests of Australians, like it has in so many other policy areas.The findings of the inquiry are very clear. Firstly, as has been said already, Australia generally has a world-class telecommunication system; secondly, people in metropolitan and regional centres have good services and are generally satisfied with them; but, thirdly, there is a significant proportion of people in rural and remote Australia who do not enjoy some key service aspects; they are simply not adequate at this stage. That is why we wanted the Besley inquiry to fully and comprehensively consult with people in regional and rural areas, so we could identify the problems and address them. We do not bury our heads in the sand, unlike the Labor Party, which completely and utterly abrogates responsibility for constructive public policy. The inquiry highlighted three specific problems for rural and remote consumers: firstly, there is poor performance in repairing faults; secondly, many small businesses and families cannot get reasonable access to the Internet, or no access at all; and, thirdly, a number of businesses or companies in rural and remote areas do not get the same telecommunications services, which they need to operate competitively, as businesses in metropolitan areas get. Those of us who represent regional areas know this to be the case, and we are glad our constituents were able to air their issues and grievances. Over the life of this government—4½ years—we have invested literally hundreds of millions of dollars to address these issues and now we will address them further. The government recognises the importance of fixing these issues, unlike the Labor Party. We are developing a plan to address the issues as part of our final response, and we are not going to introduce legislation to privatise Telstra until that plan is developed and made public and until the problems of regional and remote consumers and communities are addressed.2146714:23:0021467Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall that on 27 September the government released in substantial detail the reasons why the DPP determined there was insufficient evidence to lay criminal charges against any radiologists involved in the MRI scan scam? Will you apply the same standard in relation to the DPP's determination yesterday that there is insufficient evidence to lay criminal charges against any person, including Minister Reith, concerning the misuse of his telecard? Will you now release in substantial detail the reasons why the DPP came to this determination? If not, why not?21467Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I will seek advice on that. That is the first part of the answer. The second part of the answer, beyond the statement which I referred to in my release last night of the conclusion of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about the Reith matter, is that I do not have in my possession any other material, or knowledge of any other material, relating to the reasons. But I will seek advice because in these matters it is appropriate I do so.2146714:24:0021467Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Would the minister advise the House of any recent announcements on the communications sector? What are the implications of these announcements for consumers?21467McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for his question. There have been a couple of major announcements in regard to telecommunications. We have addressed the first this afternoon—that is, the Besley inquiry or the Telecommunications Service Inquiry. But there was another announcement yesterday, which was that the Leader of the Opposition was a participant in the offer of Telstra for sale to BHP. In September 1995 the Leader of the Opposition was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, and he joined with the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, in offering to John Prescott the sale of Telstra. It is inconceivable that as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance he was not prepared for that meeting, that he was not a full participant in that offer of sale of Telstra to BHP. Government members interjecting—XH4Mr McGAURAN—Yes, it has slipped the memory of some people, but I would like to remind the House that in September 1995 the current Leader of the Opposition—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—The great privateer. XH4Mr McGAURAN—The great privateer; he is a privatiser par excellence; of that there is no doubt. Is he going to deny that, before the meeting with Paul Keating and John Prescott, he was not aware of the content of that meeting? Is he going to deny that he did not know beforehand? Incidentally, did he tell Paul Keating he did not agree with the offer of the sale of Telstra? Of course not. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to sell Telstra in September 1995, as he will on return to government if ever that event should occur. So he was in attendance, he was briefed for the meeting and he was part of the offer to BHP for the sale of Telstra. Did he rush out of the room and warn his cabinet colleagues that Paul Keating had sneaked around the back door to sell off Telstra? Did he alert his caucus? Of course not, because he was part of the offer of the sale of Telstra. Did he disapprove of the offer of the sale of Telstra at that meeting? Of course not, because he was part of the offer. He either tacitly or expressly, and I believe expressly, approved the offer of the sale of Telstra then—just as he tacitly or expressly, and I believe expressly, has authorised the member for Melbourne to test out his theories because, after all, he told us in early 1999, when the member for Melbourne's book was released: We would, in any ground up review, be looking at a whole range of ideas on that—that is, the member for Melbourne's proposals—and other matters. So the member for Melbourne's idea of breaking up and selling off Telstra was endorsed at the time by the Leader of the Opposition, and now we find 18 months later that he is seeking advice from professional bankers. The Leader of the Opposition told his party, told the world, that he would surf into government on the wave of the GST. He was lazy, opportunistic and deceitful at the time, and now he also is in regard to Telstra. The Australian people will not stand for it. After all, it was the Leader of the Opposition, at a doorstop interview coming into parliament, before he had even seen the Besley inquiry, who said this: `Irrespective of their findings, we do not believe it justifies further privatisation of Telstra.' He said `irrespective of their findings'; he was not the slightest bit interested in constructively and sensibly looking at the issue. He is utterly opportunistic on this, as on all other policy issues.2146814:28:0021468Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer to the claim by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business that the first he knew of the dial-a-rort issue was in August 1999. Are you aware that in May 1998 a Telstra customer service operator wrote in Mr Reith's telecard computer file: `Customer not happy. Wants to take matter to the TIO', the ombudsman. Minister, who was the customer? Can you advise the House whether it was Mr Reith or his office? If you are unable to provide this information now, will you undertake to provide it to the House before it rises tonight? 21468Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—Thank you, Mr Speaker.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was to the minister representing the minister responsible for Telstra.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—He has got up and answered every other question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat or I will deal with him! DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned! As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is well aware, it is entirely consistent, and has been so long as I have been in this House, which is even longer than he has been here, for any minister appropriate for the administration of a particular issue to be asked to answer a question. It is entirely consistent that the Minister for Finance and Administration should be seen to have responsibility in this area.HQ5Mr FAHEY—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made reference in his question to an article in the Herald Sun this morning which quoted someone at Telstra or some records of Telstra in respect of suggestions that something should have been referred to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman's office. I made inquiries of the Department of Finance and Administration this morning to see if they could shed any light on that particular story. They have absolutely no record whatsoever of those matters that were referred to— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business.R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has the call, not the member for Grayndler. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—The minister has just established beyond question why he is the inappropriate person to be answering this question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—The question was about information held by Telstra.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. HQ5Mr FAHEY—Mr Speaker, as I indicated, there is certainly no record whatsoever in the Department of Finance and Administration of the matters that were raised in that article this morning.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It was most appropriate for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts the question because, simply for the same reason that the Minister for Finance and Administration is answering this question now, we could have a circumstance arise where any minister could answer a question and say, `Yes, well, you asked him, but I don't know anything about it, so I'm the person to answer the question.'10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat. As the Chief Opposition Whip is aware—4G4Downer, Alexander, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister for Foreign Affairs!UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—What does the Deputy Speaker think? SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—We won't have to worry about you thinking.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister for Forestry and Conservation!83XGibbons, Steve, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Bendigo will shortly find that he will not be disappointed either. The Chief Opposition Whip has raised a point of order. He is one of three people in this chamber most aware of the way in which rulings have been given in the past on the point of the minister to whom questions are directed. The direction given by me is consistent with that given by my predecessors. HQ5Mr FAHEY—Mr Speaker, I have indicated that to the House because, as all honourable members know, the members' and senators' telephone accounts are sent to my department and subsequently paid. The article referred to certain matters which could well have been, from the way in which the article was written, within the records of Telstra. I am happy to take that on notice and to make appropriate inquiries. It is a public company. I cannot say whether or not that sort of information would be made available by that public company, but I am happy to make inquiries and to inform the House appropriately when those inquiries have been made.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have indicated in relation to the previous points of order that your rulings in relation to the appropriateness of a minister answering is consistent with past practice. If I am correct, past practice has indicated that it is appropriate for the Prime Minister to facilitate any minister who has portfolio responsibility for the subject matter to answer it, and that may mean there is a range of ministers. In this instance, though, how can it be such that the Minister for Finance and Administration has any portfolio responsibility for the management of Telstra, which is peculiarly within the portfolio of the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison has made his point and will resume his seat. I have already ruled on the matter raised by the member for Denison. 2147014:34:0021470Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of any independent assessment of the impact of changes to non-government school funding? What was this assessment and who benefits most? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies in relation to non-government school funding, and what is that response?21470Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Forde for her question. I am aware of a very insightful and independent analysis of the government school funding reforms that appeared on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald today. This analysis was possible because the government, unlike the Labor Party, has been utterly transparent in relation to its funding policy. I commend this analysis to members of the opposition because it utterly refutes what they have been trying to imply in this House over recent days. Let me quote from this analysis. In terms of the amount being paid per pupil, which of course is the relevant factor, the schools doing best are nearly all smaller ones in Aboriginal communities in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Small Christian and Islamic schools, many with fewer than 100 pupils, are also well represented among those receiving up to $5,700 per pupil. Twenty-one schools in New South Wales can expect federal payments—that is, total payments—of more than $4 million in 2004. Most of them are Catholic secondary schools with many pupils, and are typically run by religious orders.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—What increase do they get? BT4Dr KEMP—The member for Dobell never learns.MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell!BT4Dr KEMP—He never learns; nobody believes him. While the focus in the public debate has been on better endowed establishments, the schools which will receive the most are big ones, typically in lower socioeconomic postcode areas. You could not get a clearer endorsement, a more thumping endorsement, of the government's policy. That is the consequence of it, that those lower income communities will benefit most. Schools such as Central Coast Grammar in the electorate of Dobell, which the Labor Party froze in its funding levels since 1993—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—What did Wyong Christian Community School get?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell!BT4Dr KEMP—will be entitled to an estimated increase of $1,571 for each of its over 1,000 students—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—What about Wyong Christian Community School?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell!BT4Dr KEMP—or an extra—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister, the member for Dobell chooses to simply ignore the chair and the pleadings from the chair for him to exercise some courtesy, and I warn him.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—You are misleading the House.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of 304A.The member for Dobell then left the chamber.BT4Dr KEMP—I regret the member for Dobell's departure, because I intended to put some facts before him about schools in his own electorate. Central Coast Grammar School, whose funding was frozen by the Labor Party, will receive an extra $1.8 million in 2004 as a result of the government's policies. The Wyong Christian Community School, also in Dobell, will be entitled to an extra $505 for every student, an overall increase of $73,000.The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Dobell should tell parents at these schools why they froze their funding for so many years, despite the fact that these were middle and lower income parents who deserved more assistance, and why the Labor Party is now attacking the government's policy to put a fair funding principle in place for non-government schools. The Labor Party's political posturing on this shows up the weakness of the Leader of the Opposition, because the Labor Party has still not declared a position on this legislation. No-one knows—with just over 10 weeks to go of the school funding year, with school funding running out on 31 December—what the Labor Party's policy is. The reason no-one knows that is that the Leader of the Opposition has no capacity whatever to offer policy leadership. He does not seem to have any capacity to set policy in this area, and it may be that he will leave to his senators the decision as to whether or not they will amend or oppose this legislation—because he has no statement whatever on the public record. The government's policies are fair. This independent analysis has demonstrated them to be fair. It is time for the Labor Party to decide to pass this legislation. 2147114:40:0021471Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration, and it follows from his answer to the earlier question in relation to the Reith telecard file note. Minister, if your department was not aware of this file note, doesn't this mean that your department was not the customer referred to in it? Doesn't it also mean that this matter was not part of the police investigations into Minister Reith and was therefore not being considered by either the Federal Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions? If you are unable to provide this information now, will you undertake to provide it to the House before it rises tonight?HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 144 I submit to you that this question is entirely out of order because the questioner is debating the issue and, secondly, the question contains nothing but argument.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Menzies has raised a point of order on the way in which the question was structured. I concede that the question was advancing an argument; so do a number of questions asked. I allow the question to stand.21471Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I would firstly make this comment: there was an article in the Herald Sun this morning. It may well be speculative; it may well not have any substance in it. The Department of Finance and Administration pays every member's and senator's bill. I would deem that that suggests that the department is the customer. The department has absolutely no knowledge of the statements that were made in that article on any file notes.On the second part of the question, I have no idea what matters the police investigated—and nor should I; nor should anyone. They will conduct their investigations as they deem fit and will deal with such matters in any investigation they are conducting as they consider appropriate. It is certainly not for me to determine what information or otherwise they should encompass in the course of any of their investigations. As I have already said to the House, I will make appropriate inquiries and, if there is anything to be added, I am more than happy to provide further information once those inquiries have been made. But, until they are made, I will not indicate how I may respond.2147114:44:0021471Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the estimated impact of the new tax system on the consumer price index?21471Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Hughes for her question. As she knows, on 1 July this year the government introduced a new tax system, one of the largest structural changes to Australia since World War II and certainly our largest ever tax shake-up. That involved the abolition of wholesale sales tax, the introduction of a goods and services tax, a reform of business tax, including cuts to company tax and capital gains tax, and the largest income tax cuts in Australian history. From previous quarters, the consumer price index in Australia is at about three per cent, running at about 0.8 per cent per quarter. The government has estimated that in the September quarter figures, due out on the 25th of this month, there would be a one-off price effect from the tax changes of about 3—giving for the quarter a figure which would therefore be in the high fours. In subsequent quarters, with the flow-through of the tax changes which will be detracting from the consumer price index, the tax effect would be detracting from the normal ongoing rate of about 0.8 and, in subsequent quarters such as the December and the March quarters, we should expect very low quarterly figures, because the effect of the new tax system will actually be a negative—that is, it will take off the ongoing inflation rate. Both the government and the Reserve Bank of Australia have indicated that they will be looking through the one-off tax effect caused by the new tax system in assessing monetary policy in the light of ongoing inflation—which, as I have indicated, by the consumer price index test, is about three per cent, which is consistent with the government's targeting of two per cent to three per cent on average over the cycle.Taking the CPI for the three previous quarters of June, March and December, already showing 2.3 per cent for those three quarters, and adding the CPI for September—which would, as I said, be in the fours—you would expect an outcome in through-the-year terms in the high sixes, adding that September quarter to those results that we have already had. Again, I point out that the effect of the tax system is thereafter to detract and, as those quarters flow through, we would get back—as it washes through the system—to the ongoing rate converging again with the CPI at about three per cent.The important thing to remember about the new taxation system is that, because the government has introduced a broad based goods and services tax, you do have this one-off price effect. Because income tax cuts outweigh the price increases, there is no basis for wage increases as a result of the price effects. Therefore, the price effects should not feed back into ongoing inflation, and we should be abstracting and looking at ongoing inflation in the targeting of our monetary policy.It is important that that message is understood clearly by wage earners—that, on the basis of one-off price effects, wage increases are not sought. It is important that employers understand that point as well—that employees have already had the most significant income tax cuts in Australian history. That is, the money they take home after tax is much greater, it already outweighs the one-off price effect of the new tax system and there is no basis, on the basis of those changes, to be seeking wage increases and feeding back a so-called second round. The important thing is that the first round be a one-off and that we keep economic management on the strong path that it has been on over the last three and four years.2147214:48:0021472Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I also refer to reports in the Herald Sun today that, in May 1998, a Telstra employee wrote on Minister Reith's telecard file, `Customer not happy, wants to take the matter to the TIO.' Prior to advising the Department of Finance and Administration of the problems with the minister's telecard in August 1999, on which occasions, and with which minister's office or department, did Telstra raise concerns regarding the minister's telecard? If you are unable to detail each occasion now, will you undertake to provide this information to the House before it rises tonight?21472Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will seek some advice on that. I am not undertaking to provide anything to the House before it rises. You know perfectly well that it is impossible for somebody to answer that question. I will do what the Minister for Finance and Administration said, and I will seek advice. 2147314:49:0021473Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I ask the minister whether he would inform the House of what the government is doing to address land degradation in the critical areas of the Parkes electorate and others in Australia. The Prime Minister has announced a major plan to address the long-term viability of Australia's land resources. What other measures does the government have in place?21473Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Parkes for that question. I recognise his keen interest in land issues, representing the very large percentage of the state of New South Wales that he does. The reality is that no government in Australian history has done more to address land degradation issues than the coalition government. The Natural Heritage Trust is the biggest environmental program in our nation's history—$1½ billion to lever community action groups right across the nation to implement literally thousands of individual programs in every community, in every electorate of Australia. Something like 9,000 projects have now been funded through the trust, and next week there will be an announcement of the next round of grants to local community organisations for a range of new activities in this particular field.It is interesting to note that the Labor Party voted against the Natural Heritage Trust. It was not in favour of a $1.5 billion action program to address land degradation issues across the nation. This program, which has mobilised community groups across the nation, Labor is against; it does not want this program. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has even described it as a `failure'. He has described as a `failure' that there are thousands of Landcare groups across the nation, thousands of community action organisations planting trees, getting on with the job of addressing environmental problems across the nation. The attitude of the Leader of the Opposition towards the NHT and the activities of the Landcare organisations and the like is a very clear warning to those groups that, if ever Labor were to be in charge of these issues, there would be no funding for local Landcare projects, the coordinators could expect their jobs to go—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order goes to relevance. The minister was specifically asked: what is the government doing, and what other measures does the government have in place? Obviously there are none, as he is not telling us.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the member for Paterson's point of order was on relevance, there is no way that any occupier of the chair could have deemed the minister's answer to be other than relevant to the question asked.GT4Mr TRUSS—It is obvious that the member is sensitive, because his Landcare groups and his organisations know that their activities are being greatly boosted by the activities of this government and the Natural Heritage Trust—a program that the Leader of the Opposition considers to be a failure. Instead of it being a failure, it has indeed motivated groups across the nation and enhanced the activities of organisations everywhere who want to address the environmental problems of our nation. The NHT has been a classic example of some of the programs that this government has put in place to support land care but, most particularly, to mobilise community activities and the strong community sentiment about addressing salinity and water quality issues.Earlier this week the Prime Minister announced the $1.4 billion national action plan to deal with salinity and water quality—another example of the government demonstrating leadership. It is interesting to note that, in contrast to the opposition's view that the things we are doing about the environment are a failure, the government's announcement in relation to this initiative has been warmly welcomed by community organisations—and quite a wide range of groups, I might add. The World Wildlife Fund for Nature, not always an organisation that backs the government, said: WWF Australia has welcomed the Federal Government's new action plan on salinity and water quality as a significant step forward in developing a rational, strategic and coordinated approach to two of Australia's most pressing environmental concerns.The Conservation Council of Western Australia welcomed the package and said:The package will provide an important focus for improving and coordinating the country's efforts into dealing with one of our largest environmental problems ... The Conservation Council of South Australia also welcomed it and said:The PM's model, announced today, has the markings of a real solution.The National Farmers Federation said that it welcomed the plan and called on the states, including the Labor states, to support the action plan at next month's COAG meeting. It said:NFF applauds the Prime Minister's leadership on the issue.The reality is that the community wants to work with the government to address environmental issues. It is a pity that Labor considers such initiatives to be a failure.2147414:55:0021474Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Do you recall yesterday advising the House that a Department of Finance and Administration internal audit committee had investigated the Reith telecard matter and had reported to your senior departmental committee? Did any member of either of these committees discuss the Reith matter, either formally or informally, with any member of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet prior to May this year? Is the House seriously expected to believe that no member of these committees at any time in those nine months discussed the matter with any member of the PM's department?21474Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Melbourne for his question.UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is warned!HQ5Mr FAHEY—I do recall telling the House yesterday that there was an investigation and there were inquiries conducted over a number of months by officers in my department. As to the second part of the question, I am not aware of anyone in the Department of Finance and Administration discussing the matter with anyone in the Prime Minister's office—Opposition members—Department!HQ5Mr FAHEY—In the Prime Minister's department. I am not aware of that. I am happy to make further inquiries and, if appropriate, to give further information to the House.2147414:57:0021474Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House about the success of the National Youth Roundtable meeting in Canberra this week?21474Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for her question. Could I acknowledge the wonderful contribution that the member for Gilmore makes to the betterment of a lot of young people in her electorate through her support for a whole range of local initiatives. Members of the National Youth Roundtable constitute the government's principal advisory body in youth affairs. Members of the National Youth Roundtable 2000 have been meeting in Canberra this week, and they have been able to speak on behalf of the tremendous range and diversity of young people in Australia. I think that anybody who meets with members of the roundtable recognises that in the roundtable we have the most authentic voice of youth in Australia that this country has seen. It is extraordinarily representative, and it is a group which shows the great goodwill and capacity for hard work and dedication to their communities of young Australians. I want to thank members on both sides of the House for their willingness to meet with members of the roundtable and to participate in sessions of the roundtable. They will have found roundtable members very responsive to the questions that members asked them. Members have been involved in meetings with senior cabinet ministers throughout this week, and on Tuesday roundtable members held a most successful meeting with the Prime Minister. Yesterday afternoon they presented their findings and recommendations to an audience of ministers, members of parliament and senators from all political parties and representatives of youth organisations and Commonwealth departments. One of the common themes running through the recommendations of the Youth Roundtable was the great importance of attempting to solve problems in communities at the community level, and the members of the roundtable dignified themselves by coming to Canberra and not just asking for the government to solve these problems but saying that young people themselves were willing to be partners in the solutions to these problems. They believed that, through techniques such as peer education in the support for the more disadvantaged young people in their community and for young people contemplating suicide, young people themselves could be immensely beneficial in offering support.Members were all impressed by the quality of the projects. There is really only one negative that I want to comment on, and that is that I think the opposition still has a problem with its spokesperson for youth affairs, Senator Kate Lundy. Senator Lundy makes a practice of attacking the National Youth Roundtable in public while telling its members in private that she supports the roundtable. I can assure her, and I give this friendly advice to the Leader of the Opposition—84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan is warned!BT4Dr KEMP—This double standard is not doing the Labor Party any good. The members of the Youth Roundtable are not impressed—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister has the call!BT4Dr KEMP—while there is evidence of double standards from the opposition, and they would like to see the private position of the Labor Party's Senator Lundy expressed more fulsomely in public.2147515:01:0021475Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it a fact that you have known since May of this year that $50,000 of the taxpayers' money has been lost as a result of Minister Reith's breach of his telecard entitlement? Given that you have disclosed none of this for the last five months, when exactly where you intending to tell the public that this $50,000 had been rorted? Isn't it a fact that, if this matter had not come to light as a result of the opposition's efforts and the disclosure by a Canberra Times journalist two days ago, you would have covered it up?DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to standing order 144(g) on hypothetical matters. Clearly, the second half of that question was absolutely hypothetical in its construction.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—My understanding was that the member for Farrer took a point of order which required the intervention of the chair, not the assistance of other members of the parliament. The member for Farrer has made a point of order on the degree to which the question was hypothetical. I consider there was sufficient substance in the question for it to stand and recognise the Prime Minister.21475Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is no. As to the question of whether the investigation that I requested when I heard about this matter in May should have been announced, I have been informed that it is customary practice—for the most obvious of reasons, and that is that you do not prejudice inquiries by announcing that they are taking place—when police inquiries of this type are launched that you do not automatically announce the fact that they are being launched. Obviously, in relation to that part of the question which I think is hypothetical, but I will nonetheless answer it, as to what might have happened, clearly if the police had recommended prosecution then certain consequences would have followed from that. As the honourable member is aware, the matter is now in relation to civil liability being considered by the Solicitor-General. At every stage after I became aware of this matter in May, I acted speedily and properly, as I should. 2147615:04:0021476Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the improvements to the national Defence Reserves Support Council and the significance of that committee's meeting the minister will be attending, I understand, on Monday, 16 October?21476Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Indi and acknowledge he is a former national serviceman and also a reserve officer. He has maintained a very strong link with the ADF and I acknowledge his great service to our country through those areas. The government is very strongly committed to maintaining but also enhancing the reserves as a key component of the Australian Defence Force and, at the same time, providing necessary and adequate levels of protection to reservists and, importantly, their employers.The incentives that we have brought forward were developed after very widespread consultation with a range of interest groups, including peak industry bodies and union organisations. On Monday of next week, I will be attending in Tasmania the inaugural meeting of the restructured, and also enhanced, national Defence Reserves Support Council. The restructuring of this council has broadened the scope for community consultation, which includes not only employer groups, business groups and trade union groups but also youth representatives, the ethnic community councils and the media and education sectors. So it is going to be a much broader council, representative of the more modern community that has an interest in service to our country through a reserve force.This government has enhanced the national Defence Reserves Support Council through this new initiative, and we will be bringing three other very important initiatives forward in legislation shortly. It will protect the jobs of those in the reserve who are employed. This will make it easier for them to train and will also encourage them to volunteer for full-time service. What has also been widely acknowledged and welcomed within the business community is that it will compensate employers through a package of financial incentives that will be introduced based on adult full-time average weekly earnings. It will also facilitate the civilian accreditation of defence training, and that will be to the long-term benefit of the reservists as well as their employers.We will also conduct a public awareness program to promote the benefits of reserve service. I look forward to members on both sides of this House supporting these initiatives because it is important that we promote these initiatives to support our reservists who are located right throughout our communities. The government provided $20 million in this year's budget to support these initiatives. Importantly, these initiatives will complement legislation planned for introduction in the near future which will allow reservists to be called out for operations including peace enforcement, peacekeeping, humanitarian as well as disaster aid and relief operations. I also want to acknowledge that the current situation whereby most of the Australian Defence Force's operational needs for reservists are being met by voluntary employment is working well. We will continue to encourage this aspect of reserve service. Also, these initiatives reflect that the government really is taking a substantial step forward and a lot of action in this area to improve reserves proficiency so that they can better integrate with the regular force at short notice. Also, that will assist in the long-term viability of future service within the Australian Defence Force. I am not surprised that we have received widespread support from a whole range of community groups, including the business community. We have had support from the self-employed, because these benefits go through to the self-employed reservists, and we have received very strong support from ex-service community organisations. I am certainly looking forward to support for these initiatives from the opposition, because I would like to think that we can get support from the opposition as we bring these measures forward to the parliament to enhance the role of the reservists in the Australian Defence Force.2147715:09:0021477Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that yesterday this House passed the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999? Are you aware that the bill includes clause 135.2 as follows:A person is guilty of an offence if the person obtains a financial advantage for another person from a Commonwealth entity knowing or believing that the other person is not eligible to receive the financial advantage.Prime Minister, isn't this what Minister Reith did? If the principle you voted for yesterday is good enough for all Australians, why isn't it good enough for your minister?21477Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The question seeks a legal opinion but, despite that, I am perfectly happy to reply to the question and simply say to the Leader of the Opposition that we sought the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would rather believe him than you. The Director of Public Prosecutions has delivered a result, and the Solicitor-General's advice is being sought in relation to civil proceedings. I know the Leader of the Opposition felt that he had to ask that question in order to work himself up into mock indignation for a censure, so let's have it.Miscellaneous214772147715:11:0021477Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—by leave—I move:That this House censures the Prime Minister for:(1) allowing double standards to be applied in the lenient treatment afforded to his Ministers as against the strict treatment meted out to members of the public;(2) planning to cover up the Reith Telecard scandal prior to its public disclosure by the media and the Opposition; and(3) not standing Mr Reith aside as soon as he was informed of the Telecard scandal.Day after day in question time the government likes to invite me and other members of the opposition frontbench to show leadership. They put up a series of bogus arguments about benefits that they are supposed to be pursuing for ordinary members of the Australian public when most of those benefits are in fact concealing opportunities for their friends. Nevertheless, they challenge me to show leadership time and again to support their particular measures and invite us to provide some responses to them. There are many areas where leaders of political parties are obliged to show leadership, but the area that is absolutely crucial for leadership—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Chief Government Whip! If the Chief Government Whip wishes to confer, he will find another place to do it. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, they are in serious trouble and they are seriously embarrassed; therefore, they will attempt to disrupt this censure motion by appearing to ignore it. That is a standard tactic of a government really reeling. And they know, particularly after the material that has appeared in the press today—including from some who have been their solid supporters in the past—that they have a very substantial problem with one of their political battleships; and it is going under. As it goes under, this political battleship, it is defying the Prime Minister all the way, and he does not have the leadership to uphold his ministerial standards, to uphold the standards of fraud control that are required of the Commonwealth and to uphold even the requirements put down by the Remuneration Tribunal. They do not have those standards. We do remember the Prime Minister on the first day of this crisis, do we not? We do remember the Prime Minister coming out here and saying, `Oh, there is no fraud issue here to be addressed by the minister—no fraud issue here at all to be addressed. You know, in the scheme of things, this doesn't really amount to a hanging offence. Let's not be too worried about it.' A different Prime Minister was heard on radio this morning. We had a different Prime Minister pleading across the airwaves to his minister: `I don't have the gall or the stuffing in me to get up and sack you. I don't have the guts to tell you to pay that $50,000 back. I have to hide behind a cover to get you into a position where you decide to do the right thing in the interests of this government and in the interests of the taxpayer.' Signal, signal, signal—out over the airwaves from this Prime Minister to his minister whom he dare not confront. Of course, other signals are being sent by that minister: `Oh well,' says the minister, `if I get a piece of paper from the Solicitor-General saying that I owe something, I will give it due consideration.' Here is what the minister's myrmidons say to others in the public who are making inquiries of them. I thought it was a very revealing little exchange on the Sattler program today, and I think all members of parliament would enjoy having it relayed to them. This is what Mr Sattler had to say at the conclusion of a series of discussions related to the fact that the vast bulk of Australians were baying for equal treatment for people in public office as they themselves would have in similar circumstances. This is what Mr Sattler had to say:We tried to get Mr Reith to come on the program today. We tried to get the Prime Minister too. But this is the response we got from Mr Reith's office, from his media adviser, a Mr Ian Hanke, when we put the point that it is not me who seeks the interview so much as that I have an obligation to my audience—you, the taxpayers. This is your money, after all, and I am only a conduit between them and you.So we sought to apply some pressure simply saying that our audience deserved to have him come on and explain himself. This is the response we got to one of my producers, Josh. He spoke with a man called Mr Ian Hanke, who concluded by saying—and he has got this in quotes—`Don't play with me, China. We play the game better than you. Mr Reith is in meetings all morning. Talk like that to us and we'll see that you will get nowhere. We'll bury you, China.'Those are the games that Mr Reith's office plays. The person that Mr Reith is burying at the moment is the Prime Minister himself, and he is burying the Prime Minister along with his ministerial standards. He is burying the Prime Minister along with the Remuneration Tribunal guidelines. He is burying the Prime Minister along with all the principles related to fraud control that this government is supposed to uphold—he is burying every one of them.We have had long experience now—four years of it—of prime ministerial enforcement of standards, and we have noted several things. We had the Prime Minister entering into the brave new world of ministerial standards of conduct which would be adhered to to the letter. They were sold by the Prime Minister, at that time, as a great code and as being absolutely operable. In the first few instances where the standards were breached, the culprits went down. The first to go down was Jim Short, Assistant Treasurer: forced to resign over conflicts of interest related to his shareholdings. Three days later parliamentary secretary Brian Gibson resigned over his share portfolio. Early the next year, in 1997, Bob Woods announced his retirement. It was later shown that he was under investigation for travel rorts. In 1997, Geoff Prosser was forced to go, over conflict of interest claims. And then, in September 1997, John Sharp and David Jull were forced out over travel rorts.Then it stopped. It all came to a juddering halt, but not the offences. Breaches of the code, breaches of Remuneration Tribunal regulations and breaches of fraud control provisions did not come to a conclusion so far as the behaviour of this government was concerned. The sackings associated with them concluded. The first thing to go was the ministerial guidelines, and what went with the ministerial guidelines was the statement that they were strict and operable. They then became instead something that one could use as a general indication of what good behaviour would constitute, but no more than that. Hanging offences disappeared. The first thing to go in the ministerial standards of this Prime Minister was the notion that you could have a conflict of interest. Therefore, a resources minister was allowed to hold $2 million worth of shares in a coal company. That was the first thing to go. The second thing to go was the oldest principle of all, that is, that you could not do business with the Commonwealth if you happened to be a member of parliament or a minister. And then Mr Entsch survived. Now what have gone are the fraud control provisions of the Commonwealth; that is, that when a department has reason to believe that a prima facie case has been created for an investigation an investigation will then proceed. No, a prima facie case is established—in nine months—and then an investigation may proceed at that point. Why are those fraud control provisions there? Those fraud control provisions are there because, when a department comes to know these things, it knows this: it has a problem on its hands and the longer it fails to act the more likely the trail is to go cold. It is as simple as that. It is not a particularly intellectually challenging proposition as to why that would be the case. But they disappeared for nine months until they came chugging to the surface again five months ago. That went out. The last thing to go out was the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal's requirements for us in relation to our parliamentary allowances and other entitlements. We had Minister Reith in this place the other day saying that these effectively were guidelines too. I reckon he ought to ring Bob Woods and say, `Sorry, old son. Come home. All is forgiven. It was just a guideline.' And he ought to ring John Sharp and say, `Sorry, old son. All is forgiven. Come home. That was just a guideline. There was no illegal offence committed there. It was just a guideline to be taken up if you chose to.'Shall I tell you the characteristics of the fellows who have escaped—the Parers, the Entsches and now the Reiths? They are either mates or bullies—one or the other. Mates are favoured and bullies soccer the Prime Minister around. Two bullies in particular—Entsch and now Reith—are soccering him around. That is what is happening here. The Prime Minister knows that if he gets into a battle with Mr Reith it will be into a bloody battle in which the fellow will do whatever it takes to secure his objectives. He is a serial offender. Remember these things about Mr Reith. These are the reasons so many people in the public out there are so offended, because they know this man and they know his form. They know what he did during the waterfront dispute. He was not simply in the business of standing up before a group of folk in the work force and telling them that they had to improve their practices. He connived and conspired in their sacking, against the provisions of his own act which said that you may choose whether or not to be a member of a trade union and that you suffer no penalty if you choose to be a member of a trade union. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business sat down with his ministerial colleagues and his advisers and said, `How do we get into place a situation where we can connive in the sacking of this entire work force for one reason and one reason only, which is that they are members of this union and we wish to get rid of it?' That was in breach of his act. That was what Mr Reith was doing then.They did not get away with it at that time—not simply because they ran into legal troubles but because they ran into the `fair go and equal treatment' mentality of the Australian people, who understand absolutely what protects their democratic rights. They understand what enables them to be assured that when they go into the workplace they can walk back out of it again of an evening with dignity, not suppressed, but with rights in that workplace and the assurance that they will be properly remunerated. They know their enemy in this regard is Mr Reith. They know, too, that compared to the emoluments that we in the parliament get—our travel allowances and all of the rest of it—they are in a situation where they can achieve nothing like that. This $50,000 worth of services gone missing is above the average earnings of Australians. It may seem a bagatelle to a government, nine of whose frontbenchers have gone through category 1 schools, which are now being massively advantaged. It may seem a bagatelle to a chap who got a $43,000 benefit in the purchase of a penthouse. It may seem small beer to them, but it is more than an average Australian earns in a year. And these average Australians are expected to come forward and pay whatever is obliged of them legally—in their taxation, in their claims in relation to social benefits and the rest of it. This government has made an art form of hammering battling Australians. They have made an art form of breaching unemployed people if they are not making the phone calls that they are told to make, and told to make regularly. You breach that and you lose $820 if you happen to be a person in that position.The government knows very well too that if, even as a result of a government mistake, a veteran of foreign wars in this country finds himself or herself in a situation where they have been overpaid by the department—even if they have had a conversation with the department suggesting that may have occurred, even if they have a conversation with the department in which they say they expect that that is occurring—despite the veteran alerting them to the problem and the department subsequently working that out, the department requires to be repaid in six weeks. That is what they require of them. We know that there are vast numbers of women and some men in this country on supporting parents benefits. We know they are subject to strict income tests. We know too that quite frequently if they are taking in washing, if they are doing cleaning, if they are doing employment of different descriptions to augment that very small payment of theirs and they get themselves out of kilter by one dollar, the lot gets repaid.We have the Minister for Community Services coming into this place enormously proud of what he says is the struggle of the department against fraud in the social security system. When you get underneath the figures and statistics he puts out, what you see is a trail of generally ordinary men and women—unemployed people—trying to keep children alive but making mistakes. They are not necessarily the best educated members of the community, and not necessarily the best equipped to handle the bureaucracy. But do we see from this government—sitting for nine months on evidence of a breach—one iota of mercy towards them? Remember, from the moment this government became aware of these matters they knew this: Reith had handed the PIN to his son. They knew from day one, almost two years ago, as a starting point that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business had breached the guidelines, the rules, of the Remuneration Tribunal.Compare this sorry tale of months and months of toing-and-froing, backing and filling, with what would be done to a single mum who missed out in her declaration by $20 or $30. Do you reckon she would get a couple of years to argue the toss? Do you reckon there would be a bit of a quiet chat about whether or not she had not really completely understood the guidelines? Do you reckon that would have been going on with her? Not for one minute would that level of tolerance be extended to an unemployed person or to those single mothers who are raising, tragically, such a huge proportion of the young people of this nation. Not for one minute would there be even a smidgin of mercy shown them by members of this government. But when it comes to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—who is a bully, who is hard to tackle—we find the Prime Minister out there with a screen full of teeth, nodding his head. Oh yes, I can understand how the taxpayers would be a bit offended. I really can. I can sympathise with those taxpayers. What does it matter what the Solicitor-General says about Minister Reith's obligation? What does it matter? The Telstra rules say this: if you, Mrs Smith, knowingly allow another person to utilise your phone services, you are responsible for it; even if you do not know that they have done it but you have not actually made available a means of securing it, you are responsible for the cost of their phone calls. She does not need the advice of the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General does not ring up Mrs Smith and say, `Mrs Smith, we have a little problem for you, but let's have a little chat about it to see whether or not there might be somebody out there who does not have quite the same obligation on them that all other normal human beings have in this regard.' No, that does not happen to Mrs Smith. What happens to Mrs Smith is that Telstra says, `Here's your bill, and you will pay it right now. If you don't, your phone gets cut off.'I would have thought commonsense would have had the Prime Minister—if he had any leadership in him—saying, `It does not matter what the Solicitor-General says, it does not matter what the police investigation requires, I am here to set an example to the rest of the Australian community. We here ask Australians to make sacrifices; we here ask that Australians take penalties when they themselves, by accident or any other means, find themselves in breach of guidelines or in breach of requirements and rules of the government. We here understand that; we actually do understand what the taxpayers feel when they confront something like that. And because we understand that, you just pay it back, Mr Reith—all 50 grand of it. And by the way, we will ask the Solicitor-General to have a look at it and you will stand aside while we are doing it.' That is what a fellow with a bit of leadership would have done in relation to this man.Let me tell you this, members of the opposition: this is not the end of the matter. That story which appeared in the Herald Sun today is a story worth conjuring with. We do not believe for one instant that the Prime Minister's department did not know about this and we do not believe for one instant that the Prime Minister's office did not know about this. We do not accept the timetables for this—we think this has been going on for a very long time—and the people who should have acted on this should have acted a long time ago.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:31:0021481Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The chair will act as the standing orders provide with anyone who fails to extend the same courtesy to the Minister for Foreign Affairs as they extended to the Leader of the Opposition.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—Mr Speaker, I do not think there is anything more amusing in this parliament than the mock indignation of the Leader of the Opposition. Every time the Leader of the Opposition speaks in his sort of explosive, over-the-top way it reminds me of that great phrase of Disraeli's when describing Gladstone, his political opponent: that the man is `inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity'. It could not be put better. One knows so often with the Labor Party, in these sorts of debates that occur from time to time in the parliament, that they always judge others by their own standards. The Labor Party always assume that people on this side of the House are somehow involved in conspiracies, cover-ups and so on.Opposition members interjecting—4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—Why? Because it is your usual practice—that is why. You think on this side of the House we would behave in the same way as you, and that is a great historic miscalculation of the Labor Party. On that they have always been wrong.The simple fact is of course that all of the Leader of the Opposition's phone calls are paid for by the taxpayer. The Department of Finance and Administration is responsible for his telephone accounts. So too in the case of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—these accounts go to the Department of Finance and Administration and they are paid by that department. In this particular case the government and the particular minister involved have been perfectly transparent and perfectly open. You judge us by your standards over there, but you are wrong to do so. What the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business did, when he found out what had happened to his credit card and the PIN, was immediately and obviously to get the Department of Finance and Administration to investigate the matter. The matter was investigated by the department and it was referred to the Federal Police. How could anyone object to that? That is a perfectly normal, perfectly natural, perfectly sensible and perfectly transparent thing to do.Of course if he had not done that, that would have been a matter for indignation. But having referred the matter first to the department, with the matter then being referred to the police, this is perfectly normal procedure. The police then referred their findings to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to charge people. The Director of Public Prosecutions came to that conclusion—not the government. The Prime Minister, consistent with the high standards he has always set, then moved to have the Solicitor-General further investigate the matter. The Solicitor-General will report back to the Prime Minister and the government soon, and decisions will be made on the basis of that.K26Latham, Mark, MP4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—Let us try to analyse what has happened here. What has happened here—and the honourable member for Werriwa is right—is that there has been the theft of telephone calls and, naturally enough, these are not calls that have been made by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—they could not have been. When you look at the number of calls that were made during the relevant period I think there were 11,000 calls from 900 different places. How could the minister have possibly made those calls? Why is that relevant? That is relevant because in no way whatsoever did the minister personally benefit from those calls that were made. There is no personal gain here for the minister.K26Latham, Mark, MP4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—The charge you are levelling against the minister suggests that he somehow embellished his own wealth and enhanced his own living standards from these $50,000 worth of calls, and the member for Werriwa claims he did. This is the standard of the Labor Party. Obviously he did not. Nobody who knows anything about this thinks for a minute that the minister personally benefited—nobody thinks that. The minister has admitted that $950 worth of over $50,000 worth of calls were made by his son, and that is a result of an investigation by the department. The minister has done what anybody should do—he has repaid that money. Is the Labor Party suggesting that he should not do that? No, he did the right thing. I would have thought over there that you would congratulate the minister for showing such integrity in doing the right thing.As for the rest of the calls, funnily enough they were not made by the minister. Funnily enough, the minister did not personally benefit in any way from those calls, which were fraudulently made by a number of other people who have been investigated by the Federal Police. To try to turn this into some party political game and to launch all these attacks against the government is—I think it is parliamentary to say this—indeed hypocrisy and cant. As if the Labor Party's record is such a pure record! As if the Leader of the Opposition himself has ever had the courage to take strong decisions as a leader and deal with people in his own party who have transgressed what you would have thought to be normal and acceptable standards of behaviour! Take, for example, Senator Bolkus. Senator Bolkus is not one of the members of this parliament who sets the highest of standards, and all members of this parliament know that. We remember that, in January 1998, not very long ago, Senator Bolkus read to journalists confidential court documents relating to Skase and his assets. This was a clear transgression and, naturally enough, simply made the task of trying to track down Mr Skase all the more difficult. Senator Bolkus did this, of course, for party political reasons.Senator Bolkus was censured not only by the House of Representatives—because you will say `Oh well, the Liberals and Nationals have a majority there'—but also by the Senate. Did the Leader of the Opposition do anything about it? No. He stuck by Senator Bolkus. This is the point: the Labor Party always judges others by their own standards. The Leader of the Opposition stood up here and said, `Some people are too strong in politics for the leader to sack.' Senator Bolkus is one of the leaders of the left faction in the Labor Party—I mean, no-one like that would be in the shadow cabinet on merit. He is one of the leaders of the left faction of the Labor Party. That is why he is in the shadow cabinet and it is why the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated that he lacked the strength to do anything about it.There is a very current issue on the other side of the House which has still not been investigated, and that is that a member of the front bench of the Labor Party said, `Being the opposition spokesman on Aboriginal affairs is like being the toilet cleaner on the Titanic.'SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Have they found him?4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—Have they looked? Has the Leader of the Opposition even looked? There was the mock indignation—`I wouldn't ever say anything like that; I condemn that,' but he never bothered to conduct an investigation. Has he called all the shadow ministers into his office, one by one, and asked them whether it was them? Was it the shadow minister sitting at the table? Did you make that remark?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—No.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—He says no; that is one down. It is a pity that there are not any others here—such is the Labor Party. How many do we have? We have about four, I think, who said no, which means there are an awful lot left. We have asked a question; the Leader of the Opposition never bothered. Ministerial standards! You expect one set of standards on our side of the House when you practise another set on your side of the House. I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have been careful about this.I know the Minister for Forestry and Conservation is a Western Australian and will remember this story because it took place not very long ago and it is a Western Australian story. Back in 1991, a former Labor Premier was in a bit of trouble in a royal commission. His name was Brian Burke. That man was then the Australian ambassador to Ireland. We do not send people like that off as ambassadors; we do not do that—we send good people as ambassadors. There was a royal commission, and the royal commission was being presented with damning evidence about Mr Burke and his behaviour. We all know what happened subsequently to Mr Burke.Let us look at Peter FitzSimons's biography, Beazley. I would not regard Peter FitzSimons as one of the great critics of the Leader of the Opposition. I will read from the biography; Hawke was the Prime Minister then: Hawke was equally under pressure at this time to dump Brian Burke from his then role as Australia's ambassador to Ireland, but he refused to do so despite evidence emerging from the Royal Commission that the former Premier had acted at the least highly improperly and possibly corruptly.Bob Hawke not setting high standards there? None of us would expect Bob to do that. But it is the last sentence that is rather revealing:The two Hawke ministers who most encouraged the Prime Minister to continue supporting Burke were Graham Richardson and Kim Beazley.Oh dear, some people do not have very high standards. I mean, fancy being categorised with Richo—`whatever it takes'. Fancy being categorised with him as an arbiter of ministerial standards. All I can say is that that was a pretty embarrassing revelation. It is a good book, written by an enormous fan of the Leader of the Opposition, with plenty of damning evidence. I am not sure how much you would pay for it, but I think you can get it from the Parliamentary Library.There are many other examples of ministerial impropriety and shadow ministerial impropriety in the Labor Party. When it comes to the Labor Party, one of the issues that should never be forgotten is policy impropriety and deceit of the Australian people. I do not think anybody on this side of the House and most Australians will forget the 1993 budget, when the l-a-w tax decreases were abandoned and wholesale sales tax was increased. Talk about fuel excise—fuel excise was increased. The Labor Party did this having gone into the 1993 election not only campaigning against the GST but also making it perfectly clear that Labor would not increase taxes. And you talk about propriety! When it came to the 1996 election people remembered that, and when it came to the 1998 election they remembered it. And you know what? When it comes to the 2001 election they will remember it as well. The man who wants to be the Prime Minister of this country is a man who has shown appalling standards of propriety when dealing with shadow ministers—their incompetence and their deceit—during his time as the Leader of the Opposition. He is a man who, in government, was apparently a great mate of Brian Burke's and stuck out for him in the face of all the damning evidence before a royal commission, and a man who sat in the cabinet and deceived the public in the 1993 election.We all know that, during the lead-up to the 1996 election, the Leader of the Opposition was the man who left us with a $10 billion black hole after having claimed all the way through the election campaign that the budget was in surplus. All that sort of explosive rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition—the red face, the finger-pointing, the excitement, the passion; I have often thought that he would explode one day—is so insincere. Honestly, all I can say is that it is so insincere. The Australian public remember; don't treat them as fools. The Labor Party have been making all sorts of phoney allegations against a minister who is a very decent Australian and a man who has done a great job as the minister for industrial relations in the face of enormous intimidation and threats from, particularly, the Labor Party's mates in the trade union movement. He and his family needed Federal Police protection full time because of threats that came from the mates and the roots of the Labor Party—that is, members of the trade union movement—Government members interjecting—4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—Yes, the controllers, as the member said. This is a man, the minister, of real courage and real decency. (Time expired)15:46:0021484Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—It comes as no great surprise that the Minister for Foreign Affairs spent almost all of his 15 minutes purportedly defending the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business without dealing with any of the issues or any of the merits of the case. He ran a variety of totally irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with whether Minister Reith has done the right thing or the wrong thing. It seems that, when Bertie Wooster is here without Jeeves, he cannot handle the heat. He cannot deal with the issues; he cannot actually confront the merits of the situation. Minister Reith is a minister who has one standard for himself and a different standard for everybody else. We are not dealing with an ordinary minister here; we are dealing with the nation's industrial prefect; the person who seeks to give lectures to waterside workers and other workers about how they should behave and about what sorts of requirements should apply to their conduct in their employment; who says that people should have some sort of obligation to live by rules that he provides and imposes—but, when it comes to his own conduct, no, the rules should not apply; they are only guidelines, and he should not be punished for infringing them. Workers who do the wrong thing are subject to being disciplined. If a worker were to breach the rules of his or her company and then cause $50,000 worth of loss to that company, it is reasonable to expect that that worker would suffer dismissal, a requirement to pay back some or all of the amount lost, or a variety of other penalties. If a social security beneficiary breaches the Centrelink rules, they are liable, even for a minor breach such as not returning a phone call, to pay fines in the vicinity of $820. And we all know how benevolently, how benignly, the taxation department deals with small businesses who make mistakes with respect to their taxation liabilities! We have heard the minister lecture us endlessly in this place over the past three or four years about the alleged rorts of wharfies—mostly fictitious. We remember well the wharfies who are alleged to have left work early at Fremantle to go to a strip show. It turned out that this was a joke made in passing by one person while they were clocking off; but, in the minister's mind, that constituted a rort.This minister admits breaching the rules. He admits openly that he breached the Remuneration Tribunal guidelines and that, as a result of this, the government lost $50,000, because the telecard and PIN, which were his responsibility, ended up in the wrong hands. He wants to get off scot-free; he expects he will get off scot-free. Let us look at his defence. The Minister for Foreign Affairs did not put up much defence today; he concentrated on talking about other things. So there is not much there, but let us have a look at what the defence is thus far. In an interjection in my speech yesterday, Minister Reith said that the Remuneration Tribunal guidelines are not part of the law of the land; so, in other words, they do not really apply; they are just suggestions or hints or maybe some sort of indication that we would be really chuffed if he actually did the right thing, but it does not matter all that much, just as long as he tries and does his best. Then he suggested that this is really all the Labor Party's fault. We hear that refrain from time to time in this place—anything that goes wrong with the government is the Labor Party's fault. Senator Bolkus, when he was the Minister for Administrative Services, responded to complaints from the conservative side of politics that accounts for telephone bills should not be itemised because that might breach privacy, so, because he responded to those complaints and there is not an itemised account for the telecard on Mr Reith's bill, the minister says that in some way is Labor's fault. That argument in itself is not very persuasive, but there is one key point that the minister misses. It is a bit like he set somebody's house on fire and then said, `Sorry, nobody told me that there were people inside.' He cannot escape from the fundamental core breach of the guidelines that he has committed, and whether or not he had the ability to find out that a particular person made a particular call from Singapore, Malaysia or wherever subsequently is beside the point. He breached the guidelines, he opened up the possibility of these things occurring, and he did nothing for five years to try to determine what had occurred, whether the card and the PIN had fallen into the wrong hands, and whether the PIN had been abused. So it does not matter what was on his bills. That is no defence, because he did the wrong thing, and a logical consequence of that was that the card could go astray and other people could use it wrongly—and that is precisely what happened. Now we have the defence that there are no criminal charges. John Howard is obviously telepathic. He knew in advance what the Director of Public Prosecutions was going to recommend, and of course we have the extraordinary coincidence that, after the matter had been investigated by the AFP for five or six months and now the DPP, the day after it was pursued in parliament and raised in the media, suddenly we have a recommendation that there was no fraudulent behaviour here. John Howard, of course, knew in advance—he could pronounce in advance—that there was no fraudulent behaviour. We asked for the reasons. We have already had a precedent from Dr Wooldridge: the scan scam, the MRI scandal, where we saw the reasons put out as to why no prosecutions were possible. We do not know at this point how the telecard and the PIN got to any other people. We do not know what Mr Reith's son is alleged to have done. We do not know what may have occurred between him and his son. If there are to be no prosecutions, it is only fair that the Australian public and this parliament know on what basis it is not possible to proceed with those prosecutions.We are told that this is not a hanging offence. That is the Prime Minister's explanation as to why the ministerial guidelines are not involved. I had a bit of involvement with John Sharp, the former minister for transport, and the issues that led to his demise. I recall that Mr Sharp and Mr Jull were told that the reasons they had to go were the amount of money involved and the amount of delay that occurred in notifying the Prime Minister. I quoted that yesterday. The two respective figures were $9,000 and six months. It compares rather interestingly with $50,000 and nine months in this case. We are told now that the Solicitor-General is having a look at the matter to determine whether any civil liability may attach to the minister. That, in a sense, is also beside the point in terms of whether or not the minister should pay back the $50,000, but it is interesting to look at section 42 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act, which specifies that where a minister is responsible for the loss of Commonwealth property, unless he or she can show that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent that loss from occurring, he or she will be liable for the cost of the loss of that property. We might also want to refer to a bill that was passed by this House yesterday, the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999, which is not yet law, fortunately for the minister. If it were law, he would definitely be in breach of it. It states that a person is guilty of an offence if the person obtains a financial advantage for another person from a Commonwealth entity while knowing or believing that the other person is not eligible to receive the financial advantage. The penalty is 12 months in jail. The timing of this whole exercise is very fortunate for the minister indeed.But this all does not mean very much anyway because, regardless of legal technicalities, this minister should pay the $50,000 back. He did the crime. He was the person who breached the Remuneration Tribunal guidelines. He has admitted that. The question of whether, on the basis of a legal technicality, legal civil liability can be established against the minister in a sense is neither here nor there; he should pay the money back anyway. It is an absolute outrage that he is now seeking to hide behind legal technicalities and is hoping the Solicitor-General will come back with a case unproven—that is, it might be difficult to make it stick and, therefore, the minister does not have to pay the money.There are now new issues emerging in this whole affair. Yes, the minister should pay back the money. There is no question about that. That is being said right across this country with a degree of unanimity that you rarely get on any political issue. But now the cover-up is starting to emerge as another central issue. Why was it that this issue was only made public when the Canberra Times publicised the fact that the minister had had to pay back a certain amount of money and that a larger sum of money had been lost? Why did nine months need to pass by before a departmental committee could conclude its investigation into what had actually happened? Particularly, why did it take nine months before the matter was referred to the Australian Federal Police, when the best practice guide with respect to fraud control states: When fraud is discovered, the Commonwealth needs to be able to act quickly and effectively to investigate and deal with the offender.Information on cases of fraud will be reported to the Australian Federal Police as soon as the agency has concluded a preliminary assessment and believes that a prima facie case of fraud has occurred.We are asked to believe apparently that it took them nine months to work out that a telecard and PIN number going astray—with the minister saying, `No, all of these calls from Singapore, Finland and Malaysia and this huge amount of money are nothing to do with me'—might involve some fraud. I find that a little hard to believe. We know the Public Service from time to time can take a bit of time to do things and sort things out, but nine months in a committee I find very difficult to believe. So we need to have a very close look at precisely who has done what in that period, and why. Most important of all in this question of a cover-up and an attempt to prevent the minister from being exposed to the full effects of his own misbehaviour are the allegations that have been raised in the Herald Sun today, which indicate that Telstra did actually notify the government prior to August 1999 that there was a problem with the minister's telecard. They wrote to the government, as is apparently the normal practice, saying, `There are bills here out of whack with the normal situation.' They were told, according to this report, not to discontinue the telecard, and there is a reference to a May 1998 note on the minister's telecard file in Telstra: `Customer not happy. Wants to take the matter to the TIO.' We do not know who the customer is at this point, and Minister Fahey does not seem to know either. We do not know who that is, but that could be Minister Reith. Precisely when did the minister and his office first become aware of this issue? Two days ago he said that it was 30 August and that he was contacted by the department of finance. That may or may not be the case; we do not yet know. Who determined within the government to take no action on the earlier complaints that came from Telstra? We do not know. Who was the customer on the Telstra file in May 1998? We do not know. All the classic signs of a failed cover-up exist here. Now that the criminal investigation has been completed, there is no possible excuse for the government continuing to refuse to come clean on all of these issues. They must describe in detail the sequence of events that have occurred here, what notification arose from Telstra, who was told what by whom at what point, and who knew what. All of the classic features of a cover-up are here and the government have got to come clean.Today in question time we asked a number of these issues and we got four times, appropriately in this case: `We'll get back to you. We'll ring you back.' They were not able to answer. There are four aspects that we are expected to hope we will get a response on. Firstly, the Prime Minister will take advice on whether or not he is able to release the DPP's reasons why no prosecutions can occur. Given the precedent that exists already in the case of the MRI scan scam, I find it difficult to see how he can do anything other than release that advice. Secondly, the Prime Minister undertook to come back and indicate what contact from Telstra to any ministerial office or department occurred prior to Telstra notifying the department of finance in August 1999 of the problem with the card. That will be very interesting if that ever sees the light of day. Thirdly, the Minister for Finance and Administration indicated that he would come back and advise the House as to who the reference customer was in the Telstra file. Finally, he indicated that he would come back to the House and tell us whether anybody on the departmental committee that examined the question of fraud had spoken to any official in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet over that nine-month period. The focus of this issue is now clearly broadening beyond the immediate issue of the minister having to pay back the $50,000. He has admitted to breaking the rules. He admitted that straightaway. He did not admit it before it was in the Canberra Times though. He sat on the issue for months. He did not actually come out and say: `I'm terribly sorry. I've done the wrong thing. I'm fixing it up.' He waited until it went public and then he admitted that he had broken the rules. It is accepted, it is common ground, that $50,000 or so of public money has gone west as a result of him breaking the rules, and we should not forget that large sums of government money have been devoted to dealing with the problem: nine months worth of work, we are told; that probably cost a fair bit of money as well. So maybe $50,000 is only the first instalment of the amount that is on the taxpayers' tick. There is a new issue emerging—that is, whether the cover-up happened and how the government sought to try to prevent these issues becoming public. It is pretty clear that the minister will have to pay back the $50,000 regardless of what the Solicitor-General said. A phone poll yesterday showed that 97 per cent of people said the minister should pay the money back. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—The other three per cent used the telecard to say no.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Yes, I think the other three per cent used the telecard. I congratulate the minister for setting a new record. It is pretty hard to get an opinion poll on anything in this country that results in 97 per cent for any proposition. I think he has set a new record and it is not difficult to understand why. The new issue is: who knew, when did the minister know, what attempts were made to cover up, when did the Prime Minister know and on what basis were these decisions made? This House should censure the Prime Minister. (Time expired)16:01:0021488Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—We have just witnessed a strangely passionless performance from the member for Melbourne because, unlike his leader, he certainly understands that the absolute worst you can say about this matter is that it is a stuff-up, not a conspiracy. The opposition have seized this issue because, as they have demonstrated time and time again over the last few days, they are so much better at smearing their political opponents than at developing any policy for the future of this nation. Unlike the Prime Minister, who has grown in his job over the last five years, the Leader of the Opposition has shrunk in his, and what we are seeing is the sad decline of a decent man who is unable to cope with the burdens of leadership. The Leader of the Opposition comes into this House and tries to pretend that everything this government says is a lie while every claim he makes is the gospel truth. The best thing that the Leader of the Opposition has going for him is the perception out there in the public that, after all, he spent enough time with Moral Rearmament all those years ago to not be a bad bloke. But he comes into this House with his posturing like a frill-necked lizard, like John Candy without the sense of humour, and he is in fact destroying himself, because a decent man does not try to crucify another decent man because that man wanted his son to call home. I am delighted to stand here and defend the honour, the decency, the integrity and the behaviour of the Prime Minister. I am delighted to stand here and defend the honour, the decency, the integrity and the behaviour of my friend and senior colleague the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. This is not about upholding standards of behaviour. This is not about trying to maintain parliamentary standards; this opposition attack is about the attempted political assassination of the best industrial relations minister since Federation. This is not about the phone calls that the minister for workplace relations might have made; this is really about his ministerial record as an outstanding advocate for the sort of reforms that Australia needs. Thanks to this outstanding minister, we have freedom in the workplace: we have workers and managers who are able to run their own lives. We have fewer strikes. We have higher pay. In fact, under the minister's stewardship, the pay of the worst-off workers of this country has gone up by nine per cent, after declining five per cent during the tenure of members opposite. And, most of all, thanks to this great minister, there are 800,000 more jobs for the decent, working, battling Australians that members opposite claim to support. While this great minister is getting on with the job of reforming the workplace and providing a better economy, members opposite are living in a political and economic Jurassic Park. The only other significant thing the opposition has done this week, apart from come in here and make a whole lot of smears and accusations against a great minister, is come in here and have this House divide so that members opposite could defend the fact that union picnic days in the year 2000 should be a compulsory part of every award. We have the situation in Victoria at the moment where non-union member apprentices can only get paid if they pay the fee to attend the union picnic. What we have from members opposite is, in effect, a constant campaign to defend what amount to extortion rackets in the guise of an industrial system. That is why members opposite hate this great minister: because he has done such a magnificent job to restore freedom to the workplaces of Australia.Let us consider the facts of the telecard affair. In 1994, as has been admitted from the beginning, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business gave his telecard and its PIN to his son. He had the quite reasonable thought that, if his son could ring home reverse charges, why shouldn't his son be able to ring dad when dad was not at home? Yes, it turns out to have been against the guidelines. The minister accepts that and the minister has repaid the money that arose from his mistake. Of course it should not have happened, but it is the sort of thing that any concerned parent would do: encourage his son to contact home. That is precisely the minister's crime. These people want to crucify him because he loved his son and wanted his son to call him. It is quite interesting getting these accusations from members opposite. Let's face it: members opposite believe that you can give your wife a job, if you are the secretary of the New South Wales Labor Party. They think you can give your son a job, if you are a member of one of the Labor Party's ruling class dynasties—you can give your son a job for life in the parliament or in one of the unions—but you cannot give your son a phone card. Heaven help you if you ever give your son a phone card! You can give him a seat in parliament for life, but heaven help us if we ever give our son a phone card for a few moments.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Chief Opposition Whip, the member for Corio and the member for Braddon! Chief Opposition Whip, defiance of the chair is the one thing that produces instant reaction here. The Chief Opposition Whip will exercise more restraint.