2000-06-053916REPS1694702000-06-05—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees16947169471694712:31:0016947Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's Report No. 33, entitled Social security agreement with Italy and New Zealand committee exchange, together with the minutes of proceedings and the evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The report contains advice on two separate issues: firstly, the results of a review by the treaties committee of the social security agreement between Australia and Italy; and, secondly, a report on the visit the treaties committee made to New Zealand in March this year as part of the parliamentary committee exchange program.First off, I will talk about the social security agreement with Italy. Agreements such as this highlight the importance of treaty making. It demonstrates that treaties are not just about handing over sovereignty but about cooperating with other nations to ensure that the interests of both communities are protected and, indeed, advanced. Australia is a party to nine bilateral social security agreements, all of which are designed to provide welfare protection to people who move between different countries and Australia. This agreement with Italy benefits about 41,000 former Italian residents who live in Australia now and about 15,000 former Australian residents who now live in Italy. It is expected to facilitate the payment of about $166 million in pension payments from Italy into Australia and about $48 million from Australia into Italy.During the review, we heard from Italian welfare organisations, known as Patronati, who spoke out strongly in support of this agreement. Other community groups who had been kept informed about the progress of the agreement were likewise supportive of our ratifying the agreement. The agreement is an update of the current 1986 agreement, so it largely reflects changes in policies and legislation in both countries. The committee, of course, recommended that binding action be taken.Regarding the visit to New Zealand in March this year, the exchange program provided us with a terrific opportunity to meet a lot of people from different parts of the government and the parliament in New Zealand, especially those with an interest in the parliamentary review of treaty making. The centrepiece of the visit was our meeting with the New Zealand parliament's committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade, or their select committee as they call them. During this meeting we examined the approach that both parliaments take in reviewing treaty actions.There are similarities of course—as one would hope and expect. In both parliaments, proposed treaty actions are tabled before binding treaty action is taken, national interest analyses are tabled and both committees are expected to report on proposed treaty actions within 15 sitting days. The major difference in the treatment of treaties between the two countries is that here in Australia the treaties committee reviews and reports on all proposed treaty actions, whereas in New Zealand the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade may examine a treaty itself, or it may refer it to another select committee with more technical expertise.During the exchange, we had some valuable discussions with other New Zealand parliamentarians, the President of the Law Commission, Justice David Baragwanath and Sir Kenneth Keith, a judge of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. All of the discussions confirmed our view that parliamentary consideration of proposed treaty actions is an essential part of a modern democracy. The scope and the impact of international law are growing at a pace that is not going to diminish. If anything, there are going to be more and more treaties and such international agreements will become the normal part of government. It is vital that governments participate in the development of this law. We in Australia should have a say not just in the specific treaties that we sign and ratify but how they are being made generally in a modern sense. It is also, of course, vital that parliamentarians, who represent the interests of communities—particularly electorates, in the case of MPs or, for senators, the more general community—also have a chance to have a say in this process. We have to ensure that international law develops in a way that not only reflects the interests of specific lobby groups and all sorts of weird little NGOs you find around the place but reflects and promotes local priorities. It is the interests of the people who elect us to this parliament that we have to represent when we review treaties. Mr Speaker, we are grateful we have had the opportunity to learn more about New Zealand and its parliament's response to these challenges. We are also grateful we have had the opportunity to debate and reflect upon some emerging issues in treaty making in a way, you could say, that our day-to-day work does not always allow. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)12:37:0016948Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The first part of Report No. 33, Social security treaty with Italy and New Zealand committee exchange deals with the updating of the 1986 agreement, with changes in policy and legislation in both Australia and Italy. The treaty dealing with social security is the largest shared social security agreement we have, benefiting about 41,000 former Italian residents in Australia and about 15,000 former Australian residents now living in Italy. It was Australia's first shared responsibility agreement, an approach that has now been replicated in agreements with Canada, Spain, Malta, the Netherlands, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Cyprus. The idea of the updated agreement is to take into account the changes made in policy and legislation in both countries since 1986. I certainly support those changes and recommend them to the House.The second part of the report, as the chairman of the committee has just reported, deals with the committee's visit to New Zealand, a visit which allowed the committee to meet with a range of people and organisations interested in treaty making, plus the parliamentarians of New Zealand who are dealing with treaty making there, along with people such as Sir Kenneth Keith, who is the review judge at the present moment and was in the Law Reform Commission before that. He is one of their eminent minds and the committee certainly gained a lot of insight by spending some time with him and discussing treaty making and the effect on domestic law and appellant law as well. We had a meeting with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and discussed with him the whole aspect of their select committee system and treaty making. It was also interesting that they certainly promote the concept of having women in the parliament, and I made a note that 30 per cent of their parliamentarians are women.The Law Reform Commission meeting with Justice Baragwanath and his fellow commissioners was of great significance. It was important to talk with them about the significance, as they see it, of the difficulties emerging in the world with e-commerce, cross-border insolvent companies and issues such as computer crime and about how we deal with those and the need for treaty making for countries to deal with those issues. They were well advanced, and one of their commissioners had recently returned from the US and was able to join us and discuss his recent trip and the work he had done there.The time we spent there was very significant, and it was time well spent, Mr Speaker, I can assure you. The shared responsibility between both countries and the ability to go between one country and another and discuss these issues give you insights into the way another country might look slightly differently at things. We are reasonably close to New Zealand and our laws come from a common background but they do look at things slightly differently. We talked about the Treaty of Waitangi with them, and the common law notions of equality and property law that that treaty gives them, and about dealing with that through the Maori land courts and what they are doing there.The situation of resolving conflicts that arise between the laws of different countries is something that is going to arise more and more. We are going to have to come to grips with those and deal with them. As e-commerce comes in more and more, we will certainly need more treaty making to try to resolve those issues. As we discussed with the New Zealanders, we will endeavour to be there at the forefront to solve them. (Time expired)12:42:0016949Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to join with my colleagues the member for Wentworth and the member for Lyons in regard to this 33rd report from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the four-year history of the committee. Thirty-three reports would, I think, stand out again as evidence of the amount of work we do. As the member for Lyons rightly said, we are going to see more and more treaties, not fewer. As nations of the world find the barriers between them regarding their commerce and conduct becoming less obvious, we are going to have to ensure—just as we have laws in this country to sort out disagreements—that the paths of conduct of commerce are smooth, so treaties between nations are going to become more prevalent.In that regard, the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, as an example of world's best practice, is enjoyed in this parliament. The people of Australia also value the fact that we have bothered to inquire into some things that, in the past, were not inquired into. The first of the two matters disclosed in this report to the people of Australia is the social security agreement with Italy. At first brush, the national interests analysis and the commonsense involving the $166 million and the 41,000 former Italian residents now residing in Australia—and, for that matter, the 15,000 former Australians now residing in Italy—all seemed as though it was matter-of-fact and one wondered if there was much point in inquiring deeper into it.The committee resolved that it wanted to take submissions from people and it sought a cross-section of views, as we always do, including through advertisements in national publications and also specialist press publications, such as El Globo and other Italian community newspapers. This was done for a reason. Whenever treaties are signed in this nation now, it is no longer just a plaything for the executive and the bureaucracy: through this place, we bring the people into the picture and we keep the people well informed about what is going on. It is all there for them to see in Report 33, and I would of course recommend that anybody interested in these matters look closely at it.With regard to the trip to the New Zealand parliament, it was sponsored by the New Zealand parliament as part of a regular exchange program where one committee per year travels from their country to ours and one from ours to theirs. We do not make a lot of trips to that nation so close to us, but they wanted to talk to us and to compare what they had done in their treaty making revision with what we have been doing. I think it was a very fruitful couple of days.New Zealand has in so many ways followed our lead and whilst, as the chairman, the member for Wentworth, rightly pointed out, they allow their Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to arbitrate whether matters are referred to other specialist committees, the committee here in Australia does not allow itself to be in any way, shape or form accused of being captured by client groups, as could be the case with specialist committees. Let us face it, a committee constantly dealing with a department can become a little too close on occasions. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in this parliament make it a habit of taking no prisoners and ensuring that different departments well know that we apply the same standards of inquiry and demands for disclosure no matter what department it is. So we are right into accountability of the executive, as the New Zealand parliament have shown us they are too.The meetings we had with top ranking lawyers and people involved in reform processes, and the discovery of other international linkages at their level, were also very fruitful. I think the committee gained from them a very strong view as far as our role is concerned and its importance in the Australian context. Whilst New Zealand has so many systems similar to ours—legal, political, social, cultural, economic and values; and we play football and cricket, although, fortunately, better than New Zealand—I think it is always good to have the opportunity to go and test our own particular credentials and efforts on behalf of the people of Australia beside those in that country so close to us. I think in that regard this place provides a ready forum for us all to trust the people, to ensure the people are satisfied that the executive—the members of the cabinet and the ministry—are acting on behalf of all Australians, and I am proud to be part of the revised treaty making process that is making it happen. NaN:00:0016950Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I would like to speak to Report No. 33, Social security agreement with Italy and New Zealand committee exchange, and I am pleased to do so. I also would like to comment on the committee's visit to New Zealand. The visit, as the previous speaker, the member for Moreton, said, was sponsored by the New Zealand government, and I thank them for giving us that opportunity because it provided us with an opportunity to see first-hand the treaty review process of our very close neighbours. New Zealand's process has really only come into practice since May 1998 when the house adopted sessional orders requiring the government to present proposed treaty actions to the government and allow select committees to review and report on such actions.It can be argued that New Zealand's process is, while similar to our own, not as transparent and does not allow the same input from the general community as does the process set in place by the Howard government. As I have said before—and I will say it again, because I am very proud of the fact—it was the Howard government that lifted the veil of secrecy on the process of international treaty making in this country. We have given the process back to the