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—It is clear that the details of this card fell into the wrong hands. But is there any evidence that the minister was careless? No. Is there any evidence that the minister's office was careless? No, there is not. Let us remember just how these phone cards work. Members opposite might remember using them. I can remember using them. When you are using these cards, you ring 1898 and the operator says, if it is the wrong sort of phone, `Could you give me your card number?' You say what the card number is. The operator then says, `What is your PIN?' You say, `My PIN number is ...' If you are sitting in an airport lounge, making phone calls, saying this kind of thing, it would be the easiest thing in the world for someone overhearing this conversation on the phone to write down the phone card details and the PIN. There are any number of explanations as to how this can have happened. The fact is that the details were stolen. That is what happened. The details were stolen. That is the obvious explanation for what has happened. What is the next fact? The next fact is that this was not found out until August last year. Was that the minister's fault? Of course not—because details of spending on these cards are not communicated to MPs. If that, in turn, is anyone's fault, it is the fault of members opposite who brought about this change when they were in government. What happened when the minister discovered what had happened? He asked for a full investigation. That is entirely proper. When the results of that investigation were communicated to him, he spoke to the Prime Minister. That is entirely proper. In consultation with the Prime Minister, he said that there should be a police investigation. That is entirely proper. The outcomes of that investigation have been made available to the general public. The Prime Minister, in his integrity and in his determination to ensure that justice was not only done but seen to be done, has asked for a Solicitor-General investigation, and the minister has made absolutely clear that he will abide by the advice that the Solicitor-General gives.The minister has acted with complete, utter and unimpeachable integrity in everything that has happened here. By contrast, what do we have from members opposite? Here we have those who claim to be the guardians of parliamentary standards, who claim to be the defenders of integrity in our system—and what do we have today? We have the Leader of the Opposition saying, `Of course he is responsible, whatever the Solicitor-General might say.' So members opposite are not interested in due process. All they are interested in is a political assassination. All they are interested in is a conviction without a trial.If I gave my secretary my Visa card number and somehow that number got into the wrong hands, would I be responsible for that? If someone steals my car and that car knocks someone down and I once lent my car to someone who should not have got it, am I responsible? Of course not. What we have from members opposite is exactly the same as Al Capone complaining about jaywalking. That is what we have from members opposite—Al Capone complaining about jaywalking. We have all this talk of double standards from members opposite. Last week members opposite were waxing indignant about a police investigation that involved interviewing the staffer of an MP. This week they want a government minister exposed to a Gestapo investigation for the heinous crime of giving his telecard to his son. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—For stealing $50,000!EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—They talk about double standards! Well, we will come to the $50,000. They do not have a policy on anything. They talk about the money but they are world champion wasters of money. The Leader of the Opposition has the gold medal in wasting money, the gold medal in slackness in administration. The Leader of the Opposition is the relevant minister who failed to pursue Senator Colston when he had ripped off travel allowance—and Senator Colston had done something wrong. The minister, the subject of this censure motion, has done nothing wrong.I ask the Leader of the Opposition: has he ever had a chat to Senator Nick Sherry about repaying any of the travel allowance that Senator Sherry claimed? The Leader of the Opposition is the gold medal waster of public money. He was the Minister for Defence who was responsible for the Collins class subs. He was the minister for communications who was responsible for the $4 billion cable roll-out duplication. He was the minister for employment who added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the social security queue when unemployment hit 11.2 per cent. He was the Minister for Finance who presided over a $25 billion blow-out in the deficit in just two years. Let us take that $25 billion that the Leader of the Opposition is responsible for and compare it with the $50,000 that he is now so exercised about. What we are talking about is 1/500,000th of the amount that they are so exercised about now. As Leader of the Opposition, he was responsible for a $500 million repair bill for the Collins class submarines. That is 10,000 times more than that which he is so exercised about now. The fact is that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has been one of the outstanding successes of an outstanding government. He has been one of the outstanding successes of an outstanding government, and I am proud to call him a friend. I am proud to call him a mentor. He has done nothing morally culpable, he has done nothing dishonourable and he has done nothing ignoble. He has had a hard week—there is no doubt about that—and let me pay tribute to a colleague at the end of a hard week. The minister is the perfect colleague: he is always courteous, he is always available, he is always frank. There is nothing thin-skinned about the minister. There is never the slightest hint of turf protection about the minister. He never pulls rank. This minister is a pleasure to work with, he is an adornment to the Australian parliament, he is a great minister—and he does not deserve the vilification that he has received in this parliament for what is nothing more than an honest mistake.Question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.16:20:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.KCox, 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.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.73Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.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.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.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.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Worth, P.M.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.Hollis, C.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.Anderson, J.D.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice PaperQuestions to the Speaker214922149216:25:0021492Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Mr Speaker, you will recall that on 13 April this year I raised the matter of the ownership of copyright of the Yirrkala bark petitions. You will also recall that you informed the House in your statement of 31 May that you had referred the matter to the Attorney-General for advice. The Attorney-General sent me a copy of his advice on 4 October, and it is clear from this advice that copyright in the works remains with the people of Yirrkala, who have continued to assert ownership of the works contained in the petitions. You will recall that this advice includes the statement:The presentation of the barks to the Parliament whether as petitions or gifts ... cannot, alone, operate to transfer ownership of the copyright regardless of the status and ownership of the petition itself.The people of Yirrkala have said they want:... all Australians to hear the message of the Bark Petitions. It is a simple request for justice.But they have also reiterated that, while they have no wish to charge for the use of those important documents, they nevertheless believe they should be asked to approve requests for their use. Can you inform the House what measures are to be taken to ensure that in any future dealings the rights of the copyright owners of these bark petitions and of the owners of other similar material deposited with this House will be protected? Will these measures include protocols or agreements for negotiating with the copyright owners permission for the future use and/or reproduction of the works? If so, what process is proposed to develop these protocols or agreements?21492SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for the Northern Territory for foreshadowing this question. It covers a very important and complex issue. As he is aware, I have in fact had a copy of the Attorney-General's advice for less than a week, and I believe this advice deserves careful consideration. As I have said, there are a number of complexities covering this matter, so I will want some time before I can respond fully to the matters raised by the member for the Northern Territory. In the meantime, can I reassure the House and the honourable member on two points. Firstly, the Table Office has always sought to facilitate access to the petitions, provided requests were for appropriate purposes and consistent with the special status of these unique works. Secondly, as I advised the House on 31 May, I did not believe it appropriate that an administrative fee be charged by the Joint House Department for this material, and that practice has stopped. Honourable members should be aware that a copyright fee has never—I emphasise `never'—been charged. I will of course come back to the member and the House with more detail when I am able.2149316:28:0021493SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yesterday I replied to what I believe were the main aspects of a question asked of me on Monday of this week by the member for Werriwa regarding the accuracy of the proof Daily Hansard. Following my reply, the member for Werriwa asked for further information on funding levels for Hansard and whether there has been any change to employment arrangements for the staff of Hansard, specifically whether there has been any increase in the number of casual or part-time staff. With respect to funding, Hansard's operating budget for salaries and suppliers but excluding capital was $7.427 million in 1998-99 and $7.686 million in 1999-2000. In the 2000-01 financial year, $8.193 million has been budgeted for salaries and suppliers for Hansard, again excluding capital. As the House can see, funding for Hansard has increased, not decreased.With respect to staffing arrangements, 95 Hansard employees are employed as either ongoing or non-ongoing employees under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999. Some ongoing staff do have part-time employment arrangements which they have requested under long-established provisions for permanent part-time work. There has been no significant change in recent times in the number of permanent part-time employees. Some non-ongoing staff are casual employees, although far fewer casual employees are engaged now than has been the case in previous parliaments. As honourable members would appreciate, Hansard experiences significant workload peaks, particularly given the increasing trend for committees to meet while the houses are sitting. Managing these workload fluctuations is the responsibility of the department. The recruitment and training of staff remain a high priority and the department is at present conducting its second recruiting round for Hansard staff this year.2149316:31:0021493Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Mr Speaker, could I ask you to write to the Prime Minister to request him to respond to a question I have had on notice since 16 March 2000 regarding Commonwealth employment in Tasmania, question No. 1283?21493SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Denison as provided by standing order 150.2149316:31:0021493Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Mr Speaker, as this is the last occasion on which the House will sit before the commencement of the Paralympic Games on 18 October, I wonder whether you would be good enough to write to the Australian Paralympic Committee, on behalf of all members of the House of Representatives, wishing our Australian Paralympians every success for the forthcoming games.21493SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Cowan for the initiative. I will be more than happy, on behalf of the parliament, to extend those sentiments to the participants and organisers of the Paralympic Games, knowing that I do it with the endorsement of every member of the parliament.Opposition members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—I believe `with the endorsement of every member of the parliament' was my specific sentiment.Documents2149316:33:0021493McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Motion (by Mr McGauran) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Annual Report for 1999-2000.Debate (on motion by Dr Martin) adjournedMatters of Public Importance214942149410000SPEAKER, 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 double standards exhibited by the Government caused by the erosion of the guidelines on Ministerial Conduct.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—16:33:0021494Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—The weak defence by the government of their recalcitrant member—Motion (by Mr McGauran) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on.Committees21494214942149416:33:0021494Mr LIEBERMAN,MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the 20th report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate.Report—by leave—agreed to.Bills21494The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Commonwealth Electoral Legislation (Provision of Information) Bill 2000Bills21494R116021494Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:1A After subsection 17(1)Insert: (1A) A report under subsection (1) in relation to the operations of the Commission for the year ending on 30 June 2001, and for each subsequent year, must include particulars for that year of: (a) each person or organisation to whom the Commission has provided a copy of a Roll under subsection 91(4A); and (b) in respect of any Roll provided under paragraph 91(4A)(e)—the purpose for which the information was provided.(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 8 to 16), omit the item.(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 6 (lines 4 to 7), omit the item.(4) Schedule 2, item 3, page 6 (lines 12 to 16), omit the item, substitute:3 Subsection 126(1)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) An application for the registration of an eligible political party may be made to the Commission by: (a) in the case of a Parliamentary party: (i) the secretary of the party; or (ii) the member, or all the members, of the Commonwealth Parliament who is a member, or who are members, of the party; or (b) in the case of a political party other than a Parliamentary party—10 members of the party, of whom one is the secretary of the party.However, where a member of a Parliamentary party: (c) who is a member of the Commonwealth Parliament; and (d) who has previously made an application for the registration of that Parliamentary party (the first party);makes an application for the registration of another party, the Commission must not proceed with the application for the registration of that other party unless the Commission is satisfied that the member is no longer a member of the first party. If the Commission is so satisfied, the Commission must take any action required by section 136 immediately.(5) Schedule 2, page 6 (after line 16), after item 3, insert:3A After paragraph 126(2)(c)Insert: (ca) include a list of the names of the 500 members of the party to be relied on for the purposes of registration;(6) Schedule 2, page 6 (after line 16), after item 3, insert:3B At the end of subsection 126(2)Add: ; and (g) be accompanied by a fee of $500.(7) Schedule 2, page 6 (after line 16), after item 3, insert:3C After subsection 126(2)Insert: (2A) Two or more parties cannot rely on the same member for the purpose of qualifying or continuing to qualify as an eligible political party. The following provisions apply accordingly: (a) a member who is relied on by 2 or more parties may nominate the party entitled to rely on the member, but if a party is not nominated after the Commission has given the member at least 30 days to do so, the member is not entitled to be relied on by any of those parties; (b) the members on whom a registered party relies may be changed at any time by an amendment of the Register of Political Parties; (c) the registration of a party is not to be cancelled because of this subsection unless the Commission has taken action to determine whether the party should be deregistered because of paragraph 137(1)(a), (b) or (c).(8) Schedule 2, page 7 (after line 14), after item 9, insert:9B At the end of subsection 134(2)Add: ; and (d) for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), (d) or (e)—must be accompanied by a fee of $500.(9) Schedule 2, item 12, page 8 (line 16), omit “has at least 500 members”, substitute “is an eligible political party”.(10) Schedule 2, item 12, page 8 (line 17), omit “to have fewer than 500 members”, substitute “not to be an eligible political party”.16:36:0021495Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.A number of amendments were made to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation (Provision of Information) Bill 2000 in the Senate this morning. The government wishes to indicate that it accepts these amendments. These amendments relate to the following. The AEC will be required to include in its annual report a list of all persons and organisations to whom it has provided electronic elector information during the financial year and to indicate the purpose to which the information was put. The government's proposed amendment relating to national roll information for federally registered political parties was rejected by the Senate. The government's proposed amendment would have allowed parties which have a significant support base but which do not have organisations in all states to be able to obtain national elector information. This would also have allowed those parties to fully participate in the federal election process and to be able to monitor the accuracy of the full federal roll, just as the major parties can.The government's proposed amendment relating to the definition of `eligible political party' was rejected by the Senate. The government's proposed amendment would have meant that a political party would need to have 500 members before it could be registered for federal purposes. This would then have been the only basis for registration. The government believed that it should be the case that anyone wishing to register a party be able to demonstrate a certain level of public support. There are a number of amendments relating to applications for party registration. The first is that any federal MP who has registered one political party and who wishes to register another must first cease membership of the first party. Secondly, a party seeking registration is required to provide the AEC with a list of the 500 members upon whom it is relying for the purposes of registration. Thirdly, there is a requirement to pay a $500 registration fee upon application. Fourthly, a party cannot use the same 500 members for registration purposes that another party has used. The changes to the register of political parties includes a requirement to pay a $500 fee for a change of party name or abbreviated party name on the register. With respect to transitional provisions, there is a consequential amendment to the transitional provisions to make them apply to an eligible political party. I commend the amendments to the parliament.16:39:0021496Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The House is dealing with the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. The opposition is very happy to support the bill as it has been amended by the Senate. In the Senate the opposition successfully moved amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act that close the loophole exploited by David Oldfield and David Ettridge to apply for registration of bogus parties. The opposition believes that the bill as it now stands provides a proper standard for parties who apply for registration. If they do not have a Commonwealth parliamentary representative, they will have to show that they have 500 ordinary members. We believe that is a fair standard and will ensure that parties who get federal registration will have to have a reasonable amount of support amongst Australians. We also support the other elements of the bill that provide for a clear and open mechanism for parties to receive copies of the electoral roll and tidy up any problems that may have arisen from the Australian Electoral Commission's release of the electoral roll to departments over recent years. The opposition therefore supports the bill as it has been returned to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills21496R113621496Debate resumed. 16:41:0021496Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise this afternoon and speak on behalf of the government's Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. This legislation, I believe, will do much to improve Australia's child support system and create a fairer situation for both custodial and non-custodial parents and, more importantly, the children of failed marriages. Australia's family law and child support systems have been subjects of considerable interest for me, both before and since I have entered parliament. My electorate boasts—though it is not a statistic of which I am proud—one of the highest populations of non-custodial parents in the nation: more than 3,800 at the last count and rising. Two years ago in my maiden speech to this House I alluded to the fact that many non-custodial parents relocate to the electorate of Kalgoorlie to try and capitalise on the many high income opportunities on offer in the more remote areas of Western Australia. However, far from solving their problems with former partners and the Child Support Agency, dramatic increases in earning capacity invariably only cause more hardship for those caught in the cycle of support payments as a percentage of gross income. The more they earn the more they pay.When Australia's Family Law Act was passed through parliament 25 years ago, our nation was supposedly entering a new era for the fair and equitable support of children by non-custodial parents. Now, as we prepare to update this act, it is amazing to reflect on just how wrong our learned predecessors in government turned out to be. After non-custodial parents were allowed to openly flout Family Court support payment rulings for more than a decade, another Labor government decided the best way to combat this was to create a new agency able to enforce rulings under threat of additional financial penalty. Thus was born the Child Support Agency—the shiny new saviour of Australia's family and community services child support system. However, instead of creating a fairer and more equitable system of child support, the Child Support Agency has, under current regulations, succeeded only in creating what I referred to two years ago as `a cohort of second-class citizens'. The intended flexibility that was supposed to set new standards in protecting the wellbeing of children recovering from the trauma of parental separation has instead evolved into a system of regulations and control mechanisms so inflexible as to lead to the emotional and financial ruin of many non-custodial parents. I remind members of this House that family break-ups are often the most traumatic experience of people's lives in this day and age. The trauma of the initial break-up is then invariably compounded for non-custodial parents by decisions of the Family Court and, subsequently, the Child Support Agency. The measures set down in the bill we are discussing today were first announced in this year's budget. In putting these measures before parliament, the government has five major aims: improving post-separation relationships in the interests of the continued wellbeing of children; encouraging non-custodial parents to maintain contact with their children; adjusting benchmarks used to determine child support payment liabilities; providing a fairer basis for means testing government assistance for children of new or subsequent families; and ensuring that parents have every opportunity to improve the financial position of new families. I am well aware of cases where non-custodial parents have avoided their responsibilities regarding child support payments. However, during my term in office, the overwhelming majority of cases brought to my attention involve the impossible financial circumstances of new partnerships formed by the non-custodial parent and the destructive effects of unfair rulings imposed by the Child Support Agency. Many of these new partnerships are ultimately destroyed by the draconian rulings of the agency. The result is often that capable and productive contributors to the economic mosaic of my electorate opt instead to become unemployed burdens on the welfare system, simply to deprive a custodial parent of a lifestyle that the non-custodial parent believes is undeserved.These new measures are aimed at encouraging non-custodial parents to spend as much time with their children as possible. For the first time, the Australian government has recognised in legislation the fact that non-custodial parents are faced with increased costs if they spend time with their children. The new regulations will allow for the cost of contact between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of each week to be taken into account when formulating levels of payment for non-custodial parents. Our motivations here are twofold. We recognise that the emotional development of children is more readily addressed by regular and ongoing contact with both parents, and evidence points to the fact that non-custodial parents who have regular contact with their children are more likely to fulfil all their mandated support obligations. I wish to expand on this, because it is my very strong belief that the emotional development of parents, and particularly non-custodial parents, is also a crucial factor that is all too often overlooked in debate about child support services.When I commenced my term as member for Kalgoorlie, the Western Australian community was still coming to terms with a spate of murder-suicides involving non-custodial parents and their children. I am not a qualified psychologist; I do not pretend to know the answers to the question of why relationships fail and families subsequently break apart. However, a 1997 study by Professor Pierre Baume, Head of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, found that 70 per cent of suicides were related to relationship breakdown. With the number of suicides each year in Australia now at an obscene level of 1,810 lives, I am inevitably led to conclude that too many of these are directly attributable to the original rulings of the Family Court. The strongest evidence indicates one life lost per day. I do believe, however, that in our justifiable concern for the rights and welfare of children in family law cases the emotional needs of non-custodial parents can often be overlooked in the wake of other priorities. We in government can make some small contribution in this regard by providing some form of encouragement for regular and ongoing contact between non-custodial parents and children. In addition to meeting the needs of the children, regular contact, we believe, will also assist in the emotional healing of the parents whose pain at the sudden break-up of the family unit may not be as fully acknowledged. Through this legislation, the government also seeks to make life easier and fairer for second families of people making child support payments to an ex-partner. At present, as I alluded to earlier, child support payments are calculated as an inflexible percentage of gross income amount. Under our new regulations, the cap on taxable income subject to child support assessment will be set at the lower level of around $79,000. This will be accomplished by realigning the measures used to set limits on a payer's taxable income with those used to determine the disregardable income of the payee. It goes without saying that a fairer system will be created when both parties in child support cases are judged according to the same limits and guidelines. The new regulations will also release high income earners from the mandatory paying of exorbitant levels of child support which ultimately far exceed the cost of raising children.Here we come to the essence of Labor's old regulations with regard to child support; that is, to penalise high income earners as much as possible in order to appease minority and special interest groups. The regulations instituted by the ALP when the Child Support Agency was established represent the height of coldness and rigidity. The coalition is concerned that all parties in child support cases are treated fairly. The Child Support Consultative Group, which was established in 1987 to develop better methods for assessing child support payments, recommended that an upper limit or cap on child support liabilities be introduced. The group's rationale for a cap included that child rearing expenses plateau at relatively high income levels, and expenditure on children above this level is frequently discretionary. If no cap was set, high levels of child support would result, which could be seen as a transfer of income to the resident parent rather than as child support. A cap would reduce incentives for nonresident parents to avoid payment of child support, and would also reduce the nonresident parent's inclination to leave the work force in order to avoid paying high child support.Research conducted by the University of Canberra's National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling indicates that most nonresident parents with income above $65,000 are paying more than the total gross cost of their children. However, our lowering of the income cap for payment formula assessment in no way means that non-custodial parents cannot pay more than the formula assessed amount if agreement can be reached that better reflects individual circumstances. Parents will also be able to apply to the Child Support Agency to have assessed levels of payment altered to accommodate special circumstances, such as specific educational or medical needs. This has been absolutely impossible before now, with any changes in payment levels needing to be ratified by a Family Court judge. At the other end of the spectrum, the current minimum rate of child support liability, which I believe stands at $260 per year, will be abolished in favour of an open-ended system that better reflects the economic capacity of payers. Income from second jobs taken to support new families will now be able to be excluded from assessments of child support. Excluded income cannot exceed 30 per cent of the payer's total income, this being to ensure that second families are not disadvantaged by the requirements of child support, while at the same time ensuring that the needs of first families are properly catered for. And, most importantly, second families will now be able to deduct all child support paid by either or both partners for social security and family assistance means testing purposes. For many years, providers for second families had to endure the added strain of losing a considerable percentage of their income to child support and then being unable to make complete allowance for this through family assistance.Even though these new regulations will result in a fairer child support system in this country, there will still undoubtedly be some individuals determined to abrogate their responsibilities in this area. The government will be tightening the departure prohibition system for payment defaulters to ensure that proper arrangements can be made to discharge child support debts before payers are able to leave the country. The definition of eligible carers is also to be tightened to ensure that such carers who are not parents or legal guardians cannot receive child support payments if the parents or guardians do not consent to the arrangement. Non-parents and guardians will, however, be able to be defined as eligible carers if it can be demonstrated that the wellbeing of children in their care would be threatened by violence or abuse at the home of the custodial parent. These new regulations are aimed at squaring the ledger and redressing the imbalance that currently exists between payees and payers in the child support system. The most tangible outcome of these regulations will be that our country has a fairer system under which to determine child support matters. While parents, both custodial and non-custodial, will be the immediate beneficiaries of these changes, there can be no doubt that the real long-term winners will be the children, and that is where this government's priorities rightly remain.16:51:0021499Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Today I rise to speak on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, because its provisions will affect many of my constituents in Gilmore. Child support matters constitute, without a doubt, the single biggest inquiry in our office. Although our statistics for single parent families are about average for New South Wales, we do have many so-called blended families. These days the average for New South Wales means about 10 per cent of households are single parent households. This affects a huge number of people. In Gilmore alone, it converts to about 4,000 families or about 10,000 people. Many families in my electorate are endeavouring to cope with children from four or more different relationships, balancing the need for physical, financial and emotional support for all concerned. To say the least, that is not easy. While there are those who would say, `Let them sink or swim, for they themselves decide to have children each time,' this legislation is, first and foremost, designed to best protect the interests of children.This is what our Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 will in fact do—in several ways. Perhaps the most important point is the encouragement of nonresident parents to maintain a regular and high quality relationship with any children of previous relationships. I know that there are instances where threatening or harmful behaviour has been displayed towards children and/or the previous partner. So to ensure that contact remains a high priority we have established safe havens for handovers and for supervised contact. Many more of these centres have been funded by this government in the last six months, including one in Gilmore. Too often nonresident parents have felt cut off from their children, and naturally the children have wondered why suddenly overnight they cannot see that parent any more. It is difficult to explain why they are being penalised. Sometimes, too, the cost of maintaining a relationship with your children means lots of expensive travel. This has prevented many non-custodial parents from adopting roles they would have preferred. For instance, many of the nonresident parents that I have spoken with are in the Australian Defence Force. As a normal part of their jobs these people move house regularly, often thousands of kilometres from their previous posting. How can you fly interstate to see your children every weekend? You just cannot afford it. But you might fly them in a couple of times a year for a fortnight at a time.If the nonresident parent is subsequently involved in another relationship, the needs of any further children of course also have to be taken into account. And while it may suit some people to use child support as a kind of weapon in the emotional battle that often surrounds relationship breakdown, we in the government are not so inclined. Because, really, when you punish an adult the child wears the cost, and that is most definitely not our mission. Whilst the Labor Party and the member for Chifley have made some alterations, the big difficult issues were, once again, left to this government. Why? Because we do not resort to pandering to the easy votes. We have the guts to make difficult but fairer decisions. Although, to be fair, the member for Chifley did try to lobby his own side when they were in government to make the very necessary changes.We believe in making things fair for both the taxpayer and the recipient. To buy in supplies for a day at home with the kids can be very expensive, especially if you do not usually cater for children in the home. So, even if you only spend 10 per cent of the year with your children—roughly equivalent to seven weeks—there will be a significant cost. This cost is being recognised by providing a reduction in the child support payment formula for the nonresident parent. Previously there were two levels: major contact, 65 per cent; and substantial contact, 35 per cent. This legislation provides two new levels: intermediate contact, 25 per cent; and moderate contact, 15 per cent. This means that if a nonresident parent spends between 10 and 20 per cent of his or her time with the children, the child support payment formula can be reduced by about two per cent. Should a parent spend between 20 and 30 per cent of his or her time with the children, then the formula would drop by three per cent. This then becomes much fairer for those nonresident parents who are committed to regular and ongoing contact with their children.This measure will now distinguish between the liabilities of parents exercising little or no contact and those exercising regular and ongoing contact. When the best interests of the children are your first priority it makes sense to encourage contact by removing those barriers identified by the nonresident parents. In Gilmore, where the average wage is very low, this will be of great benefit to those families where parents are finding it difficult to see their children because of the costs involved.The second point of this legislation is to lower the cap on the income that is subject to child support formula assessment. Currently, the cap is 2½ times the average weekly earnings of full-time employees. It is well known that the current level of cap is not supported by recent research on the costs of children. According to one model of research, nonresident parents with an income of $65,000 or more are paying more than the total gross costs of their children. In line with erring on the side of the children, we have effectively lowered the cap to $78,378, instead of the current $101,153. Research also indicates that when the payers of child support see an assessment as fair they are much more likely to pay it. In view of the children's best interests, this has to be a plus.The third point I would like to draw attention to is our assistance for children of current relationships, as distinct from those of past relationships. To date, wages earned have in the main been considered money available from which to calculate child support payments. This has worked against the current family being able to buy a home, buy and maintain a car, save for a holiday, et cetera. This legislation will allow the nonresident parent to get ahead yet still maintain their responsibilities to their children. He or she can work extra hours, whether overtime or a second job, and not have those earnings counted towards child support assessment. To qualify, these extra earning must be extras—that is, not part of the usual cycle of earnings or part of an expected increment in wages. The nonresident parent cannot manipulate their income so that the assessable earnings are substantially lower than the extra income. As a further safeguard, the extra income cannot total more than 30 per cent of the parent's total income. As a government we remain committed to the children's best interests. They are most important. We are not prepared to discriminate between innocent children who have been born at different stages of a parent's life. Another measure to help the children of the current family is that child support payers will be allowed a dollar for dollar deduction for any child support paid. This means that nonresident parents will have their family tax benefit and child care benefit assessed on the actual income available to the new family.To ensure that child support is paid in accordance with requirements, this bill provides for departure prohibition orders. These orders can be used to prevent a person from leaving Australia if a child support debt remains outstanding. These debts will need to be paid or arrangements securing their payment will need to be made before nonresident parents can leave the country. This is done in the interests of fairness for both the children and the taxpayer. Why should the rest of Australia's taxpayers support these children when the relevant parent chooses to go on a holiday or move to another country rather than pay child support? Obviously, there are provisions for those whose work takes them in and out of Australia.In previous amendments of child support legislation we set a minimum amount of child support to be paid at $260 a year. This was done again in the interests of fairness, to make sure that everyone—even if they were on unemployment benefits—paid something, thereby having an obligation to support their children. This was introduced because of nonresident parents choosing to not work simply to deny child support payments in the cut and thrust of two adults in an emotional war. However, someone who receives a disability support pension and lives in a high needs residential home has very little, if anything, of the pension left after fees and board are paid. Prisoners too are in this situation, as they receive $8 a week while in jail and would lose $5 a week to the child support minimum payment. So in order to provide some minimal flexibility where the minimum payment is required this bill provides for the issue of regulations.Another bone of contention has been the need to give copies of supporting documents provided with an application to depart from the child support formula to the other parent. These supporting documents would include details of new addresses, places of work, changed schooling arrangements and the like. Such information could easily be used by one parent to harass the other. Now, while the applications are copied to one another the supporting documents will not be. There are other technical and administrative amendments, but they are only logical flow-ons from the major changes I have outlined.The Child Support Agency now visits my office in Nowra on a regular basis to sit down with its clients and sort through any difficulties face to face. We organised this after I had many distressed dads—they usually are fathers—coming to my office after dealing with the Child Support Agency. Often they saw suicide as a real alternative to life with the CSA and to being treated badly with no sympathy or understanding and no real access to the kids. As a result, I joined the child support committee and agitated for four years to get something done about increasing the priority of this issue. The damage being done to nonresident parents was constant and immense. I have been very critical of the CSA for their insensitivity. However, they now come to our office to see people, rather than dealing with them only over the phone. Now they provide real service, and I compliment the agency. They have worked cooperatively to change their image from a negative one to a much more positive one. My next step is to work for the recognition of the plight of grandparents and grandchildren. Children like to have grandparents—it is a very different and special relationship. Where is the need to ban contact because of their blood relationship to the nonresident parent?This government said there would be a three-step approach to changing this legislation. Steps 1 and 2 are done; step 3 is still to be considered. However, it is my opinion that we have come a long way from where we were four years ago. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time on the Prime Minister's special task force on child support and feel that we have indeed been part of the decision making process. The government have developed this package after extensive consideration of the wide range of views put over a long period of time by all interested parties. It is ironic that the ALP agree with these changes. I will be surprised if they do not support them. If they do not, I will be very interested in what they suggest outside of the committee room. What would their policy be? Will the ALP simply be against it, whatever it is? Easy words for easy votes. Actions count and the government take action in the best interests of the people even when they might lose a few votes.17:02:0021502Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Child support matters are among the most difficult that we have to deal with in our electorate offices. The issues regarding child support arrangements, in addition to financial problems, are often the focus for the trauma, emotional problems and acrimony flowing from family breakdown. The pain and financial problems are felt on both sides—by both the resident and nonresident—the custodial and non-custodial parents. Like many of my colleagues, in my office I see examples of both—on the one hand, distraught mothers whose husbands have left them battling to protect and provide for their children and are refusing to pay or effectively understating their income and, on the other hand, fathers in the depths of despair who are often paying large amounts in child support for children to whom they are denied access, who are angered by the fact that they have little or no say in ensuring that the money they pay is spent for the benefit of their children and who in many cases are not left with enough money themselves to enable them to restart a new family or to get on with life. Many of these issues are a complex blend of pain, heartbreak, financial hardship, acrimony and anger.Sadly, with the rising levels of family breakdown and divorce, these problems and hardships are not going to go away. The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that an appalling 46 per cent of marriages are now likely to end in divorce. Needless to say, we need to do whatever we can to try to prevent this happening. I am pleased to see that the government is taking some steps towards prevention measures and family counselling. Sadly some 54 per cent of family breakdowns involve children under 18 years of age, therefore involving children in child support arrangements.The difficulty of course with legislation on child support matters is drafting legislation that can adequately cover every individual case, every complexity and every person's needs. Obviously it cannot, but by a continual process of adjustment, amendment and refinement we can try to make the legislation more closely tackle the needs that are there. The prime issue is to ensure that children are looked after—that their material needs are met and that their emotional security is protected—and to ensure that the resident parents are supported sufficiently by the nonresident parents in making sure that the children are looked after. The principle quite correctly is that, whether together or not, both parents have an obligation to support their children. Only as a very last resort, contrary to what some of the opposition members say, should this obligation fall on taxpayers. Child support requirements administered through the child support administration are structured to achieve just this. The difficulty in ensuring compliance is finding a fair balance and reducing and minimising the degree of acrimony and pain involved. Until now this balance has not been fair, it has not always been successful and it has been particularly hard on the non-custodial or nonresident parents. Until now the legislation has not adequately looked at the needs of the non-custodial parents and their ability to pay, yet we still need to make sure that the children are looked after. The amendments involved in this legislation, I believe, introduce a number of very valuable initiatives that will reduce the pressure on the nonresident parents and give them a fairer go, while still protecting the needs of the children to be adequately supported.I will just quickly run through the main measures. First of all, there is a reduction in the child support obligation for a nonresident parent who has contact with his or her child for between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of the time. This recognises that for the nonresident parent—usually the father—taking custody of the children for some time there are the costs of transport, in travelling to pick up the children, and the costs of providing accommodation for those children, including a bedroom, furniture, clothing, et cetera. There are also the costs of feeding and entertaining the children for the times that they are with the non-custodial parent. Until now that had been allowed for or recognised only where the nonresident parent had custody for more than 30 per cent of the time. This legislation now makes allowance for the fact that, for those parents who have access to their children for between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of the time, some allowance will be made for those extra costs.For parents who have access for between 10 and 19 per cent of the time, the child support obligation will be reduced by two per cent. For a parent with one child it will be reduced from 18 per cent of their assessable income to 16 per cent; for two children, from 27 per cent to 25 per cent; and for three children, from 32 per cent to 30 per cent. For parents who have access for between 20 and 29 per cent of the time, the child support obligation will be reduced by three per cent. Here is a very positive initiative aimed at reducing the financial pressure on the non-custodial parents when they have access to their children. It not only makes it easier for them, but it provides an incentive for them to spend more time with those children, recognising that it is essential for the welfare of the children that they have access to their mother and their father—that they have quality time with both the resident and the nonresident parent. This is a very fair, very balanced and very commonsense initiative.The second important initiative in this legislation is to provide for those non-custodial parents—again usually fathers—who are establishing new families. Many separated parents go on—no matter for what reason the divorce or separation came about—to form new relationships and then go on to wanting to develop new blended families. That may involve stepchildren, natural children or adopted children. The current situation makes no allowance for the fact that they face extra costs in doing that. We have all had parents, particularly men, in our electorate offices who are paying fairly substantial amounts of child support—trying to do the right thing for the children of their first marriage—and who now want to start a new family with stepchildren and new children of their own, but simply are unable to afford it because the current formula makes no allowance for the extra costs they bear. Many would go out and get a second job or do overtime in order to support the children of the new family, but under the current formula they are penalised for doing that. This new legislation makes it possible for them to get a second job or do overtime in order to support their new family without the extra income being counted in the child support formula for their first family. This is a very equitable and fair arrangement. It means that they can now undertake practical measures—put in that extra time and effort—to look after the children of the second marriage and still look after the needs of their children of their first marriage. This is a totally fair and reasonable measure. The third important initiative in this legislation is to allow for the deductibility of child maintenance payments when calculating family tax benefits and child care benefits. This, again, is a much more realistic assessment of the level of need of the payers. Under the current arrangement, only 50 per cent of child support payments are deducted from assessable income. If a payer is paying, say, $100 a week for the children of his former family, previously only $50 was counted as a deduction in assessing his need for child-care benefits or family tax benefits for his new family. This amendment now allows for 100 per cent deduction so it is a much more accurate measure of the level of need of the new family.The fourth measure is that the figures used to calculate the cap on a payer's taxable income in calculating their child support assessment will be changed from average weekly earnings of full-time employees to average weekly earnings generally. This brings it into line with the figure used for the payee's disregarded income. It is a fair arrangement. It reduces the cap from $101,153 to $78,378.Another very important initiative as part of this legislation is a pilot program to assist nonresident parents in their post-separation relationships and with their parenting skills, to help them deal with the issues of being a parent in a nonresident situation, to help them deal with the trauma, to help them more easily find support mechanisms and networks and to help them more easily access government support. There are other initiatives in this legislation but I see that my time is up. I wholeheartedly support this legislation. It is a very positive piece of legislation which will bring back some balance and some fairness and which will give a fair go to the nonresident parent while still ensuring that the children are looked after and the resident parent is helped in doing that.17:12:0021504Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise to speak in support of the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. For families, both children and parents, dealing with divorce, relationship breakdown, separation and, in many cases, the issue of child support for resident and nonresident parents is very difficult and heart wrenching indeed. For the government, for me at a personal level, and for me as the federal member for Makin, the greatest concern is for the wellbeing of the children.Since being elected in 1996, the government has been working to implement changes in the area of child support to make the system more equitable, simpler and fairer. In the short time I have available to me I am pleased to have the opportunity to outline to the House the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to give effect to four measures relating to child support as announced as part of the government's 2000-01 budget. It also gives effect to several non-budget measures.Those four areas are: lower child support percentages for children with whom the liable parent has 10 to 30 per cent contact; a lower cap on the income subject to child support formula assessment; income earned for the benefit of resident children; and an increase in deductible child maintenance expenditure for family tax benefits and child care benefit. At the moment there is no allowance in the child support formula for a nonresident parent who has to bear the costs of caring for a child for less than 30 per cent of the time. As many nonresident parents know, and I am sure resident parents also understand, there are additional costs to be met by nonresident parents when looking after their children. This can and often does lead to severe financial hardship when trying to support two households. We, as a government, have recognised this. With regard to the second measure of the lower cap on income subject to child support formula assessment, the average weekly earnings figure that sets the cap on payer taxable income that is subject to child support formula assessment will be aligned with that used for the payee's disregarded income figure instead of the full-time adult average weekly total earnings figure. This will, of course, result in a lower cap.Of significant importance is the measure of the income earned for the benefit of resident children. This measure will create a new ground for departure from the child support formula assessment for a parent who has an income from a second job, regular overtime or some similar source that is earned for the benefit of a child—natural, adoptive, stepchild—or children in the parent's current family. In relation to the increase in deductible child maintenance expenditure for family tax benefit and child-care benefit, this measure will increase the family tax benefit and child-care benefit income test deductions for child support payers from 50 per cent to 100 per cent by allowing a dollar for dollar deduction for any child support paid. I am regularly visited by constituents—as many members would appreciate—clearly at their wits' end as a result of crippling child support payments. These constituents seek not to shirk responsibility for their children; they just ask for some balance and a fair go in the financial equation. In some cases, non-resident parents are forced to the dole queue as there is not adequate income left to live on after payments. In this case, it is often the children and the new spouses that suffer, contributing unnecessary pressure and causing further family breakdown. This bill injects much needed equity into the process, and I commend the work of the Minister for Community Services, Larry Anthony, and commend the bill to the House.17:16:0021505Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—in reply—I would like to thank members on both sides of the House for their contributions to this debate. I am certainly proud to have presented the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 to the parliament. It contains measures designed to provide a fairer Child Support Scheme for parents and children alike. The bill provides a package of measures that address the concerns of separated parents. The Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues, the JSC, examined the operations and effectiveness of the Child Support Scheme. The JSC report, which was released in 1994, made a number of recommendations about the operations of the scheme. The measures in this package are consistent with the findings and recommendations of the JSC and build on the changes that this government has already implemented in response to the JSC report. No-one would deny that family breakdown and parental separation are highly emotional issues for all parties. Issues surrounding child support can provide additional difficulties. Nevertheless, the government is committed to maintaining a Child Support Scheme that encourages separated parents to contribute financially to their children's needs. At the same time, the government listened to the concerns raised by a variety of groups and individuals and made changes that will result in a fairer and more balanced scheme. In putting this package together, the government took into account the opinions and concerns expressed by both payees and payers over a long period of time. In addition, we considered recent Australian research into the cost of children and contact behaviour of non-resident parents. The first of the changes contained in the bill proposes to lower the child support percentages for children with whom the liable parent has between 10 and 30 per cent contact. Currently, non-resident parents receive no recognition for the costs that they may incur when caring for their children, unless they have contact for more than 30 per cent of the time. This means that parents with significant care arrangements, such as every second weekend and half of the school holidays, have the same child support liability as parents who never or rarely have contact with their children. This measure recognises that non-resident parents who exercise contact with their children face additional costs—for example, food, clothing and the need to maintain a separate bedroom.The opposition have claimed that this measure contravenes the longstanding principle of child support that decisions are made in the best interests of the children. I have to disagree with that. The initiative is intended to encourage parents to maintain contact with their children following separation. This is clearly something that is good for both parents and children. It is important for the development of children that, where possible and practicable, they have contact with both parents. Ongoing contact with the children leads to a higher likelihood of child support payments being made. For parents with contact of between 10 and 19 per cent, the relative percentage formula will generally be reduced by two percentage points. Where contact is between 20 and 29 per cent, the formula will generally be reduced by a total of three percentage points. The current 30 per cent threshold required before the formula is reduced offers an all or nothing approach, and it can exacerbate any dispute that parents may already have over contact. The proposed changes will mean less of an incentive for disputes over contact.I note that the 10 per cent of care required to receive a reduction in the child support payable is consistent with the 10 per cent of care required for parents to access a share of the family tax benefit. It is estimated that approximately 140,000 payers will be affected by this measure and will receive an average reduction of around $5 per week in their child support liability. Most affected payees will have the reduction in their child support payments partially offset by the increases in family assistance. It is proposed that this measure will commence on 1 July 2001. It is proposed that the next measure to lower the upper limit or cap on payer taxable income will commence on 1 January 2001. The current level of the cap is $101,153, but the level of this cap is not supported by the research on the costs of children. Recent Australian research indicates that the formula requires high income payers to pay more child support than the total gross cost of their children. Under this measure, the average weekly earnings, AWE, benchmark that is used to set the payer's taxable income cap will be in line with that used for the payee's disregard income amount—that is, the all employees average weekly total earnings figure will be used instead of the full-time adult average weekly total earnings figure. This will result in a cap of $78,378. The measure will help to reduce work force disincentives for high income earners. Approximately 4,000 child support payers earn above $78,378 a year and the majority will pay under $3,000 a year less child support. However, even with this reduction, affected payees will still receive child support of over $12,000 a year for one child, $18,000 a year for two children and higher amounts for three or more children. These changes do not mean that parents cannot pay more than the formula assessed amount. Parents may wish to reach an agreement that better reflects their circumstances. Alternatively, parents may apply to the Child Support Agency for a change to the formula assessment if they believe special circumstances exist. For example, there may be higher medical expenses for a child, or there may be higher educational expenses if parents intend to send their children to private schools. For some time, I have heard about the difficulties experienced by nonresident parents attempting to re-establish themselves in new relationships and start new families. This next measure recognises the financial disadvantage experienced by those parents who are supporting children in two families. From 1 January 2001, there will be an additional reason under which child support payers can apply for a change of the child support assessment formula. Parents who have income from a second job or overtime that is earned for the benefit of a child, whether it be a natural, adoptive or stepchild, in the current family will be able to apply to have some of the additional income excluded from the assessment of their child support. The paying parent will need to show that the additional income is not part of their normal earning pattern before they establish a new family. The amount of additional income that can be excluded from the child support assessment will be limited to a maximum of 30 per cent. This will ensure that the needs of children of both families are taken into account. This measure will assist parents to improve the position of their new families and reduce work force disincentives faced by payers with new families.Another measure will increase the family tax benefit and child-care benefit income test deductions for child support to 100 per cent by allowing a dollar for dollar deduction for any child support paid. Currently, if a payer forms a new family, only 50 per cent of the child support they pay is deducted from the household income when their entitlement to family assistance is calculated. This change means that child support payers with children in new families will have their family tax benefit and child-care benefit assessed on income that reflects the actual income available to the new family. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 payers with children in new families will benefit by an average of around $8 per week. This measure will commence on 1 January 2001.This bill also contains a number of non-budget measures. Amendments made by this bill will also enable the registrar to issue a departure prohibition order to prevent a payer who has persistently failed to meet his or her child support obligations from leaving the country. If the payer makes satisfactory arrangements to pay the debt, the CSA will be able to revoke the order and will also be able to authorise a specific departure, if appropriate. The provisions are consistent with the existing departure prohibition order scheme in place in relation to taxation debtors. In 1993 the Commonwealth introduced amendments to provide for a minimum child support liability of $260 per annum, which was $5 per week, regardless of income. Currently, the only exemption provided is if the registrar is satisfied that a person's income for the first 12 months of the child support period is less than $260. The narrow scope of this provision has caused problems in some circumstances—for example, the disability support pensioners who are long-term residents of nursing homes and who pay the majority of their pension to the nursing home for the cost of care. This measure will allow regulations to be made to exempt certain amounts from the meaning of income so that the $260 minimum liability will not apply. Under another measure contained in the bill, it will no longer be a requirement that supporting documents supplied with an application to depart from the child support formula assessment be provided to the other party to the child support arrangement. Currently, supporting documents for an application as well as the response to an application must be provided to the other party. If either party does not want any supporting documentation provided to the other party—for example, information on a new partner's medical condition—the documentation cannot be used in the decision making process. This measure will address concerns that have been raised about the privacy of information provided by the agency and will remove the requirement of the Child Support Agency to provide supporting documents to the other party. The member for Lilley expressed concerns about whether this change constitutes a breach of natural justice. I stress the point that all information relevant to the departure determination must be included in the application and response forms that will continue to be made available to the other party. Therefore, the other party will have the opportunity to challenge the details that will inform of the departure determination. The supporting documentation that will no longer be made available is primarily to provide confirmation for the decision maker of some of the details already included in the forms. However, the nature of the documentation is such that they often go beyond the issue at hand and also detail various personal details that are not relevant. It is, therefore, personal details that we seek to protect by not making the supporting documentation available. Natural justice is maintained while protecting individuals from having irrelevant personal details disclosed to their former partners. I also place on record that the Attorney-General's Department scrutinised the proposed provisions at the stage of both the drafting instructions and drafting legislation and supported the proposed amendments.Other amendments contained in the bill deal with the issues that have arisen when a child has run away from his or her parents to live with a third party against the parents' wishes. Currently, a non-parent who is providing care to a child who has left home may claim child support from the natural or adopted parent. This is the case whether the child has left home with or without parental consent and whether they have done so with or without a reasonable cause. The government is concerned that the Child Support Scheme not condone or assist family breakdown. This measure will generally provide that carers who are not parents or legal guardians of the child cannot be eligible carers and receive the child support unless a parent or guardian has consented to the arrangement. However, a person can be an eligible carer if it is unreasonable for the child to live at home because of the extreme family breakdown or because of a serious risk to the child's physical or mental wellbeing from violence or sexual abuse at home.All of the non-budget measures will commence on royal assent of the bill. I am committed to these changes because they will provide a fairer and more balanced scheme. Since 1 July 1999, thousands of families have benefited from the government's changes to the Child Support Scheme. Parents have been assisted by the introduction of the minimum payment of $260 per annum child support from payer parents, the widening of the definition of `income' when assessing child support liability, an increase in the proportion of the payer's income which is exempt from the child support formula calculations and the introduction of objectionable rights in relation to most decisions made by the Child Support Agency. The government's reforms have also provided for far greater flexibility in the scheme's administration and reduced the intrusiveness by making it easier for parents to collect child support privately, by basing child support assessments on the most up-to-date income of parents, by providing flexibility for payers to make direct payments for up to 25 per cent of their child support and by enabling payers to apply for a child support assessment.I am certainly immensely proud of the achievements to date. The bill I bring before the House today offers further improvements to the Child Support Scheme. I listened to the debate last night and today—and in particular to what the member for Lilley said—and would like to thank the opposition for the broad support they have expressed for the measures contained in this bill. I acknowledge that the member for Lilley has raised some concerns about a couple of measures and I note that he has proposed some alternatives. The government has not developed this legislation on a whim. The government and I have carefully considered the measures that I bring before the parliament in this bill. We have listened to the concerns raised by both resident and nonresident parents. The measures are consistent with the findings of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues that was chaired by the member for Lilley's colleague the member for Chifley, the Hon. Roger Price. I maintain that the measures contained in this bill are fair and equitable and, when presented as a package, provide for a more balanced Child Support Scheme. On the face of it, the alternatives put forward by the opposition appear in areas flawed and unnecessarily complex. However, I am willing to examine the member for Lilley's proposals more closely, and I am happy to provide further information and research to his office about the measures contained in this bill. I call on members on both sides of the House to support all the changes in this bill in the interests of a more equitable Child Support Scheme. The changes are fair. Debate interrupted. Privilege2150917:30:0021509SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 7 September the honourable member for Grey, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Family and Community Services, reported to the House on a matter of privilege. Successive Speakers have required that issues of privilege concerning committees should be considered by the relevant committee in the first instance. In this case, claims of breach of privilege were made in connection with an inquiry conducted by the committee in 1997. The first aspect was that the committee had been misled deliberately. The second was that a witness had been subject to intimidation. On the first point, the chairman informed the House that the committee had not formed the view that the remarks complained of were deliberately misleading. On the second point, the chairman said that the committee had not been able to resolve a discrepancy in the understanding or perception of key people involved. He said, however, that the committee considered that if the claims were correct a potentially serious issue of privilege was involved: that is, the protection of witnesses. The committee concluded that the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. As well as the chairman's statement, I have considered documentation this committee obtained on the matter. I have concluded that I would be justified in allowing precedence to a motion on the matter. Motion (by Mr Wakelin) agreed to:That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report: Whether Mr Peter Osborne was subject to threat or intimidation in connection with his involvement in the inquiry in the last Parliament by the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs into health information management and telemedicine.Adjournment2150910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being past 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2150917:32:0021509McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—A number of opposition members came in at 5.30 p.m. or just before because we were expecting a number of ministers to come in and give the answers that we called for during question time in which we said, `If you have not got the answers, come back before the end of the day and give those answers.' We were expecting, for example, the Prime Minister to come into the House immediately and advise whether the government is going to release the DPP's proposition about why there was insufficient evidence to lay criminal charges against any person, including Mr Reith. He said he would look into this matter. What he is hoping is that over the next two weeks we will all forget; we will not. We expected the Prime Minister to come into the House and advise on which occasions and to which ministers' offices or to which department Telstra had raised concerns regarding Minister Reith's telecard prior to August 1999, because the facts are now starting to emerge that he did know before August 1999. We expected the Minister for Finance and Administration to come into the House immediately and advise whether there is a note in Telstra's telecard computer file of Mr Reith saying, `Customer is not happy, wants to take the matter to the TIO,' and whether the customer referred to is Mr Reith or his electorate office or his ministerial office. No show, Your Honour! No Prime Minister and no Minister for Finance and Administration. We expected the Prime Minister to come in and advise whether we are expected to believe that two senior committees investigating this serious matter concerning the No. 5 member of the government investigated those matters and did not advise the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Does anybody believe that a senior public servant would do this without telling Max the Axe? Nobody believes that at all. The other question is—and we did not expect anyone necessarily to come in and answer but, given the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation is here, we are very interested to know—why wouldn't the government allow the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to answer the question about the material in Telstra's files? We suspect that he could not have denied knowledge because he knew. The Minister for Finance and Administration, who was not the minister responsible, came in and said, `Well, it is not in my area, so I do not know the answer.' What a great idea for a government to stall, to say: `Next time we will flick the question to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. He certainly will not know the answer.' Then we will ask him a hard question about forests and they will give it to the Minister for Community Services. It is a way of avoiding answering the question. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—He doesn't know anything.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—And we know that he will not know the answer. So for those reasons we thought that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance and Administration would come in and provide the information. If they had nothing to hide, if they had good answers, they would be here. If there was an answer that covered the problem, they would be here. The reason that they are not here is not that there is no answer but that there is an answer they do not want to give. They want to continue to hide, to cover up, just as they would if this matter had not come to light. If this matter had not broken in the Canberra Times, if Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray had not started chasing it down in the Senate, how soon do you think it would have been before the government had said, `By the way, there is a $50,000 problem?' I think we would all still be waiting. It would have been quietly buried by the DPP—quietly buried. That is why I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving forthwith that the House remain sitting until—Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the question be now put.17:40:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 70Abbott, A.J.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.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.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.Pyne, C.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A, K.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.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'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 *Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J. Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Anderson, J.D.O'Byrne, M.A.Vaile, M.A.J.Hollis, C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the House do now adjourn.17:45:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 70Abbott, A.J.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.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.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.Pyne, C.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A, K.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.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'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 *Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J..Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.JAnderson, J.D.O'Byrne, M.A.Vaile, M.A.J.Hollis, C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.17:47:0021512House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members215132151309:40:0021513Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—Everyone knows that the government lied about the cost of fuel in relation to the GST price increase. The Prime Minister promised that the GST would not increase the price of petrol for the ordinary motorist. The harsh reality for ordinary Australians is that the price of petrol has gone up not only as a result of the GST but to previously unheard of levels. When the GST was introduced, it added 8.2c per litre while the petrol excise was cut by only 6.7c per litre. This is a clear 1.5c per litre worth of broken promises—that the price would not go up as a result of the GST. What makes this situation worse is that country motorists are further disadvantaged because the GST is on the retail price. The price of fuel is higher in regional and rural Australia, but so too is the proportion of GST paid by ordinary motorists. I believe that all Australians know that they have been conned by the Prime Minister on this and many other promises.There is one matter I believe that few people have paid attention to—one that is even worse for many other motorists—and that is the use of LPG as a replacement for petrol. Over recent years LPG has grown in popularity because it is environmentally friendly, but primarily because it is a lot cheaper than petrol, even if it is slightly less efficient. Unlike petrol, LPG did not attract a fuel excise in the past. Now it attracts a hefty and full 10 per cent GST. The recent rumblings you might have heard around the traps are probably those of motorists who thought they had chosen a cheaper fuel alternative and paid around $2,000 extra for the conversion of their vehicle or they might be from taxi drivers whose livelihoods actually hinge on long hours and LPG at affordable prices. Not any more. Because of this government's policy, LPG now costs around 55c a litre—a 100 per cent increase from around 12 months ago and at least a 30 per cent increase since 1 July because of the introduction of the GST. It is simply not good enough. Private citizens are now considering whether the cost of LPG conversion, coupled with the less efficient nature of LPG and the increased price, is still an economic proposition. But it is far worse for those people making a living, those who are reliant on this gas fuel.Just days ago, the company Brisbane Cabs was forced into voluntary liquidation because of the effect of GST on LPG prices. To paraphrase the words of the liquidator—and these are not my words: `Around 10 per cent of taxi drivers have now left the industry since 1 July directly because of the effects of GST. It is no longer a viable proposition from which to earn a living.' Again, this is because of the GST and increased costs. The government should be condemned not only for all of its broken promises but, in particular, for its broken promises on fuel. It lied when it said that the price on fuel for ordinary motorists would not go up because of the GST. Let me tell you that ordinary motorists feel cheated. They feel cheated because the price of fuel did go up. But all those taxi drivers out there and all those people who rely on LPG gas feel even more cheated because there was not a fuel excise on LPG and now there is—and the reason is the GST. (Time expired)2151309:43:0021513Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I am not sure which helpline number to give to the member for Oxley who was wrong on so many accounts during his contribution. I will send a cheerio to Brad from Frankston Taxis who drove me to the airport the other day. He explained—I note that the member for Oxley is scurrying out of the chamber—that, for people who are using LPG, there is something called a GST input tax. The other point I want to mention is the question of tax integrity. People are happy to pay their fair share of taxes and that is very much the case in the taxi industry. The reason for my seeking the call today is to draw to the attention of the parliament the very successful National Youth Roundtable that has been held in the parliament over the last three days. Fifty young Australians from right around Australia, from the ages of 15 to 24, were able to participate in the development of policy. They had the ear of government and were able to contribute and put their ideas forward on issues that are important to young people. It has been a terrific couple of days.I was very fortunate to be able to be involved in the environment topic issues group. I compliment all of the members of that group. Vidal Vanhoof was talking about climate change and the difficulty for young people to access easily understood information. Kate Lemmon, a Queensland lady, was involved in leadership and youth participation in councils for the environment. She was looking at how to establish local groups where young people can get involved in environmental projects. Rebecca Minty had a terrific idea about how to deal with the disposable shopping bag problem which is certainly an issue in my electorate as they find their way into Port Phillip Bay and cause difficulties with the water quality. The dolphin research centre that is based in my electorate point to shopping bags and other plastics in Port Phillip Bay as being one of the biggest threats to the local dolphin community.Emily McPherson—from the electorate of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs—who is doing some terrific work on sustainable energy solutions, asked the question, `Why don't more people know about green power options?, and also suggested that indigenous land management techniques have a place in some of our forward land management policies. Michael Hoy from Queensland held a very successful conference in Emerald where 40 young people came to talk about the role of young people in land management in Queensland. Cathy Smith talked about environment education and how to motivate young people to get involved. Craig Comrie, from Perth in Western Australia, talked about the leadership role and about how young people can be activated, how they can be guided towards practical environment participation and how they can have a voice and contribute their ideas and their input. What I was taken with was the really practical, road-tested ideas that were developed through the community action projects—action research there before our eyes—demonstrating that their ideas are doable. I would invite young people from the electorate of Dunkley—they have got until 20 October—to nominate for next year's Youth Roundtable. It is a very meaningful opportunity—another opportunity—for young people to influence the policies of this government and have their say on public policy. I would invite all people with an interest in that to take up that opportunity. (Time expired)2151409:46:0021514Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I want talk this morning about an outstanding example of community partnership in my electorate of Dickson: the Pine Shire school industry links scheme. It is an example of the Jobs Pathway program and it assists people in a cluster of five high schools: Albany Creek State High School, Bray Park State High School, Dakabin State High School, Pine Rivers State High School and the Pine Rivers Special School. It assists them to make a smooth transition from school to work. I want to point to the success of this scheme in the electorate of Dickson. Last year, for students who completed year 12, the program achieved an unemployment rate of 1.5 per cent. This achievement included helping about 300 young people secure work, including around 150 apprenticeships and traineeships. The program also coordinates over 900 student work placements, which obviously allow young people to experience the real world of work, link their experience back to their school studies and complete school with a clear idea of what employers expect from them. This program has a great relationship with employers in Dickson, with employment agencies and with training companies. It meets monthly at the Pine Rivers Shire Council chambers, and members of this committee see this as an excellent way of bringing industry and schools together. I want to particularly congratulate Mark Clarke, Kay Gottle and Terri Tonkin on the wonderful work they do in all of these schools. I think a contrast could be drawn here with the Job Network, because the Jobs Pathway program actually offers excellent post-placement support. In other words, they go out, they make sure the people are appropriately matched with the kinds of employers they have been placed with and, if any of the students are experiencing difficulty in coping with the particular placement they have been put in, then ongoing mentoring and monitoring is offered. I think that that is one of the contributors to the very high success rate of this program in Dickson. Jobs Pathway relies on funding from the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation—it gets $11 million a year, but that only allows it to assist 55,000 secondary school students. That means that a tiny fraction of Australia's 1,300,000 secondary students actually have access to what I think is an outstandingly successful program. So the organisation, in my view, is critically underfunded. This puts at risk the whole point of helping many more students successfully make the transition from school to work because it undermines the ongoing success of programs like this—this is not the only thing that can be done—in preventing high rates of youth unemployment.2151509:49:0021515Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I take this opportunity to congratulate everybody who was involved with our best ever Olympic Games—those who organised it, particularly the athletes who took part in it, the fantastic volunteers and, quite frankly, the crowds, the spectators, anyone who played any part at all. It was a time for national pride, for knowing that we can just do things well, and I congratulate everybody.I pay particular tribute to South Australian athletes. They brought back 17 medals to South Australia: five gold, eight silver and four bronze, which meant that one-third of those participating from South Australia received medals. My heartiest congratulations go to Simon Fairweather, Juliet Haslam, Ryan Mitchell, Mark Woodforde, Jo Hill, Robert Newbery, Kate Allen, Tatiana Grigorieva, Brett Aitken, Alison Peek, Sarah Ryan, Carla Boyd, Selina Follas, Craig Victory and Simmone Morrow. My special congratulations go to two young women I know, Rachel Sporn and Kate Slatter, who are from my electorate. I know them not only because they are wonderful athletes but because I meet them at charity and community events, and they are perfect role models for other young women. There were many magic moments at the games, and I fully confess to the goose bumps disease that infected most of Australia. Those magic moments included, during the opening ceremony, when the crowd spontaneously rose to its feet for the small contingent from East Timor and when North Korea and South Korea marched together. Many small nations shared in the tally as never before, with the Bahamas beating the American women for gold in the 4 x 100 metre sprint and Mozambique and Cameroon receiving their first ever gold medals. And remember that this was only the second time the games had been held in the Southern Hemisphere—both times in Australia—and held with pride.How could we forget Haile Gebrselassie in the 10,000 metres beating Paul Tergat from Kenya by nine one-hundredths of a second or Cathy Freeman's fantastic run—and not only the sheer excitement of her win but also the crowd standing, almost with reverence, to sing our national anthem, just like a giant choir. Jai Taurima's jump of 8.49 metres was only one centimetre behind that of the great Carl Lewis when he won gold at Atlanta. Our swimming team was just fantastic, providing so much excitement. Who could ever forget, whether they watched it at the venue or on television, the 4 x 100 metre men's relay team from Australia beating America for the first time ever? Michael Klim, Ian Thorpe, Chris Fydler and Ashley Callus gave so much excitement and pride to their nation. And who could forget the gutsy performance for bronze by Justin Norris, or Kieren Perkins winning his last heat before going down to Australian Grant Hackett? (Time expired)2151609:52:0021516Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I also rise to congratulate the Australian athletes and the organisers of the Sydney Olympics. As well as congratulating those Australian athletes who we are all so proud of, such as Cathy Freeman and the women's water polo team—without naming them all because we all know that we are proud of those athletes—I will speak about another aspect that made me very proud during the Sydney Olympics, and that was the sporting attitude that Australians took towards teams from other countries. It was a matter of great pride to me to notice that Australians supported not just the Australian athletes but athletes from all other nations, particularly those nations that—as the previous speaker described—perhaps had not won gold medals and did not have the sporting facilities or the money to invest in athletics training that Australia and countries like the United States have had. It was a matter of great pride to all of us that athletes like `Eric the Eel' received such an enormous amount of public support in Australia. It reflects something very healthy in our national character that we can find a place in our hearts for people who are not necessarily amongst the stellar athletes of the world but who get in there and have a go. I felt a great deal of personal pride in the results of the Slovenian Olympic team. Slovenia is the country were my parents were born. It has a population of around two million. From that very small population, Slovenia won two gold medals. That is an enormous and fantastic achievement. I know the Slovenian-Australian community were very proud of those gold medals in shooting and rowing. In regard to the reception that the Slovenian Olympic team got, they were amazed at the warmth that the Australian community and the residents of Sydney extended to them. They were surprised by the support that they got, not just from the Slovenian-Australian community but from the general community here.Slovenia's Paralympic team arrived a couple of weeks ago. I met them on Sunday. Slovenia has 17 athletes competing in the Sydney Paralympic Games. Again, these are athletes from a country which does not have the training resources that many larger countries are able to afford for their athletes, but I am sure they will do their tiny country proud in the coming weeks. This is part of Slovenia's attempt to differentiate itself in Eastern Europe. For a long time, it was confused with other parts of Yugoslavia and, indeed, with Slovakia. I think its sporting achievements and the push in Australia at the moment to identify Slovenia as a business centre in Eastern Europe are really beginning to pay off. People are recognising Slovenia. (Time expired)2151609:55:0021516St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise to congratulate four young leaders from the communities within my electorate: Lorraine Smith from Ebor, now living at Nowra; Hugh Sutherland from Urulla; Ellen Howard from Loomberah; and Andrew Locke from Walcha. These four young, inspired, motivated and developed leaders from regional and rural Australia have just graduated from the Australian Rural Leadership Program. The program is for the development of the men and women who will lead rural and regional Australia well into the next century—men and women with vision and a commitment to shaping the future. It is a unique opportunity for rural and regional leaders—including those involved in agriculture, agribusiness, indigenous affairs, tourism, regional development, local government, banking and finance, manufacturing, fishing and forestry, communications, government policy making, rural health, and community affairs—to develop themselves and the knowledge, skills and networks needed to be effective at regional, state, national or international levels. More than ever, rural and regional Australia needs leaders who can deal effectively with complexity, uncertainty and, of course, with those paradoxical issues. There is no magic solution for developing the leaders who will be effective in this environment. Rather, it is a never ending process that demands continual experimentation and a keen sense of what works and what does not. It is complicated and time consuming, and it requires serious resources. The goal of this program is to conduct a world-class leadership development program to select and develop the men and women who will lead rural and regional Australia well into the next century. The program also aims to develop a network of well-informed and highly capable leaders with the shared vision and strategic alliances necessary to build stronger links and create greater synergy in rural and regional Australia. It provides a forum for the sharing of ideas, experience and skills in relation to leadership in rural and regional Australia and it aims to increase the appreciation of rural issues in the wider community and to develop a rapport and understanding with related industries. The program also promotes and strengthens links with other leadership development programs which share the foundation's ethos, both in Australia and overseas. The program is funded through scholarships provided by a range of rural and related industries, rural industries research and development organisations, industry bodies and state and federal government agencies. Most of these scholarships fund positions for specific commodities, industry sectors, regions or organisations—although there are some scholarships which are not tied to specific areas. Once again, I congratulate these fine young people on all their hard work and the vision that they have put into this program and I certainly look forward to working with them in the future.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Committees215172151721517Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Neville:That the House take note of the paper.09:58:0021517Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts, I would like to start by congratulating the chair, the member for Hinkler, Mr Paul Neville, for his outstanding leadership in producing this very important report, Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport. I also thank the deputy chair, Mr Steve Gibbons, and other members of the committee. However, in particular, I would like to thank the member of the committee who, outside the chair, made the greatest contribution: the member for New England, who is sitting here this morning and who spoke just before me. We know that the member for New England has had a long background in the trucking industry and he made a very significant contribution to this inquiry, particularly when it came to putting the report together. He deserves a special mention. Many people in the committee secretariat also require special mention: Meg Crooks, who was with us until November 1999; Grant Harrison who, when he took over as secretary, did a fantastic job; the inquiry secretary, Adam Cunningham; the research officer, Sarah Fielder; and the administrative officers, Leonie Smith and Yolanda Rao. All those people deserve very special mention for this inquiry. To set the scene of this inquiry I will read a couple of excerpts from the chair's foreword in the report:We live in a world where commerce is conducted around the clock and by the click of a mouse. A world where goods and services are expected to be available when and where the customer wants.Human ingenuity has created these expectations. And, for the most part, they are met.But they come at a cost. One of these costs is human fatigue.Goods don't just materialise at our doorstep or on the supermarket shelves, they need to be delivered—by road, rail, air and sea. People drive these trucks, trains, planes and ships. People maintain these vehicles. People make decisions about scheduling, dispatch and delivery.Some times these vehicles are driven and maintained by people who have worked long hours, often through the night, and have had inadequate rest breaks. The longer they have worked, the more they have worked at night and the less they have rested, the greater the risk of fatigue. The more fatigue, the greater the risk of an accident occurring.Later in his foreword, the chair says:Better management of fatigue in transport requires many things: better training and support; better work practices; better job scheduling; more effective regulation; and better awareness of optimal work and rest patterns.But first and foremost, better management of fatigue requires that governments and all players in the industry recognise the scale of the problem and accept responsibility for improving the way it is managed.The commercial costs, the environmental costs and, most of all, the human costs, of not accepting the responsibility are too great to ignore.We all spend time on the roads, in the air and, at times, at sea. And we are dependent on so many people to secure the safety of travellers who use those various pathways from time to time. I will focus now on road transport because 96.7 per cent of serious injuries and 92.1 per cent of transport related fatalities are caused by road trauma.The annual review of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, published yesterday, shows that there were 22,600 serious injuries from road accidents in Australia in 1998, the latest year for which statistics are available. The committee estimated that up to 30 per cent of these accidents were caused in some part by fatigue. In Australia we have well-developed systems for protecting the safety of people who use the roads. Accidents, injuries and deaths from excessive fatigue are a growing cause of failure of these systems. The community and its parliamentary representatives—that is us—must build barriers against these failures in our safety systems. Other safety programs and awareness campaigns, relating to seatbelts, alcohol, speeding and vehicle standards, have been responsible for dramatic reductions in road deaths and injuries. Fatigue and its related problem of drug use must be our next major safety campaign.Fatigue is a growing problem across the work force, and transport has always been a risky business. The pressures of competition today are immense, and the impact seems to be felt most dangerously at the bottom of the logistics chain where the independent truckies are trying to make a quid and support their families, frequently pressured by customers and freight forwarders to take risks they know are potentially deadly. Far too often they resort to drugs to stay on the road for just a few more hours, some encouraged by their employers. These are the economic causes of fatigue. Best practice in safety is being jeopardised by best practice in efficiency. We might be reaching the limits of efficiency in road transport—I know that is the view of many in the industry. But the `productivity pushers'—those who push drivers beyond the limits of safety and those who provide the `support systems' in the form of drugs—must become aware that they have legally enforceable obligations. I will focus on some specific recommendations in the report. The first one I would like to talk about is recommendation 33. This proposes that road transport operators, owner-drivers, forwarders and others in the logistics chain must be accredited to operate in the industry if other voluntary means prove ineffective in the next couple of years. This will be controversial. But safety and competency accreditation in some form is required in every other mode of transport, mainly aimed at minimising and managing risks to safety. Only in road transport is there no such system. Accreditation need not be onerous, but in other modes of transport it requires that players in the industry develop, apply and be accountable for minimum systems of competency and risk management, including fatigue management, if they wish to continue operating.Another part of the transport industry, rail, has over the past half decade gone down this track—or road, if you like. Relevant standards developed by the industry itself are now the basis for accreditation of rail operators, truck owners, maintainers and safety personnel, and these are backed by codes of practice currently being refined. To be in the industry you have got to lift yourself up to these standards. In the committee we heard how the industry is also developing systems for fatigue management and complementary programs to minimise drug and alcohol use. Recommendation 30 is that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission develop and declare a national standard for fatigue management and corresponding codes of practice for specific industries, in particular for road transport. This will give support to the work already being done by some jurisdictions and modes of transport, and it will help to raise awareness of the issue and the chain of responsibility. Australia has developed a lot of expertise of international quality in understanding and managing fatigue. We should be taking advantage of this to get out in front in this field where we can gain competitive advantage for Australian businesses looking to compete in terms of reliability and quality service, which means quality risk management.Recommendation 40 proposes that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission develop programs to raise awareness by transport customers of the dangers of fatigue and of their related legal obligations. Laws in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia—and, I hope, soon in other states and territories—now make the chain of responsibility enforceable. How many transport depot and retail logistics managers really understand that they and their employer can be held responsible for deaths, injuries and damage caused by the truckie carrying their load on his fourth or fifth interstate trip of the week? How many understand that pushing the limits of driver fatigue by requiring feats of endurance on the highway can result in big fines, law suits or worse. It is essential that the law which clamps this chain of responsibility to everyone in the industry, from top to bottom, be made much more visible. Those most able to do this may be insurance companies and insurance brokers. I think they could do a lot to raise awareness of the issue, both in the information they supply to customers in their risk assessments and in their premium structures. How many have discounts for fatigue management schemes? How many have programs to warn their customers of the risks of fatigue and drug taking? I am very concerned about the pressure that comes from the boardrooms of the big retail chains. When I went into this inquiry, like most people I thought that it was the reckless drivers, the truckies simply trying to make a quid, who went beyond the ordinary levels of endurance and that the pressures that were put on them came from those transport companies which wanted to make vast profits for their shareholders. But it has become apparent that the big retail chains have a lot to answer for, because they are putting enormous pressure on the transport companies in all areas to perform feats of endurance that are not realistic and that are dangerous and putting people's lives at risk—all in the interests of making huge profits. This is very serious and obviously this report highlights that. They have a duty of care in this chain of responsibility, because everyone has a responsibility to make a contribution in this area, to do something so that those transport companies are not put in a position where they are forced out of business because they cannot compete, but, rather, that they are able to put in an appropriate tender for a job and can stay in the market. I travel regularly from Sydney to Canberra by car with my wife. In respect of road transport, on many occasions I see trucks being driven very recklessly. I also see cars being driven at fast speed. We know that there is a problem with drivers who want to continue driving for great lengths of time. One of the matters that was most enlightening to me was the fact that the effect of lack of sleep could be compared with the ingestion of alcohol. For example, 17 hours of sustained wakefulness leads to a decrease in performance equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 0.05 per cent above the legal limit. A person with a blood alcohol level of 0.05 per cent is twice as likely as a person with a zero blood alcohol level to have an accident. Therefore, someone who is awake for over 17 hours is twice as likely to have an accident. I am sure most people in the community are not aware of that fact.Work related causes of fatigue—or an economic cause—include increased competition in the transport industry, resulting in lower transport costs for customers. However, this has led to decreasing staff levels, increased hours of work and lower rates of payment. This means that, in order to get a reasonable wage, transport workers are required to work longer hours and more competitively. This must stop. Recommendations 27 and 28 of the report state that the Employment Advocate, in the case of an Australian workplace agreement, and the Industrial Relations Commission, in the case of an enterprise bargaining agreement, should include explicit information on fatigue and fatigue management, particularly with respect to the requirements of industry codes of practice or government regulations in the transport industry. This is one way in which employees can have their awareness levels raised, and it will ensure that, in workplace and enterprise agreements, occupational health and safety standards are taken into consideration.Recommendation 30 states that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission should develop a national standard on fatigue in the workplace and declare a code of practice to assist employers and employees to comply with national standards. I believe this is important in order to help transport workers to manage fatigue related issues, such as changing time frames.In conclusion, I would like once again to commend my colleagues on the committee for the high quality of this report. I hope that it will be read widely and taken to heart. The chairman, Paul Neville, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, did an outstanding job in making sure that this was an exhaustive and what I would describe as a definitive report on transport fatigue. I am sure that it will be read both nationally and internationally. He deserves great credit for the leadership he showed in ensuring that the committee worked well, in a spirit of cooperation, in the interests of all the people that we represent.10:13:0021521Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—by leave—I acknowledge the very generous comments made by my colleague the member for Lowe. This report Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport is very much a team effort. The Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts is not a big parliamentary committee; there are only 10 of us. Our membership is spread across the three major political parties and across the three eastern states, and from every point of view we are a very balanced group. It is the proud boast of this committee that there has never been a need to take a vote on this committee. For 7½ years—that I know of, and possibly longer—we have always come to a consensus. We have known each other well enough to be frank in saying what we believe and in asking our colleagues to accept or challenge what we are saying. It is a strange irony of this committee that the only dissenting report in the last three parliaments actually came from a government member, not from an opposition member. That should give people the flavour of a committee that really knows what it is about—one reason, I think, being the tremendous amount of goodwill on the committee. We have to range across three portfolios, communications, transport and the arts, so we have to stay alert to a lot of issues. We do not waste our time when we go interstate. If we are doing a transport inquiry then we might look at a communications or an arts matter. If we are doing an arts matter and there is something else we need to see in the way of transport or communications, we fit that in. As a result, I think very few other committees of the parliament would be as well versed as my nine colleagues.The committee has a proud tradition that was led by the Hon. Peter Morris, who chaired this committee for many years and who instigated the first of a series of landmark reports on the rust buckets that were invading the Australian coast, exploding and going down off the coast of Western Australia and posing an enormous risk to the Barrier Reef. Honourable members who have been here for some time would remember the subsequent report, Ships of shame. Every 1½ to two years the committee does an update of that report, the most recent being Ship safe. So there is a proud tradition there. I would like to think that our collective, corporate effort has gone into making this more recent report, as the member for Lowe said, a landmark report. We do not say `landmark' in self-adulation or to pat ourselves on the back—quite the contrary. I think the reason this is a landmark report is that it is outcome driven. It is not politically driven, it is not personality driven, it is outcome driven, and it is outcome driven by a group who get on very well with each other.I must admit that, when I was first given the brief by John Anderson to inquire into the matter of fatigue in transport, I thought, `Oh God, isn't this going to be as dull as dishwater.' Quite to the contrary, however, it has been one of the most stimulating things that I think many of us have done, and it has seen us look into a whole range of things. Of course, all the media reporting has been concentrated very heavily on the trucking industry and, to a lesser extent, on the motorist. But this ranged a lot more widely: it went into rail, the maritime industry and, in particular, the aviation industry. And even in the aviation industry we looked at two things.One was the matter of pilots and cabin crew. Although we had some things to say about that, by and large Australia has a very good record there. Those of us who have been on aircraft that have been diverted in storms and have heard, `We've got to get this plane to Brisbane or Sydney by such and such a time because our hours run out,' know that that business is taken fairly seriously by the airlines and, indeed, by the pilots themselves—similarly, with cabin crew. However, we did make some recommendations and we asked CASA to be more active in that field. It is when we get beyond the RPT aircraft to the small commuter and charter operations that sometimes the rules are not being adhered to quite as well. Recent events in Australia would indicate that. However, let me just describe for honourable members that we just did not accept what we saw at face value. This committee was dragging through the bellies of aircraft between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m., watching licensed aircraft maintenance engineers doing their evening work: questioning them, finding out what they did, finding out what was involved in getting into the fuel tanks of a plane at night and cleaning them out, checking the electronic equipment, ripping all the internal padding off the aircraft and looking for minute cracks, and X-raying anything that was vaguely suspicious. We got ourselves across all those issues.I make the point that a fatigued LAME, handling sensitive aircraft technical equipment, is just as dangerous to Australia's passengers as a fatigued pilot, and we should never lose sight of that. It is a critical part of aviation safety, and I am sure my colleague Mr Mossfield will touch on this matter. One of the matters we were disturbed about was the cutback in the number of apprentices by the major airlines, not only for their own sake but because, if we are going to have a culture of safety in the aviation industry in this country, those numbers must continually flow through, and that includes the youngest apprentice doing the most menial job on the smallest aircraft. That is where it all starts—the culture of safety. It is true that, for two or three years, if we get short of numbers, we can import LAMEs from overseas—from New Zealand or wherever. I am not being in any way pejorative in regard to them, but you will devalue the currency over time. I will not say any more about that; I will leave it to my colleague.This report takes up the fourth great safety strand—and let me now return to roads. We will not tolerate the consumption of alcohol on the roads any more. We have come down from 0.1 to 0.08 to 0.05. There was a little bit of argy-bargy at the time that those things were introduced but, by and large, the vast majority of Australians accept that they are necessary. Speed has become controlled. Authorities have been fairly generous in some ways and tough in others. For example, we now allow, on a lot of highways, vehicles to travel at 110 kilometres an hour. But in the suburbs—certainly in Queensland, and I think in some other states, such as New South Wales—once you go off the arterial roads, the speed limit has come down to 50 kilometres an hour. This is policed by radar and photographic equipment, speed guns and the like, all with increased sophistication. We also have red light cameras at intersections. We accept those things.We have seen huge advances in vehicle design. We know that, outside perhaps western locations, it is not safe to put bullbars on vehicles. That was a myth—we all thought that they added to safety. Actually, it meant that, if you hit someone with a bullbar, you were more likely to kill them than if you did not have one. So we accept that. We have crumple-free frames on cars. We have airbags and we make people wear seatbelts.The fourth safety strand relates to the matter of fatigue, and it is a critical matter. It is not going to be solved by the introduction of a lot of draconian measures. We are going to have to do what we have done in relation to a lot of other things involving the Australian psyche. We have seen all the road safety ads for speed, alcohol and so on; the `bloody fool' ads and things like that. They all play a very important part. But we have got to go right back to education. It has got to be in the classroom and in the media. It has got to be in awareness campaigns and, most importantly, when we come to the transport industry, there must be a culture of safety.All too often we criticise the truckies. The truckies are not without blame, but we often tend to criticise these people a bit too much. It is interesting that, in 84 per cent of multiple vehicle crashes, the non-truck vehicle is the responsible vehicle. We know, too, that crashes on the highway cost Australia $3 billion a year, to say nothing of the human misery, the trauma and the grief experienced by people who lose loved ones or have members of their family maimed. Of that $3 billion that we lose per year, $300 million—one-tenth—can be attributed to the trucking industry. So the trucking industry in one respect comes off very well and in another respect there is still a lot of room for improvement. I do not want to make this speech particularly political, but I am a little disappointed in the shadow minister's response that the government was partly responsible for this because of the rise in petrol prices. Nowhere in the report did we find that to be the case. It is true that the increased fuel prices have caused a lot of angst and stress to the trucking industry. I would not try to minimise that for a minute. It has been a very dreadful circumstance for them and, as a person who comes from an area where a lot of trucking is important to the future of that area, I have a great deal of sympathy for them. But this problem of fatigue in transport existed with exactly the same things happening when diesel was 62c, 63c and 65c a litre. It might be 95c to $1.05 a litre now—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Less the rebate.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Yes, and that was the other point I was going to make. Again, I do not want to be unduly political, but it is now a fact of life that trucking companies and owner-drivers enjoy a 24c a litre rebate which they did not prior to 1 July. As I said, I raise that, not to be political but to say that is something that has happened, and their circumstance today would be even worse were it not for that. So I think it is unfair to try to bring this very important debate down to such a simple thing as saying that it is the price of fuel. Clearly it is not and the evidence shows it is not.I was disappointed for the whole committee, not just for the government, by the actions of two organisations—and they are two that I have a fair amount of respect for. I think the Sydney Daily Telegraph is one of the best reads in Australia in the sense that, if you want to pick up the news and get to the main issues of the day quickly, you can do that. But I was disappointed on the day that we released this study to see a headline—forgive me for being a little out of order—`Tired Test'. The newspaper took one aspect of our whole study, and that was testing devices, and tried to make that the story. Then Alan Jones—again, someone for whom I have a lot of respect—took up the theme and said that we were fatigued ourselves if we thought we could minimise accidents on the roads by these toys that we might use. I was just a little disappointed because I think, unwittingly, they trivialised a very important issue that we all have to face—all political parties and all Australian states.I want to go to those things, but let me talk briefly about the culture of safety. When we talk about safety—and I go back to the trucking industry—we need to talk about everything: the owner, the manager, the scheduler or the roster clerk, the driver, the companies with which that firm interacts, the supermarkets and the warehouses where that truck is required to slot its goods. All those people have a part to play. Governments have a part to play on the highways, with rest areas, stop-over areas—all sorts of things like that.Let me give you an example—and this is another ill-informed argument: some people are saying that once you go over eight hours you are dangerous. That is not true, and the evidence showed that it is not true. You can work up to 12 hours and, in exceptional circumstances, up to 14 hours without necessarily being fatigued, providing you have the appropriate facilities, the appropriate rest periods and do not build up a sleep deficit.Professor Drew Dawson from Adelaide has devised a computer modelled program where you feed in the hours a person works, the time of day those hours are worked, the rest periods taken on that day, the number of days off in the week and the sequence of those days off—whether they are together, in blocks of two or three, or whatever it might be. When you feed all that information in it comes up on a graph over two, three or four weeks, and it shows a fatigue line. The scheduling clerk or the person doing the rosters—be that the manager or someone further down the line—can look at that and say, `If I work Bill next Thursday after he has done these hours, he is going to be in the fatigue zone.' My colleague the member for Lowe made the point that, now that we have these measuring devices and this sort of information at hand, responsibility for an accident does not necessarily lie totally with the person driving the vehicle but with the person who put that driver in that circumstance. It goes beyond that. A truckie may do eight, 10, 12, perhaps even 14, hours between two capital cities, arrive at the warehouse to slot in his goods and find that he cannot get a slot for two or three hours. Some people might say, `That's fairly benign work; that shouldn't worry him.' It probably is, but when you add it on to a trip of 10, 12 or 14 hours, it becomes significant. If he does that the next day—drives back to Sydney from Brisbane or vice versa, or from Melbourne—and again the next day and so on, he builds up a critical sleep deficit and becomes a time bomb on the roads. So it has got to go beyond that.Some companies in Queensland—and I do not like to single out favourites, but Nolans Transport is one and Finemores is another—have fatigue management programs. In fact, Nolans even involve the families, because what dad eats, what time he sleeps after he has come off a 10-, 12- or 14-hour shift, whether the kids are hooning around the house and all those sorts of things can be planned in to a fatigue management program. That program can involve the driver, the scheduler, the owner, the people he deals with, the family he lives with and the government that provides, along the highways, the stopover points and the truck-stop service stations where the food and the fuel is available. All of these are part of the fabric. You cannot just put it down, as some have done, to the hours of work or the price of fuel. That is the sort of simplistic nonsense that puts people at risk.I also believe that we have to look at things like occupational health and safety. Fatigue has to be seen as a dimension of that—and indeed we recommend that. Quality assurance is another dimension. In many states, and in the Commonwealth, if you do not have a certain level of quality assurance and you are a tenderer for government projects or government agency projects and you do not reach a certain standard, you are not eligible to bid. If the issue of fatigue were part of quality assurance profiles, they would not be able to bid—and I think a lot of trucking companies would soon come to heel.The other thing is that we believe the Productivity Commission, in its next review of transport, should have as one of its terms of reference from the minister the examination of fatigue as a dimension of the whole trucking industry. Just as we went through the Ansett and Qantas terminals, we drove around the truck stops of New South Wales and northern Victoria in the early hours of the morning talking to truckies and seeing what food they were eating, because diet is an important part of this. Those roadside trucking areas have to be good. They have to have shade, toilets, rubbish bins and water. Most importantly, for the truck driver to come in or leave the highway easily, those areas must have good, long lead-in and run-out lanes. Otherwise, you are creating yet another danger.We need to get that culture of safety. But of course it goes beyond that to all of us, so I will finish on this point: how often do we hear someone say on the Thursday before Easter when dad comes home at half past six, `Let's put mum and the kids in the car and we'll take off for Mackay, Dubbo or Port Macquarie,' and that family crashes 50 kilometres up the highway? Or we hear it said, `We'll get up at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. and we'll take off with mum and the kids along the highway,' then 50 kilometres down the road the family gets wiped out. All these things are referred to in this report. They show that we must have a culture of safety. I commend this report to the house and thank my colleagues for their great contribution. 10:33:0021525Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I welcome the opportunity of speaking on the report Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport. The report raises many issues of concern across the range of all transport industries—air, road, rail and sea. I am very pleased to be following the chairman of the committee, the member for Hinkler. Once again, as I am sure other members have done, I thank the chairman for his even-handedness in chairing the committee's proceedings. It was a very enjoyable exercise. There were obviously differences of opinion, but we worked through those and, as the chairman has said, we have come up with a majority report. I also thank the secretariat for their hard work and for supporting the members of the committee.Clearly, the pressure of people being required to work longer and longer hours with little regard for fatigue management is a major safety issue in industry. This position applies in what I think we can call the less regulated industries, such as the road transport industry. It equally applies in the more regulated sections of industry such as air transport. It also applies across the board—with the drivers and pilots and with the mechanics who service the vehicles and planes.By way of example, I refer to submissions made to the committee by a 35-year-old licensed aircraft maintenance engineer—who is referred to as a LAME—which are recorded in the Hansard. Mr Mulford, who appeared before the committee in a private capacity, works as a line maintenance LAME in the airline industry. Like all LAMEs, he works a 12-hour roster: two days followed by two nights. In his submission, he states that the move to 12-hour shifts over the past 12 years has seen aircraft numbers and flying hours increase significantly, while maintenance crew levels have remained stagnant. This has led to an increased workload and more responsibility for LAMEs, with greater possibility of fatigue.In his submission, Mr Mulford identified what he believed to be the three main causes of fatigue in his section of the industry. He identified, first, an inherently inefficient and exposed workplace environment; secondly, the inappropriateness of the 12-hour roster to provide recovery times of adequate value when current workloads were considered; and, thirdly, the diminishing number of hours available for line maintenance engineers to perform critical tasks before the nightly hours of highest sleep propensity. When we consider that the physical, biological and social consequences of fatigue are forgetfulness, poor decision making, slow reaction times, reduced vigilance, poor communication, apathy, lethargy and mood swings, we can appreciate the need to manage correctly fatigue among maintenance workers who have the physical task of ensuring that transport vehicles—planes, trucks and rail vehicles—are in sound working order. The honourable member for Hinkler emphasised this point, and I do not think we can overemphasise the technical nature of the work performed by these people and the highly sophisticated equipment they operate. It is essential that they do not suffer from fatigue when they service such vehicles.The committee also identified the need for a chain of responsibility, which stretches from the boardroom: even though those who take management decisions do not physically perform the work, they have a responsibility to guard against fatigue in the workplace. That chain of responsibility extends through all sections of the work force in a particular industry. For example, in the road industry responsibility extends to the customers, who sometimes create difficulties for transport operators through tight delivery times and disorganised docking arrangements.The committee also received submissions from both unions and employers in a range of industries, including the railway industry. For example, in its submission, the Queensland AFULE drew the committee's attention to the fact that, like the airline industry, the rail industry has moved to a 24-hour shift arrangement. Rail crews have moved to a customer focused, 24-hour, 365-day operation that has increased the impact of fatigue. As in the airline industry, over the past 10 to 12 years train crews have been working long hours on customer based rosters with fewer staff and greater workloads. The AFULE submission drew attention to some of the social issues associated with working long hours and increased levels of fatigue. It identified some of these issues as: difficulties in family and social life; the general lifestyle of regular shift workers; pressure placed on workers as a result of their employer's lack of knowledge that fatigue is a major issue; and the economic necessity for people to work longer hours if they were available, which did not necessarily benefit them.I would like to further develop some of the points that I made previously when I spoke on this matter when the report was tabled. In that speech, I said I was looking forward to making a further submission so that I could go into more detail on the various recommendations in this report. However, the report came out fairly quickly and, although I would have liked a bit more time, I am quite happy to try to expand on the issues that I think are important. When the report was tabled in the House, I said that it was timely. It is an important report that deals with one of the most pressing issues of our time. As a nation, we have tackled many of the problems that cause accidents and loss of life. We have tackled the problems of speeding and drink driving, for instance, but we seem to be running behind schedule on the issue of fatigue. Two hours gets deadly boring, the advertisement tells us. Unfortunately, in the transport industry, where keeping costs down and running to a deadline are so important, two hours is often turned into 12 or 14 hours. Fatigue costs this country hundreds of lives and billions of dollars each year. This is not an acceptable business cost; it can never be an acceptable business cost.There will naturally be a tendency for people to focus on the issue of road transport. That is the most topical issue in the papers, on the radio and on television because of the spiralling petrol, diesel and gas prices, and the ever-increasing level of taxation paid per litre with the GST. I take the member for Hinkler's point that that is certainly not the major focus of this report and that the issue of fatigue was always there well before fuel prices became a major concern in this country. Most people will focus on the length of time drivers are behind the wheel and the recommendations concerning that. I do not want to dismiss that focus. It is a very important one, but we must remember that this report is about much more than that—it is specifically about fatigue and the management of fatigue.As the committee has deliberately chosen not to limit our focus to any one particular industry, the report examines not only road transport but also rail, sea and air transport. It examines the issue of fatigue not only in relation to drivers and pilots but, as we have already indicated, the maintenance crews. The report is extremely wide ranging and detailed in that respect. It is one of the most comprehensive studies that I have been associated with. This report examines all aspects of fatigue, wherever it may occur within the transport industry. It would have been easier to focus only on what was the trendy, topical issue of the day but we chose to do more than that.I would like to focus some of my remarks this morning—as I think some people have forecast that I would—on the airline industry. The committee made seven formal recommendations specific to the air transport industry. However, when one reads the report in detail, there are a number of other issues and concerns that the committee raised in this area that did not necessarily become recommendations in the formal sense of the word. While road, rail, sea and air transport carry a combination of people and cargo, it is really only the air transport sector that focuses on carrying people above freight—certainly when we are dealing with long-haul journeys. An accident happening anywhere is tragic, but an accident in the air transport sector is magnified by its spectacular nature and the large loss of life. When something goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong in the air transport industry. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, are certainly examining ways to make the industry safer; they are currently examining a fatigue risk management system. The committee has recommended that it be implemented as soon as possible to regulate flight and duty times for air crews. But it is not only air crews that are affected by fatigue. Maintenance crews are also susceptible—as we all are. While there is no data on the extent to which fatigue in maintenance crews contributes to accidents, paragraph 1.80 of the report tells us:In a recent BASI study of regional aircraft maintenance personnel, 29 per cent of respondents reported that they were sometimes so tired at the end of a long shift `that they could not perform their tasks properly.'This is an extremely concerning figure—nearly 30 per cent of maintenance personnel were so tired that they could not do their job. This begs the following questions: how many more people were partially or slightly affected, and how many understate their own position for whatever reason? In their job, a missed nut or bolt at the end of a long shift can make the difference between a safe journey and a lead item on one of our news services.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—The Viscount crash in Queensland got down to something like that.MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—True. The situation is being compounded, as I said in the House, by the fact that fewer apprentices are being taken on and therefore crews are working longer hours. At present, all flights and duty times for commercial flights for flight engineers, flight navigators and flight radio operators are prescribed in the Civil Aviation Order part 48. Unfortunately, a system of exemptions is being so widely used that virtually nobody in the industry makes any reference to the CAO 48 at all. CASA is in the process of trying to do something about that and to develop new guidelines for the industry that stakeholders will actually have to take notice of. In recommendation 4 the committee has said that fatigue management practices should be made an essential component of the new system. In recommendation 6, we have also recommended that, while the new system is being developed, CASA should enforce the existing one. Recommendations 7 through to 11 deal with the implementation of a series of fatigue management guidelines and the use of computer based fatigue management models. The computer system can measure a person's level of fatigue when shift times, rest periods, workloads, et cetera are put into modelling formula. If the technology exists, and if it helps reduce the risk to the travelling public, we should use it. I draw the attention of honourable members to recommendation 9, which states: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority should:require that operators of commercial transport services introduce and maintain effective systems to monitor staffing levels and anticipated workloads;—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Good recommendation!MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—It certainly is. It continues:and routinely review these records to satisfy itself that effective staffing levels are maintained.In recent decades we have seen the rationalisation and downsizing of virtually all business, and transport has not been an exception. However, if we stop and look instead of rushing headlong into the new economic rationalist world, we will see that safety is at stake. Tired maintenance crews, tired air traffic controllers and tired pilots are not part of a recipe for a safe industry. If it takes more staff to get the job done properly, then so be it. The profits of airline owners cannot be put before the safety of the public. As I have said, this is a timely report that the government should take heed of. It makes many sensible recommendations regarding the management of fatigue, but ultimately there needs to be a change of attitude by both those in the industry and those in the wider community. 10:48:0021528Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to rise as a proud member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts, which, as the chairman—the member for Hinkler and my friend and colleague—has outlined, has done a lot of good work over a long period of time. I believe that this report, Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport, will stand this committee in good stead and continue its reputation for good work. It is not that we are having a session of backslapping and self-congratulation, but I think it is important for all in the community to know that, yet again, the parliament of Australia does find—no matter which side of the political fence we are on—that the hard work and the hard yards and the cooperative nature does produce good results. I should say at the outset that comments in the press suggesting that fatigue pressures have been increased because of fuel prices is just a pretty low level debating point. After all, the problems that exist with regard to fatigue in transport were around when fuel was 10c a litre, let alone 60c a litre prior to this latest shock brought about by the OPEC countries, which have increased the price of fuel all around the world. Of course, those in the trucking industry well know—well, I hope they do—that they are able to rebate the cost of their fuel in their operations as a result of the new tax system. They should, in fact, avail themselves of some good advice from the tax office to ensure that they are getting back all they can through the tax system.To get down to what this report is all about, it is the fact that fatigue really, in a lot of ways, has been hidden. It is a hidden ailment in the transport sector and nationally as well—just like mental health—and it should no longer be hidden. This report brings so much of it out into the open.The report gives a very good understanding and definition about what fatigue is. At the end of the day fatigue impacts upon the strength, speed, reaction time, coordination, decision making and balance of the worker involved. In fact, ongoing work effort with deprivation of sleep creates—as the member for Hinkler said—a sleep debt, which can lead to all sorts of physical ailments. Mental fatigue is also one of the ailments caused by sleep debt or sleep deficit. It is the amount of time between what that person needs for sleep and what they actually get. The complications of that lead to all sorts of dreadful stresses, strains and breakdowns over a period of time. In the transport field, sleep debt can exaggerate the fatigue equation. As the members for Greenway, Lowe and Hinkler outlined, and as others who will follow will no doubt outline, the question of fatigue is multifaceted in terms of responsibility. First and foremost it falls on the individual to be honest with themselves, their colleagues and their employers that they are fit for work. As the member for Hinkler mentioned, some transport companies—he talked about Nolans—even involve the spouses, families and those involved with the transport workers and make sure that they well understand that the big Sunday afternoon barbecue that continues into the Sunday night drinking session, when six hours later you are meant to drive from Brisbane to Sydney, should be factored into the equation as far as fatigue and fitness for work are concerned. That sense of shared responsibility needs to be understood also by the consumers of the transport product. Those who insist, in their own organisations, on just-in-time delivery have something to answer for in relation to the pressure that is placed upon those involved in the process of delivering things just in time. I would like to talk in a moment or two about a number of other factors which impact on a city electorate like mine, such as the management of slots and so forth for trucking operations getting in and out of markets and ports. It is important to note that this is across all sectors. This is not just a report on the road transport sector, although it really is a major focus of the report, and understandably so. It is said that the road transport sector accounts for 93 per cent of the estimated cost of transport accidents. We have certainly highlighted that. In the report it is very clear that the bulk of social and economic costs from transport operator fatigue fall to the road sector itself. The common themes that we have identified as far as better management of fatigue are concerned require a number of things: better training and support, better work practices, better job scheduling, more effective regulation and better awareness of optimal work and rest patterns. We need to be able to say to workers that they should not be regarded as wimps, inadequate or—without wanting to be sexist—less of a man if they are incapable of being able to show up for work because of fatigue. We also need to encourage them to understand that they have the responsibility of not having a big chug-a-lug the night before they are meant to go and do something—that they cannot show up for work at 11 o'clock at night and maintain the aircraft that we use in this country after having had virtually no sleep the night before. We need to ensure that management provides the fail-safe mechanisms for those individuals and backs them up in the workplace—and this report deals with those sorts of matters.Circadian factors—the fact that in the middle of the night we all tend to want to be sleeping—have also been highlighted by this report. More people are likely to die between three and four in the morning, which is when the body is at its lowest ebb, than at any other time during the daily cycle. That is when people tend to succumb to whatever may be causing them to ultimately die. People who work in the middle of night are obviously under tremendous pressure from their natural systems, these circadian factors, between three and four in the morning.I am not sure how many people in this debate have worked shift work, but I worked as a radio announcer between midnight and 6 a.m. That required me to be at work from 10.30 or 11 at night until six or 6.30 in the morning. I did that for a number of years. I understand well how you fade between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. I was doing something fairly passive as a radio announcer—believe it or not, I was a very up-beat radio announcer—but when three or four in the morning came, it was an extra pressure on you. Essentially, you were feeling the pressure of that shift for many days after you had completed a series of those sorts of hours.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—The playback from way back.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The playback from way back, yes. But, in all seriousness, I have an understanding of the way these circadian factors can weigh in. My passive job years ago is nothing like that of those who are maintaining aircraft. I have a particular concern about the evidence—which the member for Greenway highlighted—which we took in Brisbane, probably 12 months ago, from a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer who made a number of very clear points to my mind. A lot of the aircraft that we are flying are maintained in the middle of the night. There are pressures on them to have that aircraft ready to roll out at 5 o'clock in the morning because that is obviously when there is a lot of extra pressure on the scheduling of aircraft. But he also made the point that daytime checks are built into the system. It is understood that aircraft maintained at night will ultimately need to be maintained on a regular basis in the middle of the day. Why? It is to ensure that a better job is done than may, in fact, be done in the middle of the night. Against the background of pressure on this whole LAME—licensed aircraft maintenance engineer—sector, I am particularly disturbed by the decline in the number of people being trained in that profession. I know that the major airlines have relied upon the Department of Defence as a source of LAMEs over the years. The Department of Defence is not training them as much as they did. I am concerned that the major airlines are looking, in fact, at sending much of their maintenance offshore to Bangkok and Singapore, who are tendering very well and getting a lot of work from other airlines. On paper it is fair enough for these countries to get some work out of this sector but, because of the strong reputation for safety that we have had in airline transport, I think we should be looking seriously at the whole question of LAMEs and their availability.I pay tribute to the efforts by the Royal Queensland Aero Club—based in my electorate at Archerfield airport—who, with Boeing, which is now based in Brisbane, are doing a lot of work with the TAFE in Queensland to try and bring more people up to speed. But it disturbs me greatly that the Queensland government have holus-bolus put a restriction on the amount of pre-vocational training. In other words, they have restricted the amount of money that they put into training across all apprenticeships. I think that is a great pity. It is retarding the efforts already established by the Royal Queensland Aero Club and Boeing at Archerfield. In fact, the Queensland government are a deft hand in reducing the number of potential LAMEs we have in our area and in our country.As the member for Hinkler reminded me, the role of LAMEs is very critical. The dreadful Viscount crash between Winton and Longreach in about 1964 was all down to the fact that a certain bolt was not lined up in the right way by a LAME working in the middle of the night—maintenance caused the engine to choke with oil and fuel, and people died. This area needs some additional work and there are a number of factors.One of the best things about this report is that it is highlighting the chain of responsibilities that needs to be emphasised in the fatigue question. There is a lot of concentration on the horrendous accidents that occur on country roads involving heavy transports. I see that the member for Paterson is here, and no doubt, as a rural representative, he will touch on those sorts of matters but I, as a city representative, am also concerned about the slot management techniques at places like the Brisbane markets in my electorate and at the port of Brisbane. I have told this place on many occasions about the pressures that local residents in my electorate feel because of Kessels Road, which was created as part of the national road freight corridor in 1991. The road is completely ill designed for the purpose of carrying heavy trucks. It is a road that should be replaced for this process by the southern Brisbane bypass, which is a freeway style road capable of carrying trucks in a safe and very manageable way.What I am driving at, very clearly, is that some people, who might have travelled for eight, 12 or 14 hours, might sit in my electorate at the end of that journey for three hours because they might be waiting to go somewhere like the port of Brisbane, which is just outside my electorate. They might be waiting to offload whatever it is they have got on the truck because they might have, for whatever reason, missed the slot or the slot manager says, `You can unload three hours from now.' As the member for Hinkler said, it might seem like a passive duty to sit and wait in a truck, but I do not believe anybody would seriously want to sit around in a truck for another three or four hours at the end of a 12-hour journey waiting to offload something.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—And you cannot get any sleep.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—And you cannot get to sleep; the member for Hinkler is quite right. What concerns me is that, even after those trucks have offloaded—at the end of a 12-hour trip with four hours of waiting around—they drive off through my electorate. If they arrive early in the morning, the mums and dads are driving their kids to school. Schools in my electorate—Wishart State School, Macgregor State School and other schools—have big trucks driving past them and the students play a game of Russian roulette with fatigued drivers. The Queensland government and the Brisbane City Council have to get real about having a proper truck management plan in Brisbane. This report highlights yet again the importance of the calls I have been making over the past couple of years. The Queensland government has a great deal of policy paralysis as it struggles with the realities of the vote rorting inquiry. They are not making decisions on things like this. I repeat my call for the need for a truck management plan. We cannot have fatigued drivers on the same roads—after a long journey, after a wait outside the markets or the port—as mums and dads who are taking their kids to school. Yet that is what we have every day of the week in my electorate.The report refers to the need for a penalty for fatigue. We need to have testing procedures that seem to work as simply as those old kiddies' computer games. The way in which the media in recent days has tried to downgrade the committee's observations on the simplicity of testing drivers and their fatigue levels has been a disgrace. We need the media to get behind the campaign, to get real about fatigue and to understand that fatigue management programs are needed and that companies are responsible. Good operators explain to their clients, workers, workers' families and support groups that everybody needs to be involved in the process of managing fatigue. We need to keep our roads safe. We need to make sure the workers involved in transport are safe. We need to make sure the consumers of transport products are safe and we need all levels of government to be involved in the program that lies ahead.11:03:0021531Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I am not a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts and I must admit I have only had a fairly cursory perusal of the report Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport. I am not going to be critical of the report. I suggest that, if we are talking about fatigue on roads, perhaps the report did not look at the correct issues. From my original inspection, it talks about fatigue and how to combat it. It generally talks about combating it by regulation and penalty.I believe any inquiry into road transport in particular should have looked at how to remove the factors that cause the fatigue in the first place. I have spent considerable time with members of the trucking industry over the past six to 12 months and there are many factors out there that are not addressed in this report. It is all right to talk about fatigue, its causes and what to do with drivers who drive for long hours. But drivers are driving for long hours today because of their concern that their major investment, that of buying a business and becoming a small businessperson, is being threatened.I have been advised that there is a high percentage of lorry owner-drivers out there that are technically insolvent. I have been told by members of the trucking industry that something like 15 per cent of the rigs that are on the road in Australia today are uninsured. I have been told that repossession of rigs is up by about 160 per cent from 12 months ago. I have been told that ESANDA, one of the major hire purchase companies that funds trucks and prime movers, have recently purchased a large covered area in Sydney so that the repossessed vehicles are put in under cover, because they believe they will have these vehicles in their possession for some time and they do not want to flood the market with repossessed vehicles and drive the value down. What we are seeing in the trucking industry is fatigue caused by need—the need of these small business people to survive, to make a living. The point is that the economic factors are not there to allow them to make a living, although they have invested somewhere between quarter and a half a million dollars. That is the shame of what is happening. Everyone in Australia supported the concept that fuel was going to get cheaper and transport was going to get better and costs were going to become more competitive. Unfortunately, we need to look at where the pressure of that concept has gone. In fact, we find that transport has not got cheaper, despite the fact that the government has reduced excise on diesel, and the competition policy being pushed onto the transport people today is forcing lorry owner-drivers to go out of business—they are going broke.What we should be addressing if we are going to try and help the transport industry and get rid of fatigue is, firstly, rates of pay that will allow lorry owner-drivers to work reasonable hours. I know that members of the committee have spoken to many drivers; I have done the same. I know drivers who will take steel from, say, Newcastle to Queensland and then they will accept a backload—a term they hate because, as they say, `Why should there be a backload? If the rate up to Queensland was such and such, it has cost me as much to get home, why shouldn't the rate be the same?' But they will accept a load purely to get fuel in their tank to get home so they can get another load that pays because they actually lose money on that load back. When conditions like that persist, there is going to be fatigue.We are talking here about small businesses. Generally, we are talking about husband and wife partnerships. Husband and wife? Talk to some of them: it is hardly a marriage—he is out there driving the truck, the wife is on the phone trying to organise the next load and do the books, and they hardly ever see each other or their kids. We wonder why it is fatigue. What we really have is a zombie driving the truck. It would be better to have a machine driving the truck, because that is how we are treating the person behind the wheel. We talk about drugs and sleep deprivation—that has got to be because the economic factors are forcing that. I believe these are the most critical issues in the transport industry today and they need to be addressed. I sincerely hope that the committee will start to look at these factors because they have not really been addressed, from what I can see, in this report.The previous speaker talked about the new tax system and the benefits. Well, the new tax system also has a downside. Now, small business people not only have to do their tax return once a year, they have to do it four times a year. That is an onerous task for many people, particularly the many people who do not have the skills in accounting to do that: the thoroughness of records, the paying out of GST and the getting back of GST. These are people who were promised cheaper rigs and cheaper fuel.I have recently made submissions to a state minister because the price of green slips has just gone up by about 100 per cent in my area. That was not as a result of a decision made by the state government but because the area I represent is on the outskirts of the Newcastle conurbation and we have suddenly been included in a metropolitan area. So green slips have just gone from about $1,100 up to $1,900. They are the sorts of costs that we are talking about in the trucking industry. Things never increase by a small amount.Then there is the issue of cheaper fuel—the 24c a litre rebate. In Canberra last night I saw unleaded petrol at 96.9c and diesel at 106.9c. Why did the price of diesel suddenly shoot up? Diesel has traditionally been the cheaper of the two fuels. Why is it suddenly now 10c a litre dearer and—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Don't you know the reason for that? HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr Lindsay—It has nothing to do with the tax system.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Nothing whatsoever.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I am assured that it has nothing to do with the tax system. I sincerely hope that if there was an inquiry into that, that would be borne out. Suddenly it appears that there is a shortage of diesel, so the price of diesel can be forced up past the price of petrol. I would have thought the volume of diesel being produced by the oil refineries would be a constant fraction of the amount of crude oil that they distilled. So if it is a case of supply and demand, we can only assume that there must be a sudden influx of diesel vehicles on the road which are consuming more diesel. It is something that certainly needs to be inquired into, because the 24c a litre rebate on diesel that was promised to truck owners certainly has not been delivered. That extra cost in diesel has whittled that away so that it is now actually about 14c or even less. There have been other costs too, because these people are providing a service industry.I will conclude by talking about roads because the previous speaker, the member for Moreton, mentioned roads. There is no doubt that the quality of roads that this country needs are in place in some areas, but they are not in place in others. In the electorate of Paterson, considerable money has been spent on upgrading the Pacific Highway, which is a major trucking route. If anyone wants to come along there at about 10 o'clock at night, just north of Bulahdelah you will pass dozens of them on their way from Sydney to Brisbane or up to the north coast, having left Sydney after working hours. That is the time they go through. We had a notorious area called O'Sullivans Gap, which is just north of the town of Bulahdelah. It was that typical coastal mountain road—probably built back in the early couple of decades of this century—that has been continually widened and added to. Finally, with the new funding—and I congratulate Laurie Brereton and Michael Knight; I also congratulate the current government for continuing with it—that piece of road has been bypassed. This means that the accident rate in that area has declined dramatically. If anyone wants proof that roads cut fatigue and fatigue related accidents, there is an area to have a study. In this country we often think we cannot afford, as a nation, to build the quality roads that we need. If we study these parts of the Pacific Highway, such as the bypass of O'Sullivans Gap, we will come up with a completely different conclusion—that we cannot not afford to build those sorts of roads. That is what we need to do.The other thing we should be looking at is transit lanes for heavy transport vehicles in metropolitan areas. I do not drive in Sydney much these days, but when I do I always find that, if there are three lanes of traffic, the articulated vehicles will invariably be in the centre lane. They do it because when they come to an intersection it gives them extra space to make the turn. I find that that is a very frightening factor in city transport. For people travelling beside these vehicles, visibility is zero on one side. You are looking straight into the back of a truck and you cannot see what else is happening. It is something that as a nation we are not planning for.About six or eight weeks ago after a sitting week, I drove home. It was the Thursday night when we sat late. I hired a vehicle and drove home. It was raining. Between here and Sydney I do not know how many B-doubles I passed, but one thing I noticed was that, during rain, to pass a B-double, you are virtually taking your life in your hands every time because you cannot see. With the spray that is being thrown up off the road by articulated vehicles, you hope that the road is going straight, you steel yourself and you go past them. They are also issues that we need to address. That is stressful for me as a driver of a car, but I am sure it is also stressful for the driver of the truck. If they are acting responsibly, they know the effect that they are having on the other vehicles. I am sure they look in the rear vision mirror and say, `Here's another one who wants to get past me.' He cannot do anything about the conditions. They are certainly some of the factors that need to be addressed. I congratulate the committee on what they have done. I would say that some of the questions that really should have been asked about transport have not been asked. I am concerned that our road transport industry, in particular, is at the point of no return for many participants. The whole thrust of this government was to provide greater competition and cheaper costs. I fear their policy is going to drive many of the smaller operators out of the business and leave it to the larger operators. That brings me back to another very important point: we were talking about cost. We were talking about a return for people who have made a large investment. Unfortunately, head contractors do not pass on the full amount; in fact they have a habit of passing on about 50 per cent to the subcontractor. The head contractor is taking a very lucrative fee. The subcontractor finishes up taking a survival fee. It is not acceptable. There needs to be a transport agreement reached to provide a fair rate of pay. If drivers are getting a fair rate of pay, you will get rid of the fatigue because the hours they work will be reduced greatly and they will make a fair living out of what they have invested in the industry.11:18:0021534Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—If I might respond on a number of instances to the member for Paterson, what he was just referring to was price control, of course, and by referendum in this country people rejected that. This report, Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport, by the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts, actually deals with that particular issue. It is an issue, and I accept that. It deals with that particular issue in another way.The member for Paterson's opening remarks indicated that he was unhappy to some degree with the report in that he did not think that it addressed the issues. But the report actually talks about the culture in the transport industry. I believe it very comprehensively addresses all of the issues and what the solutions are because there are some very difficult issues in this particular transport industry. We are really talking about road transport here. But, of course, the report also addresses the other areas of transport common in the country today.As the chairman of the committee quite correctly indicated in his address, this has been a bipartisan report. I think everybody is going in the one direction, and it is not overtly political. The member for Paterson did raise the issue of diesel rebates and why diesel was more expensive than petrol. He said he did not understand why; he had not looked at that. It does not need an inquiry to find that out. The information is readily available right now, and he should have a look at it. He made the point that the 24c a litre rebate has already been partially swallowed up by the increase in the price of diesel. That is a fair point, but the other point that needs to be made is that, without that rebate, diesel would be 24c a litre dearer than it is now. That point needs to be clearly understood, and the member for Paterson ought to understand that that is the position he wanted the truckies of this country to be in at this time.I would now like to give some of my views about this report and to talk about my experience as part of the committee dealing with this wide ranging inquiry. I would like to link it back to my home city of Townsville and the feedback that I get from the transport industry in my area. It is true that the little mums and dads businesses which account for the majority of drivers in the road transport industry are doing it terribly tough. They are price takers. Without wishing to be in any way demeaning, I would say that a number of them do not understand the business case for what they do. In fact, many of them are operating unprofitably. There is a view, `If there is a load, let's take it, no matter what the price is, whether it is profitable or not, because we need to meet the lease payments on the truck.' The normal rationale in business is that if you are operating unprofitably you have got to do something about it, but they are not doing anything about it. That is causing the long trips and the excessive workload. Last Friday, when I went home, I saw a fellow who had made a trip to Brisbane and made something like $26 for the trip there and back. You just can't do that. The member for Paterson was quite right that the mums and dads who are in a marriage do not have much of a marriage when the driver has got to be away for so long. The report addresses some of these issues in terms of putting some responsibility back on the big companies which subcontract these drivers, and what their responsibilities might be at law. This is the culture area that we have been looking at, which would indicate that there are some things that can be done to make sure that the little people in the industry are fairly treated—that they are not asked to do unreasonable things, that they are able to make a dollar. Making the players in the industry responsible for the workplace health and safety issues of causing drivers to drive while they are fatigued is a good outcome.Another issue of difficulty is the practice of making trucks queue in a yard. You can drive for 15 hours from Melbourne to wherever and then have to wait several hours in a queue, where every 10 minutes the truck has to be started up and moved, whereas arrangements could be put in place so that somebody would tell the truckie, `Look, you can go and have a couple of hours sleep because we will not be able to unload'—or load—`you for another couple of hours,' or four hours or whatever. `Go and park your truck over there, and we will call you when we are ready.' In that sense, there are some very good outcomes in the report.I was also interested in the report on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The evidence we received about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority was quite damning, indicating that the authority has not met its responsibilities. I continually get feedback from my patch that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority really needs to lift its game in terms of how it manages and monitors such a vital industry. That has not had a lot of attention in this report, but I think that ultimately people will realise the significance of what is in the report in relation to safety in the air.Another matter which I found very satisfying to see appear in the report—and I thank the chair and the committee for that—is the landmark move to call for random checking of fatigue. I have seen some media reports which basically say that is not possible and pan the committee for recommending it. But it is possible, and it is possible now. As we have seen technology change over so many years, we have seen how quickly it changes. Things that even two years ago we thought were not possible to do are now possible. An example raised in the committee yesterday is the random breath machine: a couple of years ago it was that size, now it is this size—the technology has been developed to enable that to happen. So, to those who are sceptics and say it cannot be done, I say it must be done. That is one of the protections for the drivers in the industry who cannot, at this stage, effectively battle the big conglomerates who are asking them to be price takers. Having a measure of whether drivers are fatigued and having penalties, and there was a suggestion in committee discussions about putting the trucks off the roads as well as the drivers, is something that the managers of these major concerns would certainly be very concerned about if it happened. That will bring some responsibility back as well.I commend the report to the House. It is to the chairman's credit and the committee's credit that this has received such widespread favourable publicity. Now we need to see some action as a result of the recommendations of this report.11:28:0021536Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise this morning as shadow minister for transport and regional development to make some preliminary comments on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts report entitled Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport. I say `preliminary comments' because this is not the last the House will hear from the Labor Party nor the Australian community on the report and its recommendations. I will also be actively consulting with the organisations, employees and communities—many of whom are in regional Australia—who are affected by this report to canvass their views. Given that the report was only tabled on Monday of this week, it has not been easy to gather their feedback to present to the House this morning. For that reason I would urge all participating in this debate to ensure that we guarantee a major community debate about the report and, more importantly, the requirement for swift government action on the recommendations of the report. At the outset I would like to commend my colleagues, the members on the committee, for their hard work and commitment to the report. I also commend the committee's secretary and the staff in the committee office for the preparation of the report. The quality of the report, I believe, reflects the commitment and diligence of all those who contributed and participated in the preparation of the report.The critical issue now is for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to act in response to the recommendations. On that front, I unfortunately have some concerns with respect to the willingness of the minister to act with respect to the recommendations contained in the report. In the House and in this chamber over the last six months, we have heard of the inability of the minister to show leadership to inspire and deliver on the all-important issue of transport reform. Therefore, in speaking positively about this report, I do so with some trepidation only because the minister has, I suppose, more form than Phar Lap for failing to deliver on reform. So, quite frankly, I have little faith that the parts of the report that require action and determination and a willingness from the Commonwealth government to make hard decisions will actually go anywhere with this minister for transport and Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson. That aside, on behalf of the Labor Party, I clearly welcome the report. It is comprehensive and far-reaching, providing considered and constructive recommendations. It has elevated what is a serious public and workplace safety issue that impacts on the quality of our community, issues of safety and the importance of a very productive industry. It also deals with a number of aspects of transport policy.I will turn my attention first to aviation, as today follows a very dark day in the history of aviation safety administration. Yesterday a government controlled, bipartisan Senate committee levelled the most severe criticism at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. It was only in September last year that the minister put CASA on notice about their performance and what is required. That charter letter went to the issues of transparency and accountability and other specific areas where they had to get their act together. The report released by the Senate committee shows a flagrant disregard for what was expected. The report finds that the concerns about CASA's mismanagement of the ARCAS Airways investigation echoed the concerns uncovered in the investigations into Monarch, Seaview and Aquatic Air accidents. The committee found that the `institutional timidity' that was found in the old CASA is still, unfortunately, present today—that is, an `institutional timidity' against taking strong action, including prosecution against operators who knowingly, and often wilfully, breach aviation law.Beyond the midnight oil also reminds us of other, more recent criticisms of CASA, having regard to its surveillance capacity and practices. These were the inadequacies identified by the Australian National Audit Office and in the BASI regional airlines safety study. The latter report showed 48 per cent of pilots and 50 per cent of aircraft maintenance personnel indicated that they would like to see increased CASA surveillance of flight and maintenance operations. The report identifies a further criticism that CASA is breaching international obligations by not having regulations to establish limits to flight time, flight duty periods and rest periods for cabin attendants. I had previously written to the minister about this very issue, and I am pleased that it is picked up in the report. I welcome the strong recommendations to CASA but express some concerns about their ability to deliver. The minister must on this occasion send more than a charter letter—it is time for stronger action. Fatigue, as we are all aware, is a major issue for aviation safety across the sectors and professions—air traffic controllers, maintenance personnel, cabin staff, pilots and technical staff. It is part of being a 24-hour industry but, unfortunately, it is also related to being a highly competitive industry. From a safety perspective, it is an unforgiving industry because of the dire consequences of aviation incidents and accidents. I welcome the other aviation recommendations and hope that CASA, the department, Airservices Australia, the airlines, the industry associations and the unions can get together and deliver the recommendations efficiently, expeditiously and effectively—obviously for the sake of the travelling public and the wellbeing of the workers in the industry. I also urge the minister to heed the cautions from the committee on the risks of introducing alternative service providers for air traffic services. I point out those recommendations and comments to the Main Committee.Going briefly to the issue of rail, I simply say that it is pleasing to note that the minister also has some work to do in the area of managing fatigue in the rail industry. Recommendation 13 seems to be eminently sensible advice to improve and build on the work to date as part of the National Codes of Practice for Railways.I suppose the issue of road transport has been in the public eye for some weeks now because of the all-important issue of the price of fuel. I also note in that context that, on the day of the release of this report, I welcomed the visit to Canberra of the owner-drivers who are concerned about the state of their industry at the moment. They came to Canberra with their families to talk about the human face of the crisis in their industry which is so clearly highlighted in the report Beyond the midnight oil. But I am also unfortunately required to note this morning that, despite the importance of the issues raised by these families on Monday of this week, not one government minister would go out and talk to these people. I find that strange, because many of the issues that those families spoke to me about on Monday of this week outside Parliament House are covered in the report.What is clear is a need for more regulation of the road transport industry. The opposition has been identifying this for some time. I note that the government slipped out their draft voluntary code of conduct for discussion last weekend. But unfortunately, as I understand it from the industry, it is actually a little difficult to get a copy of that draft report.The forces that lead to the development of a code of conduct are the forces that are driving the need for broader regulation of the industry. The truth of the matter is that the industry is killing people and, unless we act now, the industry will continue to kill people, including many young people. The voluntary code covers many of the hard commercial issues and broadly provides an acceptable framework, but we all know it will gather dust and not change a thing if it is not enforceable.It has been mentioned to me that the minister intends to use the goodwill of government to encourage operators to sign up to the code, but I have always found historically that there are good and bad operators. The good operators will always work on the basis of what is fair and reasonable. There are always going to be the shonks who actually need to be brought to heel by the force of law. That is the challenge before the Main Committee today: whether or not it is willing to bring the shonks to heel. I seriously doubt the willingness of the minister to actually bring the shonks to heel, the end result being that, one way or another, those shonks will still kill people on Australia's roads. Let me be the one to tell the minister, because he either does not listen to the community or is not committed to signing people up to the code, that in many ways his government has run out of goodwill in the community. So if he intends relying on goodwill, it will again be a futile exercise. Clearly, the minister is resisting having the code enforceable, and this is a major mistake. In this regard, the minister is letting the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the ACCC push him around yet again. It is not the Treasurer doing him over in the cabinet meetings; it is the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. His form is clearly known on that front.The Minister for Transport and Regional Services is allowing the paranoia of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the overzealousness of Mr Fels, from the ACCC, to inappropriately cloud the exercise of his responsibility for road safety and the transport industry. The report very effectively highlights and explains to the community the concept of a chain of responsibility for road safety. As I have said before, I believe that the chain stretches to the likes of the ACCC—that is, Mr Fels—and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.In light of the government position on the voluntary code of practice, I was a little concerned when I saw recommendation 33. The recommendation goes to requiring the minister to take a proposal for a national operator accreditation scheme, some sort of port of entry control mechanism, to the Australian Transport Council. However, the report recommends that only if:... by mid-2002, there has not been an appreciable improvement in the way in which the road transport sector is addressing the problem of fatigue management ...I have some reservations with this because it can give the minister an out from the necessity to consider this important issue that has been raised and from immediate action.I would like to make a brief comment on recommendation 34, which recommends making driving while fatigued an offence. Prima facie, I accept the committee's comparison with drink driving. They correctly say that community attitudes towards safety issues like drink driving changed due to the introduction of appropriate legislation. My comment is a caution to ensure that the onus does not fall on the driver alone. As I have said before, the report provides a commendable explanation of the chain of responsibility concept. If we are to endorse that concept, if we are to make driving while fatigued an offence, we should also make `requiring a driver to drive while fatigued' an offence. I am not criticising the recommendation, but it may need to be broader if we do not want a situation where the driver is the only one held accountable.There are also important recommendations on the maritime industry. The report makes credible and significant recommendations to build on past reform. It is a significant statistic that seven out of 46 marine accidents involving groundings or collisions since 1994 had fatigue as a causal factor. An AMSA report on the Great Barrier Reef pilots also showed that pilot fatigue contributed to between 10 and 25 per cent of accidents. Shipping accidents have the potential to damage the environment. I know, as we all know, that Australians care about their marine environment and will support accident prevention on this front. I simply say to the minister for transport and his colleagues in cabinet that they need to be more careful with the marine environment. We will be observing this report and its recommendations in association with our continuing concerns about the increasing use of single and continuing voyage permits. I note it is recommended that a significant amount of extra responsibility for fatigue management issues be placed on the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. I agree that this is appropriate, given the ATSB's new multimodal approach combined with its national focus. However, I say to the minister that the ATSB has to pick up its act to actually deliver on the implementation of the recommendations.In conclusion, this is a timely report and it has been properly delivered in a constructive way. It is now for the minister to act on the good work of all the committee members and the support given to them by the secretariat. I give a commitment to a community affected by fatigue that, in my capacity as shadow minister for transport, I will do my best to ensure that the positive recommendations are implemented and that implementation is monitored. I look forward to giving some consideration to the full implementation of these recommendations and to hearing feedback from those involved in the community and those working in the industry about the importance of the committee's recommendations and the decisive action required by the minister to guarantee that we act on those recommendations.11:43:0021539McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am delighted to have participated in the deliberations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts for their inquiry and report, Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport. I put on the public record the excellent chairmanship by the member for Hinkler and also record the contribution of the former deputy chairman, Mr Colin Hollis, who has had a long interest in these matters and has continued to serve on the committee. I acknowledge the committee secretariat, in particular Mr Adam Cunningham, who drafted the report and who lived the issues during the period of taking evidence. In my view he has compiled an excellent report, taking into account the views of those people giving evidence and the views of the committee. I also note the very good cooperation between members of the opposition and members of the government in getting what I consider to be a first-class report and a landmark in identifying the problem of fatigue. I would also like to put on the record the contribution of the member for New England to the deliberations. He has spent his professional life in the transport industry. I admired the way in which he took into account the evidence of other people and put a point of view to the committee without undue bias, in view of his long association with the industry.The thrust of this report is to identify this strange thing called fatigue. Those of us who were aware of tiredness in transport operations probably were not aware of the in-depth discussions that we would have on this issue and some of the positive outcomes that we actually have achieved in the recommendations in the report. I am delighted the shadow minister has conceded that some of the recommendations could be helpful to both sides of politics. The important thing that we have identified is that there is a relationship between fatigue and the relative state induced by alcohol. Whilst that is not fully scientifically evaluated, it does give a feel to the community that driving in a fatigued state after 12, 14 or 24 hours is a problem to the rest of the people on the highway.The important thing this report does is not so much to identify all the recommendations for government or the personnel in the industry as to bring to the attention of the parliament and the Australian people that fatigue is now an issue. In the modern world, where the 24-hour cycle of business is now commonplace, fatigue is going to be an issue in transport, be it in the air, on railways, on the road or on the sea. There has been quite a lot of emphasis on the trucking industry in this report because there is a close proximity to the trucking industry by individual Australians. We have seen some of the horrific impacts of accidents on the truck drivers, their vehicles and the highway system. I think we were particularly lucky to have Professor Dinges to give evidence to the committee. He is regarded as the world expert on this matter from the USA. He gave a private briefing to the committee and put some very interesting evidence on the public record. So not only did we receive evidence from people in Australia but also from somebody regarded as the foremost authority on this issue in the road transport industry, the defence industry in the USA, and generally across the board, on the 24-hour systems that we operate. We should understand that the fatigue issue, as we identified on the committee, concerns circadian rhythm and the fact that a human being is designed to sleep between midnight and 6 a.m. But the modern world is demanding that a human being be on the job at all hours driving a truck, train, ship or an aircraft. That is the fundamental problem that we have identified. As Professor Dinges said on a number of occasions, we are not really going to turn the clock back in terms of the way the world operates. So we have to accommodate this very fundamental human problem and how we allow for the fact that people inevitably become fatigued between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. We need to look at regulatory regimes and methods of work that ensure that the impact of accidents from fatigue at this time is less than it might have otherwise been.I will just refer to some of the matters in this very good report. Whilst it is obvious you cannot cover every aspect from all those witnesses who gave first-class evidence, it is important to look at some of the broader issues. As I have mentioned, the time of day that the work takes place is very important—if we were looking at fatigue from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. I think the whole issue would be a lot different. The time spent on related duties, be it a truck driver on a 14- or 13-hour stint or an eight- or 12-hour day, is a matter of some debate as to how long people should drive a truck or be in charge of a locomotive in the rail network. Of course, the quality of rest that individual workers have before they take on duty and when they finish duty is important. In this debate we need to be very clear that the important thing in a 12-hour shift is whether the employee enjoys adequate rest before they come on the job and then over a three-day period whether they enjoy adequate rest that ensures that they are efficient at the end of the three- or four-day period. Certainly we saw evidence that it was not that the interstate transport driver drove for the 12 hours from Sydney to Brisbane for instance, but it was the slotting at the other end where the truck driver was requested to remain half on duty, shifting his truck around the yard for four or five hours—so in fact his time on duty was the 12 hours plus the five hours.A lot of operators think about the truck driver being behind the wheel—this is also the perception of members of the public—and do not appreciate that he does not step out from behind the wheel when he gets to the yard. He is then asked by wholesalers and distributors, unfairly, to move his truck every half an hour, because there are no proper slotting techniques.The chairman mentioned that fatigue related costs amount to $3 billion, with $300 million relating to heavy vehicle accidents. These figures can be all too clearly identified. With respect to prescriptive answers regarding hours of work, there was a lot of discussion by the committee about logbooks. Most committee members came to a general agreement that it was better not to have a prescriptive outcome but to have one that employed a certain amount of commonsense, as well as incentives for people to adopt a safe measure, rather than the failed logbook technique. Most people in the industry would agree that logbooks do not solve the problem of prescribed hours and that another solution is needed.In terms of aviation initiatives, most members of the parliament would be aware of the good operations of the aircraft industry in terms of certification—the way in which pilots are very carefully regulated as to both their on-duty and off-duty time. We had a good look at the aircraft maintenance engineering situation. Engineers work from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Obviously, fatigue is a major factor from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. They are handling very skilled and intricate maintenance tasks and people's lives could be at risk if fatigue influenced their work operations. In terms of railway initiatives, National Rail have done a very good job in taking fatigue into account in the operations of their train drivers. Some genuine work has been done to make sure that the shifts operate effectively. I had some exposure to the marine initiatives in respect of the Ships of shame report. I refer to the operations of crew—the 24-hour turnaround in ports and the difficulty involved in employing fewer crew numbers.I also want to commend the proposal that good trucking companies which adopt safe working practices should be accredited. The splitting of trips between capital cities is a way in which drivers can maintain a sensible home life. For instance, if Wagga becomes a central point, one driver can drive the truck from Wagga to Melbourne and back again, and thus be able to return home after each trip.I note the evidence given by Professor Dinges regarding the Exxon Valdez. That incident is well known to members and to the public. He emphasised the part played by fatigue in that accident, which was catastrophic for the environment, the marine industry and the insurance industry. Our report states:The combination of fewer crew and demands for a quick turnaround time were key factors in the 1989 Exxon Valdez accident. Professor Dinges told us that:... the demanned vessel meant that there were fewer crew on board to do the work. On the high seas, that worked out well, but when you pulled into the Valdez port and had to load out and were under terrific time pressure, it meant that the first officer was awake 36 hours, could not go any more and finally went to bed. It meant that the second officer had been awake too long, well past the hours of service. He went to bed. And it meant that the man at the helm at the critical time as they left the port through Prince William Sound was a third officer, with limited experience.We all know what happened: they hit the reef, and there was a catastrophic outcome. So there was a major outcome for the marine industry because of an identifiable fatigue factor. Likewise, if you look at the statistics, there is very considerable evidence that accidents at sea tend to happen between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. Again, fatigue and boredom are obviously factors when ships collide or hit objects during those particular hours.On the freight rate fuel argument that the shadow minister mentioned, obviously in the trucking industry, freight rates put pressure on individual owner-drivers to drive longer hours than they should. Fatigue sets in and the drivers are then a danger to the public and to themselves. The availability of credit to the trucking industry interested me. A way of handling this might be to ensure that credit to the trucking industry is carefully evaluated and not given to people who just walk in off the street and think they can drive a truck profitably.Motorists who travel during the Christmas holidays with a certain amount of emotional and family tension ought to be aware of the impact of fatigue. We got evidence of the rising accident rate during the Christmas period, which was fatigue related. Some Australian motorists think they are supermen or superwomen and that they can work eight to 10 hours, leave at 5 o'clock and then drive for 12 hours through very difficult traffic conditions.I commend the report to the parliament. It is an outstanding contribution to the whole debate on fatigue in transport across the three modes. We had a good look at the bus passenger industry and the very careful methodology that those responsible bus lines adopt to ensure their drivers arrive at work fit and well. They drive very precise hours and have adequate rest periods. This report has opened public debate and it has a number of recommendations. It raises awareness of the problem of fatigue. It says to the parliament and to the people of Australia that fatigue is an issue; we do not know all the answers but we can see some of the problems. I encourage the parliament, the policy makers and the people in the industry to come up with constructive—not prescriptive—suggestions that will identify the problems, in a positive rather than a legislative manner. In 10 or 15 years time, people will look back and say that this was a landmark report. It was the first time any group identified in a very public way the issue of fatigue in the transport industry across all the modes of transport.'11:57:0021542St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts, Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport. I spoke in the House at the launching of this particular report and I will now take the opportunity to speak in more detail.I have listened to many of the previous speakers on both sides. I register my appreciation, thanks and congratulations to the chairman of this committee, my National Party colleague Paul Neville, the member for Hinkler. During the 16 months of this inquiry, he has shown a great degree of leadership and interest, and he has allowed the discussion to go on. I think it is tremendous and it reflects well upon the committee. The deputy chair was Steve Gibbons, the member for Bendigo, who took over from the member for Throsby who is overseas at the moment. Both of those gentlemen provided an insight from their perspective and they also provided leadership on a report that is so important to an industry culture change. The member for Corangamite said that this is a landmark report for the transport industry, and its recommendations show that.I also pay tribute to government members of the committee for their input, which has made a difference. They represent electorates all over Australia—both city and rural based. The honourable members for Greenway and Lowe made particularly strong contributions at a time of extremely robust committee debate. That debate extended over many days and their input, and that of other committee members, was most welcome. At the end of the day, the report's recommendations are significant and will be held in high esteem within the transport industry.The last time I spoke I neglected to thank the committee secretariat, which was originally under the control of Meg Crooks, who moved on towards the end of last year and was replaced by Grant Harrison. I thank both of them for their input. I also thank the research officers—Sarah, Leonie and Yolanda—who were involved in the inquiry. I pay particular tribute to Adam Cunningham who was committee secretary for this part of the inquiry. Adam did not have an easy task, but I think his experience of working on the railways in a previous life gave him a balanced and practical view of fatigue in the transport industry and how it related not only to rail but to road, sea and air transport. I thank him for his enthusiasm, for the way in which he went about drafting the report and for his keenness in debating the issues. When there were some very robust discussions, Adam found a positive way for us to proceed and arrive at recommendations. I congratulate Adam and give credit to his ability to produce a report of this quality.I want to concentrate on a few aspects of the report that I believe will have a dramatic effect on the road transport industry. Several of my colleagues have referred to other modes of transport that are mentioned in the report. I shall make a few points that I think will interest the readers of the Hansard. The committee made 41 recommendations, of which about 23 related to the road transport industry. Although we also discussed other modes of transport, the road transport industry was certainly to the fore in many recommendations. I shall explore four issues today. The first is truck stops and rest areas for professional drivers who convey cargo and freight to and from Australia's capital cities and those who travel around rural Australia transporting stock to abattoirs and shifting stock between paddocks. There is a relative shortage of truck stops, and specifically truck pull-over areas. Drivers travelling on our national highway network who feel tired and who want to pull off the road do not always find it easy to park vehicles that are probably a minimum of 16 metres long. In fact, it is often very difficult for drivers of B-double transports to find areas where they can pull off the side of the road and rest comfortably. In some of the larger pull-over areas they may find a weary caravan driver who has decided to pull off the road—that is good and shows a great deal of commonsense—but who has parked in the middle of the area, leaving no room for a truck beside, behind or next to him. That can be very frustrating for truck drivers.I will refer later to the concept of drivers being treated in a much more professional manner than has been the case over the years by those who deal with them. One of the concepts mentioned by the member for Corangamite was that of changeover stations. For instance, a number of professional drivers live in the town of Kempsey and drive for national companies. They have the opportunity to live in a beautiful rural town. They drive to Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne and then are able to return home to Kempsey.My little home town of Guyra, on the New England Highway, is situated, as most people know, midway between Sydney and Brisbane, on the main transport route for the nation's freight, which is then transported throughout the arteries of the road network. Our town also has plans to build a super truck stop which will accommodate up to 50 or 60 semitrailers at any one time. They will have the ability to pull over and park properly, next to an adequate facility which can provide them with proper food and with facilities such as showers, proper rest areas, et cetera. That concept has been developed over the last couple of years with the transport industry, and it will be developed much further. We need to have the involvement of the oil companies in this regard. The report certainly mentions that oil companies have a responsibility to look at investing some money on the roadside. The report has brought to the fore the responsibility of governments, particularly the federal government, to look at the provision of hard stand areas to be strategically placed on the national highway network. Because of the massive cost of hard stand areas, it is very difficult for private enterprise to put them in, but it would certainly help to dramatically attack the issue of fatigue. So I commend that proposal to the government.Another issue that I would like to touch on is recommendation 35, which refers to mandatory drug testing. Drugs within the work force are increasingly becoming a major problem. I have mentioned this in the House before. One large employer in my electorate cannot get enough permanent staff because 50 per cent of the applicants for the job at the workplace are failing the drug test. That is a major concern.In another instance, in a firm in a major regional city in my electorate in which applications are covered by a drug testing system, over 40 per cent are failing drug tests; in other words, they have been detected as having taken illicit drugs. That is creating an artificial shortage of workers out there. That is really a tragedy in our society. I believe very strongly in the recommendation that has been put forward—that is, that there should be a drug free workplace. I think it is appalling that companies have actively promoted drug use amongst some of their drivers so that they stay alert. One of the most disturbing matters on which the committee heard evidence was that one company in northern New South Wales produced a newsletter which explained how to be aware of the effects of the drugs when they wore off. That is absolutely extraordinary. The company newsletter offered this disturbing advice: Watch out for the early signs that the effects of the drugs are wearing off. If this happens, take a break, get some sleep or stop for a meal. Have a walk around. Take a shower or listen to the radio. Watch how much you are using.For heaven's sake! The newsletter continued:Know where your cut-off point is.That is, when the drugs are not keeping you awake any longer. I think that is just appalling. The sooner companies start to accept responsibility for this appalling behaviour, the better. I was going to talk about slotting. I will not do so because it has been covered in the report. I know the member for Corangamite and most others on both sides have certainly discussed the issue of slotting. I will give a brief example. This week, I was rung by a driver who had a timeslot at Hemmant, in Brisbane, for a Coles frigmobile with a load of both freezer and chiller material. The freezer material was packed at the front of the truck and had a timeslot of 7.00 a.m.; the chiller material had a timeslot of 5.30 a.m.—first in. The truck suffered a tyre blow-out on the way from Sydney to Brisbane. The driver had the tyre changed but then arrived 20 minutes late into the depot at Hemmant. At the window, when someone finally came and dealt with him—it has to be understood that often professional drivers are dealt with by warehousing people at the lowest common denominator, not in a proper and professional manner—he was told that he was late by 20 minutes plus the waiting time for his access to the chiller slot, so he had missed his timeslot and would have to forget it. He should go around to the freezer slot at 7 o'clock. But when he went around to that place, and shunted back and forth, he was told by the forklift operators, `No, we can't get to the freezer material because the chiller stuff is in front. You've missed your whole timeslot for the day. Come back tomorrow.' That is the sort of thing that professional drivers are having to put up with. That driver resigned from the company involved—a major transport operator—because professional drivers have had enough of being dealt with in such a way, without any recognition that they are very much part of this nation's wealth and of the nation's creation.In conclusion: I was pleased that the shadow minister and member for Batman was here this morning and spoke. I must admit that I thought he might have tried to attack the report, but he did not. I commend him for that. He raised a number of issues, one of which was a draft code of conduct. He made the comment that it was a secret document, or it was very difficult to find. He could not find any copies of it. I have a copy here which I am happy to give him. If he had consulted the web site of Truck and Bus, which is a major organisation in Australia, he would have found that the draft code of conduct was sitting there on Monday this week, available for him to download it—as I have done. He obviously has no idea when it comes to being involved in an industry and keeping abreast of what is happening in the industry. It is a very simple thing. It is available, as is stated on the front of it, from the Australian Trucking Association. More interestingly, it is available from the Transport Workers Union, which had it available on Monday, as they should have. They have done a tremendous job. I congratulate John Allen, from the Transport Workers Union, who is working with us to make a better deal and a better life for owner drivers.Adjournment21544Motion (by Mrs Elson) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.2154412:14:0021545Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Four weeks ago I visited Orbost, in East Gippsland—my home town, where I was born and grew up. I met with the Snowy River Alliance and the Independent member for East Gippsland in the state parliament, Craig Ingram, and had a pretty good look at various parts of the Snowy River. As a child I had known the river well as a place for fishing, swimming and, for example, farming activities. Seeing the river was an extremely sobering experience. The flow is so weak that the salt water from the entrance is now backed up to the bridge at Orbost, almost 10 kilometres inland from the mouth of the Snowy. Farmers on the Snowy River flats downstream of that point can no longer take irrigation water out of the river because it is brackish. My father owns a farm at Lochend, downstream of the bridge. It is a share farm now, and the farmers there can no longer use irrigation water from the river. At Bete Bolong and at Jarrahmond, where I lived for some years as a child, the river flow is so low that at many times it is measured in inches only. It is so shallow that in summer the heat of the sun raises the water temperature considerably, to as much as 34 degrees. You do not need to know much about the environment or about biology to understand the impact that that has on the life within the river. It means that a very substantial proportion of what is living in the river cannot survive. An environmental disaster is gradually unfolding there as a result of the lack of river flow.I also noted with great sadness that the town in which I grew up and which during my childhood and most of my adult life had a sign at its entrance saying—from memory—`Orbost, population 2,960', now has a new sign that reads, `population 2,160.' It is still a beautiful town and is very well presented for a place that is suffering great economic problems. However, there are `for sale' signs on many houses and the town desperately needs an economic boost. Some 30 or 40 years ago the water of the Snowy River was diverted in order to feed the Snowy Mountain scheme, the Murray-Darling Basin and agriculture that is very important economically in that region. The small number of people in East Gippsland were deemed not sufficiently important to consider their economic and environmental needs, so 99 per cent of the river flow at its upper reaches was diverted into the Snowy scheme and the Murray-Darling Basin. The Bracks Labor government in Victoria and the Carr Labor government in New South Wales have finally launched an initiative to return the flow to 21 per cent of its original strength and to seek further private investment that would add an additional seven per cent to the flow. Some $300 million is to be committed to infrastructure improvements to assist in this process. This will also mean that no water will be taken from other users of the Murray-Darling system further downstream, either in the Murray-Darling Basin or at its end in Adelaide.Although the role of Craig Ingram, as one of several independents holding the balance of power in the Victorian parliament, has been pivotal in achieving this outcome—I commend him for his efforts; I have been very impressed by his dedication and commitment to achieving this outcome and he deserves great credit for it—it is important to note that the Victorian ALP was committed to tackling this issue prior to the election when it had no idea that Mr Ingram would hold the balance of power. So it is not true to say that the Bracks government's action has been motivated purely by the fact that Craig Ingram has a very strong political position because he holds the balance of power. Steve Bracks was committed to this project before the election, and I am very pleased and proud that this action has been taken.Some say that the water that will be saved should be diverted into the Murray-Darling Basin and to Adelaide. I say it is just returning to the people of East Gippsland something that was wrongly taken from them many years ago. Orbost and East Gippsland desperately need an economic boost. I do not favour propping up regions artificially because they are in economic difficulty because ultimately that does not solve the existing problems and usually creates more. However, this is about not intervening artificially and propping up a region that is in economic difficulty, but restoring the previous position and ensuring that people in that region have new economic opportunities. It will assist with tourism and agriculture and will improve the environment substantially. I sincerely hope that the federal government will come to the party and provide assistance to ensure that the Snowy flows properly. (Time expired)2154612:18:0021546Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—It is with great disappointment that I rise to speak about the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000, which was defeated in the other place. It would have been refreshing to see the Labor Party for once do the right thing in the other place and contribute towards responsible policy making. Foresight is particularly crucial in the area of interactive gambling. Vulnerable individuals in our society and their families could have been protected by a moratorium on the expansion of interactive gambling. The bill simply aimed to halt further expansion of the interactive gambling industry in Australia for a period of 12 months while the government investigated the feasibility and consequences of such a ban. The moratorium would have also put the interactive gambling industry on notice that its future was uncertain and that it should hold off introducing new services until its future was resolved.This legislation did not aim to stifle innovation; instead, it was dedicated to protecting vulnerable gamblers. Now younger Internet users will have ample opportunity to become exposed to and seduced by this pervasive form of gambling. Dealing with existing sites would have left a manageable situation, whether on or offshore, but now we are headed for an interactive gambling free-for-all down the information superhighway. I am concerned—and I know that there is widespread community concern—that interactive technology has the capacity to deliver a pseudo poker machine to the desktop computers of every home and to the fingertips of our precious youth. The jump in accessibility to gambling could lead to an increase in gambling addiction and debt across Australian society. Many people in our community have had people in their family involved in this way.2154612:20:0021546Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Last Friday I had great pleasure in attending two significant events at Curtin University in my electorate of Swan. The first was a presentation of John Curtin medals to three outstanding achievers in the community, and the other was the launching of the Centenary of Federation Fund project exhibition, Shaping the Nation: John Curtin and Australia, at the John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library.The John Curtin medals are named after the Rt Hon. John Curtin, Prime Minister of Australia from 1941 to 1945, who is recognised as one of Australia's greatest statesmen. The medals are awarded to outstanding people who have contributed pre-eminently to the wellbeing of society and have shown the John Curtin qualities of vision, leadership and community service in their chosen field. They have displayed personal courage, triumph over adversity, self-sacrifice and quiet achievement. Nominations for the annual awards are sought from across the university.This year's recipients are as follows. The first recipient is Dame Rachel Cleland. At a time of life when many would expect to be enjoying retirement, Dame Rachel Cleland has been lobbying, campaigning and actively working for the forests. She is someone who knew John Curtin as not only a prominent politician but also her local member. After Curtin died in July 1945, Dame Rachel's late husband, Don, won preselection to contest the vacant seat of Fremantle, becoming the very first candidate in Australia of the newly formed Liberal Party. In 1951, Dame Rachel began what was to become 28 years of dedication to the people of Papua New Guinea. Her vision then, which she pursued with her customary vigour, was the development of associations for women of all ages in the towns and villages of Papua New Guinea. Since returning to Perth 20 years ago, she has thrown herself into many causes. The most recent one is the saving of old growth forests in the south-west of Western Australia. According to Dame Rachael, it is these sorts of activities that are the secret of living a long life. The second recipient is the Granny Smith Gold Mine Company. The Granny Smith Gold Mine Company has shown leadership to the mining industry in Australia, particularly in working with native title claimants for a just resolution of the issues; regular, ongoing cultural awareness training of all its staff; and mine site rehabilitation. Granny Smith is regarded by its peers as being at the leading edge of the development of sustainable environmental practices and the employment of Aboriginal people in mainstream jobs on mine sites. Granny Smith and its parent, Placer Dome, have eschewed short-term profits for a longer-term strategy that seeks to build public confidence in the company as a responsible corporate citizen. The awarding of the John Curtin Medal to the Granny Smith Gold Mine Company acknowledges and acclaims publicly the stand Granny Smith has taken regarding setting mining industry benchmarks for working with indigenous communities and establishing sustainability practices.The third recipient is Chris Lewis. Chris Lewis has a clear vision of a better world for young people from different and underprivileged backgrounds; in particular, those who are young Aborigines—his people's future. Recently retired after 14 years in the Australian Football League, Chris serves the community working with youth groups in schools in surrounding areas. He visits the Nollamara community several times a week just to have a chat with the kids, and much more. He also appears on television to inform the wider community about the importance of providing opportunities for young people. Throughout his football career, Chris was often vilified through racial taunts and media abuse. Always, for himself and the Aboriginal people, he fought back to win the respect of everyone in the game and in the wider community. Throughout his life, he has inspired young and old people with his ready smile, his courage through adversity and his espousal of family values. Like John Curtin, Chris has now dedicated himself to working for the betterment of life in the wider community, but particularly for young Aboriginal people. I congratulate all the recipients of the John Curtin medals for their outstanding contributions to society.The other significant event involved the launching of the Centenary of Federation exhibition, Shaping the nation: John Curtin and Australia. In following the development of John Curtin's political thinking and career from Federation until his death, the exhibition traces the development of Australia into full adulthood—to the moment when it had to stand apart from Britain and defend its own soil. This exhibition is an exploration, through the eyes of one of Australia's most prominent early citizens, of what it means to be a nation. The exhibition's opening hours are from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Sundays and 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday to Friday, and I urge all who can do so to visit this excellent piece of Australian history.The project could not have been possible without the contributions of many people. I wish to acknowledge the work of the Federation Fund Committee for their deliberations. However, particular recognition needs to be paid to Dr Vicki Williamson, Director of the John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library, and the Curtin University staff, for their vision, commitment and expertise in making the exhibition a reality. The exhibition is a credit to them all. 2154812:25:0021548St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—This adjournment debate gives me the opportunity to raise the issue of a draft code of conduct, released for review by the trucking industry, and to speak, as I was before, about some of the issues that are raised within that draft code of conduct to ensure that everybody within the industry takes up the challenge of having an input into this document and commenting on it. I know that the shadow minister for transport does not know where the draft code is available. I am quite happy to send him a copy—and I am sure his transport union will make him aware of where he can get a look at the draft code of conduct.I also note his press release put out earlier this week—on Tuesday, I think—calling for a mandatory trucking industry code of conduct as the best way `to weed out rogue operators and protect truck drivers'. I wonder how his history is. This shadow minister certainly appears to me, a newcomer here, to be a lightweight in the area of transport in his portfolio.I have here an overview of the Australian road freight industry. It was a submission to a national inquiry in 1983 where a whole range of issues were put forward to a public inquiry by this place. It raised a number of issues back in 1983—that is nearly 20 years ago. The opposition was in government for 13 of those years from that period of time on and no mandatory code of conduct ever came in.A major problem referred to then, particularly in the long distance haulage sector of the industry, was the financial plight of owner-drivers—it sounds familiar. In the late 1970s this sector suffered from oversupply and the increases in rates paid to owner-drivers did not keep pace with the increases in operating costs. This sounds very much like the situation today. It was suggested that the conditions of competition and pricing among freight forwarders and their subcontractors needed to be investigated—and they certainly do.One of the other interesting parts of this report—and it really is a very good report indeed—was to do with regulations and minimum freight rates, which are again being raised in the year 2000, and they should be looked at in context. It said that regulation of minimum freight rates could be viewed as a way to counter the cost price squeeze and the financial difficulties then being faced by many operators. One aspect of such regulation was the problem of enforcement. Probably of greater importance in the long term however was that pricing flexibility was a great asset of the road transport industry and rate regulation would almost certainly involve the loss of some flexibility—and that was nearly 20 years ago.The report went on to say that prices should reflect not only the cost and supply conditions in the industry but also the complex and continually changing set of demands and imbalances between freight at different densities. It was impossible to set regulated rates which adequately reflected these complex and changing conditions on different routes. The importance of the ability of road hauliers to appropriately choose and price their multiple trips in their competition with rail was noted.This makes fascinating reading. One of the things that this committee looked at in its report Beyond midnight oil was the question of codes of conduct or codes of practice, and it concluded:Codes of practice or conduct are not necessarily inconsistent with other measures such as regulatory or occupational health and safety based approaches ...Some of the evidence indicated:One or more codes of practice could cover drivers, transport operators and others in the transport chain. These codes could be given status by being referenced in road transport legislation or occupational health and safety legislation ... We went on to say in that report:We support strongly the moves by the transport industry to develop voluntary codes of practice. While the impetus for such codes needs to come from industry, the Commonwealth can make a valuable contribution by providing expertise, advice and a forum for sectors of the industry to develop effective codes of practice or conduct.That is what my minister is doing. (Time expired)2154912:30:0021549Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Today I wish to raise a matter in regard to the Sydney Olympics. I do not know how to frame the words I am going to say about this matter—whether I should introduce the word `conspiracy' or whether I should introduce the words `simple stupidity on the part of some decision makers'. Today I want to speak about the stolen Olympic mascots—Syd, Olly and Millie.More than four years ago, I think, when Warwick Smith was the minister for sport, I got up in this very chamber to speak on the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill. In speaking to that bill, I asked the minister to give consideration to extending the protection of the games mascots, as part of the indicia of the games to be protected under that bill, beyond the end of the Olympics. Why? Because I thought the quality of the Olympic mascots was good enough and their popularity would be great enough that SOCOG, as the organising body for the Sydney Games, should be able to get ongoing income from the licensing of those products related to Syd, Olly and Millie.There is a point of self-interest in this where I actually acted against the self-interest of a member of my family, because my nephew Matthew Hatton designed Syd, Olly and Millie as the Olympic mascots and later won the mascot competition for the disabled games with Lizzie. I know, because I have talked to him and because I have asked him about the progress of the work, how difficult the development period was. I know that for four solid years he worked as a consultant on the program to bring the mascots to the Olympics as the key focus, as had been done in all other Olympics.The mascots have been part of the parades around Australia. If you went down to Parramatta during the Olympics, you could see the Olympic mascots there. But when we got to the Olympics proper, somebody had stolen them. They had been pinched and put out of the way—virtually into a back cupboard. The only time I saw them in evidence was in the closing ceremony. When the comedian on the little motor mower was running all around the stadium, the Olympic mascots actually made their presence known. For the rest of the time, all of that four years of development went for nothing, because what should have been a central part of our games indicia and images had been put aside. I would just like to know why and I would also like to know who made the decision.Was it Rick Birch who made the decision or was it others who made the decision because they did not like the fact that there were three mascots? Some relatively uninformed comment over the past four years has been that we had three mascots instead of one. Was it people who thought that people from overseas did not know that a kookaburra, a platypus and an echidna were Australian entities? In all of the preparation for the games, in all of the advertising that was done, these three central characters were used. But four years worth of work and expenditure—Commonwealth government and SOCOG expenditure—to use these as a central part of the games just went.The Olympic Club put outs its last edition not long before the games. When I looked at that booklet during the games period, I discovered that Alan Bond's boxing kangaroo had been restored to a central place and that it was going to be a significant mascot for the Olympics. The fact is that Mr Bond spent time in one of Her Majesty's prisons in Western Australia and that he was in different circumstances in 1983. Although the boxing kangaroo was a reasonable symbol for those yachting races, it is not a significant and central symbol for Australia. But we saw our athletes at the opening ceremony clutching their little Alan Bond boxing kangaroos instead of clutching the mascots that had been pushed for the previous four years at great expense. I would like to know who made the decision in SOCOG to pour down the drain all of the money that was spent on developing mascots for the opening and closing ceremonies as part of our indicia and images. It was a pure waste of money. In revenue terms, that money could have been directed back to Australia and back to our games effort, if they had continued to support and use the mascots. I think conspiracy may be alive. (Time expired)2155012:35:0021550Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—Last month I had the pleasure of launching my eighth Green Corps program in the electorate of Forde. I was absolutely amazed at the young Australians who commit themselves to preserving and restoring Australia's natural heritage. In the first three years of the Green Corps program, teams around the country—and there are 6,000 young Australians who have volunteered to do this work—have planted 2.4 million trees, collected over 2.7 tonnes of native seed, constructed 350 kilometres of walking track, conducted 1,791 environmental surveys, propagated 613,000 seedlings, constructed 800 kilometres of fencing, performed 23,000 hectares of weeding, completed 785 kilometres of walking track and maintenance and received 261,000 hours of accredited training. This is a fantastic result over a three-year period and it has made a real difference to our fragile, natural environment. I would like to personally thank all those young Australians for a job well done.Yesterday, the shadow minister for forestry and conservation, Laurie Ferguson, made some very wild and inaccurate claims about land clearing in Queensland. Mr Ferguson did get one thing right; that is, the latest figures that show an average land clearing rate of 423,000 hectares a year for the past three years are simply unsustainable and appalling. But rather than placing the blame where it truly lies, and that is with the Beattie Labor government in Queensland, Mr Ferguson tried to play very clever politics here yesterday. That is typical Labor: politics are more important than principle.I would like to get some facts on the record. The Howard government has committed $1.5 billion through the Natural Heritage Trust for environmental and sustainable agricultural projects. Already, $1 billion has been invested in almost 10,000 projects across Australia and more than 300,000 Australians have been involved in community project funding by the trust. In addition to this, the Prime Minister this week announced the Commonwealth's action plan on salinity and water quality, committing a further $700 million to environment and natural resources management issues. Commonwealth leadership on these issues is not in question.What is sadly lacking is any form of leadership or commitment from the Beattie government. Mr Beattie raced through some land clearing control laws on the last sitting day of the Queensland parliament last year. He did not adequately consult Queensland farmers and land-holders, especially the ones in my electorate, and as a result did not get their support. Then he took the opportunity to grandstand by refusing to implement key parts of the law unless the Commonwealth paid more than $100 million to farmers in compensation. Mr Beattie offered absolutely nothing to our farmers. He did put up a package of funding for administration and to refund areas that had been cut by his previous budgets, but there was not one cent earmarked for direct compensation to Queensland farmers. Land management is a constitutional responsibility of the states. Every other mainland state has introduced land clearing controls and they paid for it out of their own pockets. For example, South Australia has paid out more than $80 million to land-holders. It is only the Beattie government that wants to duck responsibilities for this issue and the environment will suffer while he continues to do so. Mr Beattie ought to remind himself that his members were elected to fix state problems and not just to fix electoral rolls.I have a few questions that my constituents ask me on a daily basis: why hasn't the Beattie government fixed overcrowding at the Beaudesert High School and provided the urgently needed high school at Jimboomba immediately? Why hasn't the Beattie government fixed the long waiting list for elective surgery at my local hospitals? Why hasn't the Beattie government fixed the traffic jams and constant delays on the Browns Plains-Jimboomba main road—a road that was started by the previous government and never completed by the Beattie government? (Time expired)2155112:40:0021551Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Tomorrow—Friday, 13 October—is Cystic Fibrosis National Red Rose Ribbon Day. Cystic Fibrosis Australia have asked members and senators to wear the red rose ribbon on this day because we are not sitting tomorrow. Their letter states:The money raised from Red Rose Ribbon Day, along with other donations, goes into the Australian Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust. Each year the Trust calls for applications for funding of research projects which are assessed and graded in order of importance. Naturally we would like to fund them all, but lack of resources will force us to choose only a few.I think the explanation given by Cystic Fibrosis Australia about the disease is well worth reading into the record before I make some personal remarks about a former student of mine. They state:Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is a genetically transmitted, incurable condition which affects primarily the lungs and digestive system.It is the most common serious genetic condition affecting Australian children today. Almost a million Australians carry the CF gene. One in every 2,500 babies is born with CF in Australia. Although treatment has improved in recent years and many people are living into their thirties, the life expectancy of a person with CF is still limited.The CF gene, first identified by Canadian scientists in 1989, causes normal mucus to change to a thick, sticky substance which traps bacteria, eventually causing death through lung or gastro-intestinal disease.Carriers of the gene have no features of the condition themselves but they pass the abnormality on to their children. If both parents carry the CF gene, there is a 1 in 4 chance with every pregnancy of the baby being born with CF. People who have CF must have regular, intensive therapy to combat the build up of mucus in the lungs. This can include daily inhalation therapy and chest percussion. Most must also take fifty enzyme replacement tablets daily to aid digestion. Children with chronic infections caused by CF often require frequent admission to hospital for treatment. If the child is treated at home such intensive regimes place considerable strain on the child and the family. In wearing this ribbon today and in reading this into the parliamentary record, I wish to support the initiative of Cystic Fibrosis Australia and the Cystic Fibrosis National Red Rose Ribbon Day. It has a particular point and purpose for me, not in relation to anyone in my family but in relation to a well-loved student of mine in years past when I taught at De La Salle, Bankstown. I taught history and English to one of the brightest, one of the most brilliant, one of the funniest and one of the cheekiest children—Warwick Love. Warwick was a wonderful boy. Slight in appearance and a victim of CF from birth, he went through enormous trauma, yet day after day—unless there was an impossible problem caused by his condition—Warwick was there and was in a position to give his best. He survived until he was 27. He went through school, became a lawyer and practised law. He gave to his family, and to everyone who knew him, enormous joy because he was such a brilliant and funny person. I miss him greatly and I miss greatly not being told that his funeral was on. He was one of those particular children that it was a great pleasure to teach because they were one of life's great treasures. I commend the actions of Cystic Fibrosis Australia to the Main Committee and to the community and, in particular, in memory of Warwick, who was such a wonderful person.Main Committee adjourned at 12.40 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing21553The following answers to questions were circulated:21553(Question No. 1414)141421553Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 April 2000: (1) Is he considering a submission from the Australian Defence Force (ADF) for more extensive assistance for ADF spouse employment: if so, when (a) was work on the proposal commenced, (b) did it reach his office and (c) will he complete his consideration. (2) What sum has been allocated by the Defence Community Organisation for this purpose and what sum has been spent. (3) Has this function recently reviewed by his Department, if so, will he publicly release the review; if not why not.21553Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A submission outlining Defence Community Organisation strategies for ADF spouse employment has been considered by my office. (a) Work on this proposal commenced in June 1999. An updated proposal was received in March 2000. (b) The proposal reached my office in July 1999. (c) The consideration was completed on 3 May 2000. (2) During the 1999-2000 financial year the Defence Community Organisation has allocated a sum of $500,000 to provide assistance with ADF spouse employment. Of this amount, $171,102 was spent last financial year. (3) On 3 April 2000, the Australian National Audit Office released a report titled “Retention of Military Personnel” which recommended that Defence establish systems to continuously evaluate the cost-effectiveness of quality of life measures designed to reduce the separation incentives of personnel. Included among these quality of life measures are issues relating to the employment of ADF Spouses.21553(Question No. 1675)167521553Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 June 2000: (1) How many individual transactions with individual members of the public were conducted by each agency in the Minister's portfolio in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000, and if available, what are the forecast figures for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04. (2) What definition of transaction is used to determine these figures. (3) What proportion of these transactions were or are expected to be conducted online. (4) What was the total cost of administering these transactions for each agency in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04. (5) What was the total cost of administering the online transactions in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.21553Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: While it does deliver a range of Commonwealth grants and payments, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and its portfolio agencies are primarily providers of policy advice to the Prime Minister and Ministers Assisting. However, online delivery of service is a firm Government commitment that the department and portfolio agencies are working to meet. As a result of the Government's Online Strategy, Online Action Plans are currently being prepared, supported by more detailed project plans for the implementation of e-procurement and e-publishing. I am advised that, each agency within the portfolio is separately examining ways in which business might most effectively be conducted online. Audits are taking place of information and services provided currently and proposed for the future. This information will be integral in meeting the Government's commitment. The answers detailed below have been provided by the portfolio agencies where data is readily available and on the basis of the definitions stated.Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC) (1) (a) nil, (b) 4, (c) - (f) nil. (2) The definition of transaction used to determine these figures is “a good or service sold to an individual for consideration”. (3) Nil. (4) (a) nil, (b) $30, (c) - (f) nil. (5) Not applicable.Office of National Assessments (ONA) (1) (a) - (f) nil. (2) The definition of transaction used to determine these figures is “a good or service sold to an individual for consideration”. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) to (f) nil. (5) Not applicable.Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (OIGIS) (1) (a) to (f) nil. (2) The definition of transaction used to determine these figures is “a good or service sold to an individual for consideration”. (3) Nil. (4) (a) and (f) nil. (5) Not applicable.Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (1) (a) to (f) nil. (2) The definition of transaction used to determine these figures is “a good or service sold to an individual for consideration”. (3) Nil. (4) (a) to (f) nil. (5) Not applicable.Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) (1) (a) to (f) nil. (2) The definition of transaction used to determine these figures is “a good or service sold to an individual for consideration”. (3) Nil. (4) (a) to (f) nil. (5) Not applicable.Public Service and Merit Protection Commission (PSMPC) (1) (a) 7, (b) 13, (c) - (f) nil. (2) The definition of transaction used to determine these figures is “a good or service sold to an individual for consideration”. (3) Nil. (4) Estimated cost of administering the transactions were (a) $175, (b) $325, (c) not applicable, (d) not applicable, (e) not applicable and (f) not applicable. (5) Not applicable.Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General (1) (a) 378, (b) 422, (c) to (f) estimates for future years are not available but are expected to be of a similar order. (2) The definition of transaction used to determine these figures is “a good or service sold to an individual for consideration”. The transactions referred to in (1) above comprise a small number of additional and replacement medals and insignia that are sold to Honours and Awards recipients. (3) Nil. (4) Approximately $1500. (5) Not applicable.Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) ATSIC deals principally with indigenous organisations rather than with individuals. While individuals may contact an office of ATSIC with a query, the National Media and Marketing Office only keep records of such queries, when the query is directed to that office. (1) (a) 10,250, (b) 14,140, (c) - (f) nil. (2) A transaction is any query by phone to, or physical attendance at, the National Media and Marketing Office counter. (3) Nil. (4) No analysis of the administrative cost of these queries is available. (5) Not applicable.21555(Question No. 1699)169921555Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 June 2000: (1) What is the justification for the Government's decision in the 2000-2001 Budget to introduce an additional 0.036 cents per litre to the aviation fuel excise to fund the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) activities. (2) Why is the levy imposed on the airlines, who are the consumers of the services, whereas the airports, the suppliers of the service, are not charged. (3) Why are the airlines, the consumers of the airports' pricing arrangements paying the levy whereas for telecommunications and postal services, the ACCC levy is imposed on Telstra and Australia Post, that is the suppliers of the services the subject of ACCC prices monitoring. (4) Was consideration given in determining the levy to reconcile actual levy collections against the $900 000 that is supposed to be raised for the ACCC. (5) Will the levy result in increased levy collections and provide a windfall to the Government, given higher than expected airline activity and increased fuel usage.21555Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The framework for economic regulation of airports has been designed to achieve an appropriate balance between public interest and private commercial objectives. The ACCC has primary responsibility for implementing and administering the framework of economic regulation at the privatised airports and Sydney airport. The additional levy on fuel excise is to fund the ACCC's activities. (2) An increase in the excise on aviation turbine fuel is an appropriate means of providing revenue for airport regulation as it is targeted towards the main beneficiaries of airport regulation (the airlines) and is an administratively efficient method of cost recovery. The legislative and administrative arrangements are already in place and there will be no additional ongoing administrative costs for the Government or the aviation industry. (3) In the telecommunications industry the regulatory costs of the ACCC are met by licence fees imposed on all carriers, not just Telstra. With respect to the proposed postal services access regime, while the ACCC's costs of regulation will be recovered from Australia Post in the first instance, Australia Post will be permitted to recover this cost from entities accessing its postal network. In both instances the regulatory costs are passed on by the regulated firms to the beneficiaries of regulation in those industries. (4) Yes. (5) The increase of 0.036 cents per litre in excise and customs duty on aviation turbine fuel is estimated to raise $3.6 million over four years. If actual revenue raised through this measure does not meet expectations adjustments can be made in outlying years.21556(Question No. 1709)170921556Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 28 June 2000: (1) What are the names of the Australian delegates to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conferences in 1998, 1999 and 2000. (2) How did Australian (a) Government; (b) employers and (c) workers delegates vote on each convention and recommendation adopted by each of the Conferences. (3) To what positions did Australia seek election at the Conferences. (4) Which members of the Far East Asia and Pacific sub-region were elected as members and deputy members of the ILO Governing Body at the Conferences. (5) Where and when will the next regional meeting be held. (6) What ILO Conventions have been considered for ratification by Australia since 1997 and when were they considered. (7) By what process and with what outcome were the Conventions considered.21556Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows. (1) The Australian delegates accredited to each International Labour Conference (ILC) were as follows: 1998 - Mr Tom Fisher and Mr Alex Anderson (Government delegates); Ms Robyn Kingston (Government adviser, Australia-based); Mr Eric Van Der Wal and Mr John Campbell (Government advisers, Geneva-based); Mr Bryan Noakes (Employer delegate); Mr John Sutton (Worker delegate); and Mr Alan Matheson (Worker adviser). 1999 - Mr Phil Drever and Mr Alex Anderson (Government delegates); Mr Eric Van Der Wal and Mr Les Luck (Government advisers, Geneva-based); Mr Bryan Noakes (Employer delegate) Mr Adrian Dangerfield (Employer adviser); and Mr Alan Matheson AM (Worker delegate). . The Minister For Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business the Hon Peter Reith MP, attended the Conference in 1999. In accordance with usual practice when the Minister attends, the Opposition spokesman (Mr Arch Bevis MP) and the Democrats' spokesman (Senator Andrew Murray) on industrial relations also attended. The NSW Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Jeff Shaw, attended at the cost of the NSW Government. . Until 2000, the Ambassador was accredited as a Government adviser, as a diplomatic courtesy. Despite this accreditation, the Ambassador was not a working member of the delegation. 2000 - Mr Phil Drever and Mr John Stewart (Government delegates); Ms Jennifer Bushell (Government adviser, Australia-based); Mr Bryan Noakes (Employer delegate); and Mr Alan Matheson AM (Worker delegate). (2) The Australian employer and worker delegates are members of the employer and worker groups. These groups generally vote as blocs. Accordingly, in this part of the answer, references are made to how the employer and worker groups voted, except where voting did not occur in blocs. The 1998 ILC adopted Recommendation No 189, General Conditions to Stimulate Job Creation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, 1998. The Australian Government delegates, the employer group and the worker group voted in plenary for the Recommendation. The 1999 ILC adopted Convention No 182, Worst Forms of Child Labour, 1999 and Recommendation No 190, Worst Forms of Child Labour, 1999. The Australian Government delegates, the employer group and the worker group voted in plenary for both the Convention and the Recommendation. The 2000 ILC adopted a revised Convention and Recommendation on Maternity Protection (official text and titles yet to be finalised). The Australian Government delegates and the worker group voted in plenary for the Convention and the Recommendation. The employer group did not vote as a bloc; Mr Noakes abstained from voting on both instruments. The 2000 ILC also voted to withdraw five obsolete Conventions pending their later abrogation. These Conventions were: Hours of Work (Coal Mines) Convention, 1931 (No 31) Hours of Work (Coal Mines) Convention (Revised), 1935 (No 46) Reduction of Hours of Work (Public Works) Convention, 1936 (No 51) Reduction of Hours of Work (Textiles) Convention, 1937 (No 61) Migration for Employment Convention, 1939 (No 66) The Australian Government delegates, the employer group and the worker group voted in plenary for the withdrawal of the Conventions. (3) Mr Alex Anderson was elected member of the Drafting Committee of the Committee on Child Labour at the 1999 ILC. Mr Bryan Noakes was elected Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Contract Labour at the 1998 ILC. (4) Elections for the Governing Body of the ILO are conducted every three years. At the 1999 ILC, the Republic of Korea was elected as the titular member representing the Far East Asia and Pacific sub-region for the period 1999-2002, and New Zealand was elected deputy member. (5) The 13th Asian Regional Meeting of the ILO will be held in Bangkok on 25-28 September 2001. (6) and (7) Under the consultative arrangements agreed by the Commonwealth, States and Territories, the Commonwealth consults the States and Territories before any decision is taken on whether to ratify an ILO Convention. The official text of the relevant instruments is first sent to State and Territory governments and the ACCI and ACTU, who are asked for their views on whether the Convention should be ratified. The governments are also asked to provide full law and practice reports, identifying areas of non-compliance (if any). The information provided is used for the preparation of a tabling report detailing action proposed to be taken, including whether or not the Convention will be ratified. This report is presented to Parliament, together with copies of the instruments. Under Article 19 of the ILO Constitution, the submission of the texts of new instruments to the `competent authority' (in Australia's case, the Federal Parliament) is required within 18 months of their adoption by the ILC. Following tabling, the Government is then required to report to the ILO on action proposed to be taken in respect of the new instruments. It is in this context that ILO Conventions and Recom-mendations adopted since 1997 have been considered with regard to possible ratification. Convention No 181, Private Employment Agencies, 1997 and Recommendation No 188, Private Employment Agencies, 1997 were adopted by the 1997 ILC. The instruments were tabled in the House of Representatives and the Senate on 8 December 1999. The tabling report stated: Taking into account the comments received and the significant identified difficulties with compliance with the Convention, and that ratification may pose an unnecessary regulatory burden on a number of governments because of the mandatory prescriptive nature of the instruments, the Commonwealth has determined that the new ILO instruments concerning Private Employment Agencies are not suitable for acceptance. At this stage, Australia therefore does not propose to consider ratification of the Convention. Convention No 182, Worst Form of Child Labour, adopted by the 1999 ILC, is expected to be tabled in the Parliament by 17 December 2000. Consultations with State and Territory governments are proceeding. The new Convention and Recommendation on Maternity Protection are expected to be tabled in the Parliament before 15 December 2001. The consultation process will commence once the official text of the instruments is finalised by the ILO and they are received by the Australian Government.21558(Question No. 1782)178221558Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Did he request a report from the Navy into the awarding of bravery medals and awards from the Westralia tragedy; if so, when did he request the report. (2) Has he received the report; if so, when did he receive it. (3) Will he make the report publicly available; if not, why not. (4) Were families advised in writing that they could write to the Chief of Navy about the matter; if so, when; if not, why not. (5) What action has be taken in response to the report. (6) Has the citation awarded to Leading Seaman Bradley Meek been upgraded; if not, why not.21558Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. 12 May 2000. (2) Chief of Navy's office briefed my office on 17 May 2000. (3) All documentation relating to Honours and Awards, regardless of the incident, is classified `Honours-in-Confidence' and, in accordance with Departmental privacy guidelines, cannot be released. (4) Since the tragedy on 5 May 1998, the families have been advised on three occasions in writing that they could write to the Chief of Navy on matters concerning the awarding of bravery medals and awards. (5) Mr Meek was advised in a letter from the Chief of the Navy dated 2 June 2000 that he could make a representation to the Australian Bravery and Decorations Council (ABDC) concerning the consideration of Leading Seaman Bradley Meeks' performance. (6) This is a matter for Government House and the ABDC.21558(Question No. 1837)183721558Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 16 August 2000: In 1999-2000 in the Minister's Department, what was the (a) average salary paid in each Australian Public Service Salary band and (b) average staffing level (average number of employees) for each band. 21559Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The average staffing levels for each classification group for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs have been obtained by averaging the staffing figures at 30/6/1999 and at 30/6/2000. The same methodology has been used to obtain average salaries for each classification level for the 1999/2000 year. Figures rounded to whole amounts. Classification GroupAverage staffing levelAverage salaryAPS level 1135$28,350APS level 2163$30,485APS level 3576$34,785APS level 4451$38,647APS level 5457$42,809APS level 6672$49,278Executive level 1442$60,364Executive level 2156$72,129SES band 124$84,555SES bands 2 & 38$108,34521559(Question No. 1839)183921559Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 16 August 2000: In 1999-2000 what was the (a) average salary paid in each Australian Public Service salary band, and (b) average staffing level (average number of employees) for each band.21559Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:APS Salary Band(a) Average DVA Salary(b) Average DVA StaffingLevelAPS 1$2776485.6APS 2$31621272.4APS-3$35 160427.4APS 4$39383240.8APS 5$43424483.2APS 6$49848497.4EXEC LEVEL 1$61641263.8EXEC LEVEL 2$76105142.421559(Question No. 1844)184421559Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 17 August 2000: (1) Is Environment Australia devising a new definition of fuel. (2) What are the uses of such a definition. (3) Will a new definition aid with the detection of contaminated fuel.21560Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. Environment Australia will devise a definition for the purposes of new fuel quality legislation. (2) The definition will set out which products are `fuel' for the purpose of the legislation, and standards can then be applied to those products. The main objective with respect to fuel quality standards is to reduce pollutant emissions from vehicles, and subsequently improve urban air quality and human health. As a result, the initial intent of the standards is to address fuel specifications relevant to the environmental performance of the transport sector. It has, however, also been argued that operability standards should be included, as they are responsible for proper engine function and fundamental to the maintenance of vehicle emissions performance. (3) The standards set the outer boundaries for fuel quality. Most recent cases of large scale fuel adulteration have been about excise evasion or cost cutting, and there is already legislation in place to address tax evasion. The Fuel Quality Standards legislation will, when it commences, provide an additional means to address deliberate or reckless supply of fuel that does not meet the standards.21560(Question No. 1846)184621560Irwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin83ZFowlerALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 2000: What sum has been allocated to (a) public and (b) private schools in the electoral division of Fowler by the Commonwealth Government in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997- 98, (iii) 1998-99, (iv) 1999-2000 and (v) 2000-2001.21560Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Commonwealth funding to NSW government schools is provided as block grants to government school authorities. The Commonwealth has no direct role in the distribution of this funding to individual government schools. This year in NSW the Commonwealth will be providing a total of $649 million for government schools, $33 million more than last year and $121 million more than 1996. In 2001 it is estimated that the total direct Commonwealth funding to NSW government schools will be over $678 million, an increase of 4.4% over the year 2000. For the same period, the NSW State Government contribution to NSW government schools is estimated to increase by only 1.9%. State Governments also apply a greater proportion of Commonwealth-sourced Goods and Services Tax revenues to government schools than they apply to non-government schools. Funding tables for the electorate of Fowler are attached. Electorate of FowlerSummary of Identifiable Commonwealth Grants for the period 1997-2000NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS1996*1997*1998*1999*2000*$$$$$General Recurrent GrantsGeneral Recurrent Basic per Capita Grants11,019,58012,286,56614,664,41220,567,70121,000,388Capital GrantsGeneral Element - BGA Projects400,0001,608,7372,382,7754,807,6641,436,881Total Non-Government Schools Funding11,419,58013,895,30317,047,18725,375,36522,437,269GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS19961997199819992000$$$$$Capital GrantsGovernment Capital Grants Programme1,150,0001,990,0001,800,000TOTAL COMMONWEALTH FUNDING12,569,58013,895,30319,037,18727,175,36522,437,269* Amounts are in calendar years not financial yearsElectorate of FowlerCommonwealth Capital Funding to Non-government SchoolsSchool Name19961997199819992000Total$$$$$$All Saints Catholic Girl's College, Liverpool1,838,0001,838,000Freeman Catholic High School, Bonnyrigg400,000773,0651,173,065Good Samaritan Catholic College, Hinchinbrook700,5251,798,4752,499,000John the Baptist Primary School, Bonnyrigg835,67267,250902,922Our Lady of Mount Carmel School, Bonnyrigg1,615,0001,615,000Sacred Heart School, Cabramatta571,189567,0001,138,189St Therese School, Sadleir600,000869,8811,469,881Total Capital Funding 400,0001,608,7372,382,7754,807,6641,436,88110,636,057Electorate of FowlerCommonwealth General Recurrent Funding to Non-government SchoolsSchool Name19961997199819992000Total$$$$$$All Saints Catholic Boys' College, Liverpool1,204,6441,297,6341,595,1772,188,939*2,236,264*8,522,658All Saints Catholic Girl's College, Liverpool1,452,1981,570,8281,747,0582,223,629*2,271,704*9,265,417All Saints' Catholic Primary School, Liverpool938,6131,085,7121,263,6932,046,800*2,088,080*7,422,898Freeman Catholic High School, Bonnyrigg2,278,7032,520,5153,028,0234,207,897*4,298,872*16,334,010Good Samaritan Catholic College, Hinchinbrook343,431*350,856*694,287John the Baptist Primary School, Bonnyrigg834,408988,5611,195,6321,977,780*2,017,668*7,014,049Mary Mackillop College, Wakeley1,885,1712,130,1132,565,0843,347,585*3,419,960*13,347,913Our Lady of Mount Carmel School, Bonnyrigg992,1081,158,9901,301,4492,023,000*2,063,800*7,539,347Sacred Heart School, Cabramatta866,219894,5551,199,1151,270,920*1,296,552*5,527,361St Therese School, Sadleir56,516639,658769,181937,720*956,632*3,870,707Totals11,019,58012,286,56614,664,41220,567,70121,000,38879,538,647* Annual Entitlement - final payment figures not yet availableElectorate of FowlerCommonwealth Capital Funding to Government SchoolsSchool Name19961997199819992000Total$$$$$$Hinchinbrook Primary School, Hoxton Park1,150,0001,150,000Greenway Park Public School, Carnes Hill1,990,0001,800,0003,790,000Total Capital Funding1,150,0001,990,0001,800,0004,940,00021562(Question No. 1870)187021562Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 August 2000:(1) Has his attention been drawn to a report on ABC Radio at 8.15AM on Friday 11 August that Pakistan had successfully tested an intermediate range ballistic missile; if so, what are the regional implications of Pakistan's acquisition of offensive missile systems.(2) Is he able to say whether this offensive missile technology was provided by the People's Republic of China; if so, has the Australian Government raised the issue of the provision of this technology with the People's Republic of China.21562Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) I am aware of a report on ABC Radio at 8.15AM on Friday 11 August which comments on alleged missile cooperation between Pakistan and China. Pakistan does not possess intermediate range ballistic missiles. Pakistan has not tested a medium range ballistic missile, the longest range in its inventory, since April 1999. The development of ballistic missiles in already tense regions such as South Asia further destabilises regional security. (2) I am aware of reports that China has been responsible for the proliferation of missile technology to Pakistan. In regular bilateral dialogues, the Government has consistently urged China to refrain from the proliferation of missiles and missile technology in the interest of global and regional security. 21563(Question No. 1873)187321563Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 29 August 2000: (1) How many workers in each State and Territory who have lost their employee entitlements through company insolvency, have received financial payments contributed from the Regional Assistance Programme and the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme, with the result that the employees received 100 per cent of their legally accrued entitlements. (2) What are the names of the companies concerned.21563Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) No employees in any State or Territory who have lost their employee entitlements through company insolvency, have received 100 per cent of their outstanding employee entitlements from the Regional Assistance Programme and the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme.21563(Question No. 1892)189221563Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources upon notice, on 30 August 2000: (1) Further to the answer to part (3) of question No. 1665 (Hansard, 28 August 2000, page 17725) concerning vehicle import schemes, (a) has the number of eligible Japanese models decreased from 122 to 20 under the new Specialist and Enthusiast Vehicle Scheme (SEVS), (b) will the increase in the annual cap for passenger motor vehicles from 25 to 100 to enhance the viability of small operators conflict with the decrease in eligible Japanese models, (c) what is the expected impact of the new registered workshop regime on small business and employment, (d) has he produced a working model which demonstrates the viability of the registered workshop regime and (e) what is the justification for the statement that the Government believes that affected businesses will have ample opportunity to adjust to the new SEVS arrangements. (2) Further to the answer to part (4) of the question No. 1665, (a) did Low Volume (LV) imports peak at approximately 15,000 vehicles per year in 1999-2000, (b) did Full Volume (FV) imports experience record sales in 1999-2000 and (c) given that LV imports have peaked whilst FV imports continue to rise, do the SEVS regulations place an anti-competitive restriction on LV imports. (3) Further to the answer to part (6) of the question No. 1665, why have further restrictions been imposed on the LV industry when market forces are controlling the current volumes at approximately 15,000 units per annum. (4) Further to the answer to part (8) of the question No. 1665, why is a subsidy being provided to the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, whilst the Government is effectively closing down the LV industry. (5) Further to the answer to part (9) of the question No. 1665, which of the Diesel 4WDs are eligible 4WDs. (6) Further to the answer to part (13) of the question No. 1665, has the Office of Regulation Review given its approval that the Regulatory Impact Statement was conducted in accordance with the prescribed guidelines in demonstrating transparency to all stakeholders. (7) Further to the answer to part (14) of the question No. 1665, has the level of imports now stabilised at approximately 15,000 units per annum. (8) Is the LV volume of 14,437 vehicles in 1999 large enough to have an impact on the mainstream motor trade. (9) What quantity and quality of LV imports would need to be met in order for there to be a demonstrable impact on the Government's and the Motor Vehicle Standards Act's environmental and safety objectives. 21564Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Consistent with our international trade (WTO) obligations, SEVS does not discriminate on the basis of country of origin. The source country of vehicles is not relevant to the treatment under SEVS. As indicated in part (9) to question No. 1665 (Hansard, 28 August 2000, page 17725), some 140 vehicle models from various source countries are expected to be eligible initially under SEVS. (b) As noted in part (3) of question No. 1665, the increase in the annual cap for PMVs from 25 to 100 vehicles enables importers to apportion fixed costs over higher volumes. The number of vehicle models that will be eligible under SEVS, at any one time, will depend upon model availability and the importing activities of mainstream suppliers. (c) The Government recognises that there may be additional costs to some small businesses involved in the move to the registered workshop regime under the SEVS. Stakeholder representatives have been involved in consultations with officials on ways to minimise these costs while maintaining the integrity of the workshop regime. (d) The registered workshop regime announced by the Government is consistent with the review of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 (MVSA). All major stakeholder groups supported this approach. To facilitate the operation of the registered workshop regime, the Government has asked the SEVS administrator (the Department of Transport and Regional Services) to make allowance for the carryover of genuine vehicle test evidence to the new scheme, backed by anti-fraud measures, to ensure that the used vehicle trade is not subject to unnecessary and avoidable red tape. The administrator will also be required, as part of his consultation with key stakeholders on the SEVS implementation, to examine means to minimise the cost of participation in the registered workshop regime while maintaining the requirement for cost recovery. The MVSA review recommended a reasonable transition to the new arrangements. (e) See response to (d) (2) (a) Entries under the LVS reached record levels in 1999-2000 with approximately 16,000 entries approved. Between 1993 and 1999, entries under the LVS have risen at an annual average rate of 55 per cent. (b) New vehicle imports entered under normal arrangements declined by 2.3 per cent to 503,000 in 1999-2000. (c) Low volume vehicles enter Australia under concessional arrangements compared with vehicles marketed under normal arrangements. Although the Government has modified the conditions attached to those concessional arrangements a system of low volume entry remains in place. (3) The interaction of supply and demand will ultimately determine the level of activity in any market. The rationale for the introduction of SEVS is to provide a regulatory structure capable of better achieving the safety and environmental objectives of the MVSA and equity between operators in different segments of the vehicle market. (4) The Government is not prohibiting the importation of used vehicles under concessional arrangements. The LVS is being replaced with the SEVS. The objectives behind the introduction of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme are contained in part (8) of question No. 1665. (5) The Government is currently aware of 10 four wheel drive models that are expected to meet SEVS eligibility requirements on merits other than engine type. They are the: Dodge Durango; Ibex 240,250, 280; Isuzu Mu (Ute); Isuzu Vehicross; Jeep Commanche (Ute); Lexus RX 300; Mitsubishi RVR; Nissan Atlas Condor (Ute); SVM 3000 4x4; and Toyota Harrier. Petrol and diesel engine variants (if produced) of these models will be eligible for entry under SEVS. (6) As noted in part (13) of question No. 1665, the response remains the same. (7) In 1999, used vehicles imported under LVS grew by 86.4 per cent to 14,437. See part (2) (a). (8) Yes, it is for example the number of vehicles entered under the LVS in 1999 is equivalent to the whole of the new motor vehicle market in Tasmania. (9) The integrity of national safety and emission standards under the MVSA will be maintained, providing vehicles introduced to the Australian market under concessional arrangements remain low. SEVS will ensure that the Government's environmental and safety objectives set out under the MVSA are adhered to.21565(Question No. 1943)194321565Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 2000: (1) Further to his decision to award a proportion of permanent visa positions to the temporary-entry visa scheme in the year 1999-2000, how many of the 10 000 permanent visa positions were awarded to the temporary entry protection visa scheme. (2) Were the remaining permanent visa positions filled in the 1999-2000; if not, what happened to those positions. (3) If temporary protection visa recipients are awarded permanent residency in three years time, will he guarantee that they will not be taken from that year's refugee program, but will be counted as part of the 1999-2000 program. (4) If he can give this guarantee in relation to the 1999-2000 program, can he also give a guarantee that such a practice will be carried out in relation to the refugee programs for 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003.21565Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At the beginning of the 1999-2000 program year there were 12,841 places available under the Humanitarian Program. This consisted of: - the allocation of 12,000 places decided by the Government; - 841 unused placed carried over from the previous year and places of people who had been granted a visa but who did not use the visa to travel to Australia. There were 2,458 protection visas granted in 1999-2000 of which 873 were temporary protection visas (TPVs). (2) In 1999-2000 there were 7,502 offshore grants and 2,458 onshore grants. The remaining 2,881 unfilled places were brought forward into 2000-01. (3) Recipients of temporary protection visas are counted against the Humanitarian Program in the year of grant of the TPV. Should a TPV holder apply for a permanent protection visa (PPV) and be found after 30 months to still require protection and is granted a PPV, the PPV holder will not be counted again in the Humanitarian Program. (4) Please see answer to Question (3).21565(Question No. 1948)194821565Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 7 September 2000: (1) With respect to the Sydney Airport pricing proposal, why was the industry consultative meeting scheduled for 10 August 2000 cancelled at the request of Sydney Airports Corporation Ltd (SACL). (2) When will the Revised Draft Proposal be available for review by the airlines. (3) Will the airlines be guaranteed an opportunity to review and comment on the SACL revised Draft Proposal before it is submitted to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for determination. (4) To what extent is the Minister's office and the Minister's Department consulted in finalising the SACL pricing proposals. (5) Should the SACL include as part of its pricing proposal a Service Level Agreement with airport users, including compensation to airlines for any failure by SACL to deliver services to the specified standard.21566Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) The Revised Draft Proposal was not available prior to 10 August, and in line with the agreed process, SACL advised airlines that the meeting would not proceed. SACL have undertaken to reschedule the meeting once a firm release date for the Draft Proposal is known. (2) SACL will provide the airlines with a Revised Draft Proposal as soon as practicable. (3) SACL have been consulting with airlines regarding its draft aeronautical pricing proposal since December 1999. SACL has committed to the airlines that it will continue consulting with them while the ACCC commences its formal consideration of the proposal. (4) The Minister's Office and the Minister's Department have been consulted in finalising the SACL pricing proposals to the extent required by Part 1.3.G of the Governance Arrangements for Commonwealth Government Business Enterprises (GBEs), which provides that all GBEs must consult with Shareholder Ministers on matters of significance. (5) SACL is committed to developing Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with its customers, and has initiated discussions on developing them with airlines. It is appropriate for SACL to seek a determination on the level for aeronautical charges before reaching Service Level Agreements with its customers.21566(Question No. 1963)196321566Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 7 September 2000: (1) What is the current status of Australia's trade relations with (a) Romania, (b) Croatia and (c) Hungary. (2) What are the current levels of imports and exports to or from those countries. (3) How do the levels compare, on a year-by-year basis, since 1995. (4) Is he satisfied with the current situation of trade relations with these nations. (5) What initiatives have been implemented by him to improve these trade relations. (6) Are there any identifiable problems in trade with nations of Eastern Europe.21566Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australia's level of trade with Romania, Croatia and Hungary is modest. In 1999, total two-way merchandise trade with these three countries was valued at: (a) Romania - $82m, Australia's 67th most important partner for merchandise trade; (b) Croatia - $11m, Australia's 118th most important partner for merchandise trade and (c) Hungary - $71m, Australia's 68th most important partner for merchandise trade. (2) In 1999, imports from, and exports to, these countries were valued at: (a) Romania - $8m (mainly clothing, footwear, electrical machinery, tractors) and $74m (mainly coal, other ores, iron ore, wool,) respectively; (b) Croatia - $9m (mainly food products) and $2 m (mainly bovine meat) respectively; (c) Hungary - $66m (mainly computers, motor vehicle parts, electrical machinery, rubber tyres, radio broadcast receivers) and $5m (mainly telecommunications equipment, wool, computer parts) respectively. (3) The levels of imports from, and exports to, Romania, Croatia and Hungary, have fluctuated on a yearly basis since 1995: (a) Romania Imports: 1995 - $12.3m; 1996 - $10.4m; 1997 - $8.1m; 1998 - $7m; 1999 - $8m. Imports over the period between 1994 and 1999 have declined by a trend rate of 9.9%. Exports: 1995 - $86.2m; 1996 - $104.8m; 1997 - $105.3m; 1998 - $82.3m; 1999 - $74m. Exports over the period between 1994 and 1999 have increased by a trend rate of 6.4%. (b) Croatia Imports: 1995 - $8.5m; 1996 - $7.0m; 1997 - $7.4m; 1998 - $8.8m; 1999 - $9m. Imports over the period between 1994 and 1999 have increased by a trend rate of 0.6%. Exports: 1995 - $12.6m; 1996 - $3.1m; 1997 - $12.3m; 1998 - $7.1m; 1999 - $2m. Exports over the period between 1994 and 1999 have declined by a trend rate of 9.5%. (c) Hungary Imports: 1995 - $38.9m; 1996 - $30.1m; 1997 - $45m; 1998 - $67.2m; 1999 - $66m. Imports over the period between 1994 and 1999 have increased by a trend rate of 16.0%. Exports: 1995 - $4.3m; 1996 - $5.8m; 1997 - $8.5m; 1998 - $12.8m; 1999 - $5m. Exports over the period between 1994 and 1999 have increased by a trend rate of 12.3%. (4) Australia's current trade flows with Romania, Croatia and Hungary should be seen in the context of these countries' gradual transition from centralised command economies to market-based economies. The Australian Government would, of course, like to see the levels of trade expand. There are prospects this may occur, as the Governments of these countries continue to implement structural reforms and integrate their economies fully with the global economic system, including their prospective accession, in due course, to the European Union. (5) The Australian Government has taken several initiatives in recent years to enhance trade with Romania, Croatia and Hungary. In October 1999, I led an Australian business delegation to Romania and chaired the Australia-Romania Mixed Commission. This mission served to identify several new trade opportunities. I also officially opened the Consulate-General in Bucharest, the main role of which is to identify trade opportunities for Australian exporters. One of the main objectives behind the Government's decision to upgrade its Consulate in Zagreb to an Embassy in 1999 was to facilitate and promote Australia's commercial links with Croatia. An Austrade marketing officer has recently been appointed to the Embassy in Zagreb, with the specific task of improving trade and investment relations with Croatia. The Government's Market Development Task Force has this year identified Hungary as a priority market for increased coal exports. The Government also takes every opportunity to lobby for the removal of both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade with these countries, in many cases a legacy of the communist era. (6) The significant economic restructuring in the countries of Central and East Europe is leading to changes in these countries' trading patterns. A major challenge will lie in positioning more Australian companies to seize emerging market opportunities. In addition, the efforts of these countries to align their economies more closely with that of the EU, with a view to eventual EU accession, could reduce their focus on trade opportunities outside Europe. The Australian Government will continue to encourage these countries to ensure that their close integration into European economic structures results in creation of, rather than diversion of, trade opportunities, including with Australia.