people of Australia. During the term in office of the previous government there were over 500 treaties agreed to without any consultation with the Australian public. The previous government were not even required to bring them to the attention of the parliament, and it is justifiable that many Australians felt hostility towards these secret agreements that the government had entered into on behalf of the nation. They saw them as a threat to Australia sovereignty, and they had little knowledge of their contents and purposes.The New Zealand experience was very similar. The members of their Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade whom we met with said that the parliamentary review process was introduced in response to general community concerns about the closed nature of treaty making. It was the same sense of community concern that alienated the Australian public also, and that led us to promise, when we were elected in 1996, that we would take that back to the people. One of the first things that the government did when we came into office in 1996 was to involve the Australian public and also concerned community groups in our process of considering and agreeing to treaties with other nations. We have set in place an extensive consultation process, including public hearings, so that all Australians can have their say before any decision is taken. As I said, it compares very favourably with the process that they have devised in New Zealand, which is outlined in this report. I believe our government's transparent approach and the fact that we have very simple criteria upon which we judge any proposed agreements has led to an easing of community concern.Our overarching consideration—the bottom line, if you like—when it comes to deciding whether or not we enter into an agreement is a simple question: is it in Australia's best interests to do so? The very best test is that if the answer is no then we are not interested, and there are no ifs, buts or maybes. I believe that has gone some way to restore the public's faith in our international treaty making process. But there is still a wariness, and it is important we keep working, particularly as members of this committee, to encourage greater community participation and make sure that Australians are aware that their input is welcome and that the opportunity now exists for them to have their say. Certainly there still are some sections of the community which, for their own purposes, want to perpetuate the idea that foreign agreements are being made in secret and Australia is being robbed of its sovereignty. They feed on discontent and want to create an impression that nothing has changed, but in fact a great deal has changed. The very existence of this committee and the reviews we conduct around the country are clear evidence of our commitment to lifting the veil of secrecy. I join other members in thanking those parliamentary members and legal and constitutional experts who met with us in New Zealand to give us the benefit of their experience. It is this ongoing mutual exchange of ideas and knowledge that will forge even closer ties between Australia and New Zealand, to the benefit of both nations. I look forward to meeting with New Zealand's House of Representatives Select Committee on Social Affairs during their visit to Canberra this week.12:51:0016951Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I also would like to make a few comments on this report, especially on a matter that has been of some concern to me over many years—that is, the social security agreements. I was one of the members here when we signed the first social security agreement with Italy, and I must say I think that did create the pattern for other agreements. But I do want to commend the committee for its report and for its support of this agreement. I was a little bit concerned about the delay from 1993 until 2002 in the finalisation of this treaty. There were some technical matters. There were also some matters of policy that the government was concerned with and wanted to sort out. Nevertheless, I am very pleased that it has sorted them out and that this agreement has proceeded. I just wanted to make the point too that I support the committee's general conclusion at paragraph 2.14, which says:As noted in our Report 32, Six Treaties Tabled on 7 March 2000 (May 2000), when commenting on a proposed Social Security Agreement with Denmark, we support the principle of establishing a network of bilateral agreements to give better welfare protection to people who move between countries. Such agreements are to the benefit of the individuals and the governments involved in these schemes.The Italian agreement has been of great importance to people of Italian background in Australia. It did, as I say, provide the basis on which a number of other agreements were signed. It is, however, to be pointed out that, unfortunately, there have been hold-ups and delays in relation to social security agreements with some countries. I have raised this matter with the minister in questions on notice. In particular, I would like to emphasise the fact that a number of our major ethnic communities are still awaiting agreements to be finalised. I refer here in particular to the Croatian community, to the Greek community and to the German community—three cases that I have actually raised with the minister. I do not know whether the treaties committee can help us in relation to this, but I am very concerned about the fact that there have been constant delays in these three cases. I think that we ought to take up the example we have here in terms of finalisation of the Italian agreement and try to secure agreements with especially these three countries—and with other countries—where we have initiated discussions but have not proceeded to the finalisation of them.I know that the minister has said that she has tried to negotiate—with ministers in Greece, for example, in the case of the agreement with Greece—and there have been some problems on both sides. I am not throwing all of the difficulties onto the minister here. But as someone who is in touch with these three communities in particular, I do say that the communities are all concerned—whatever the case may be; whether it is the Australian government or whether it is in fact the governments over there—that these agreements have not been concluded. I take this opportunity to ask the government to do what it can to please move these forward on behalf of those communities which are quite anxious to achieve social security agreements, for example, Greece, Croatia, Germany and other countries, where they are awaiting these results. In some cases, the negotiations have been going on for a hell of a long time—many years—and it is time that some way was found to break through the bureaucratic problems, to resolve these issues and to form those social security agreements. I commend the report to the House.12:56:0016952Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I move: That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102b, the debate is interrupted. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.169521695212:56:0016952Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs I present the committee's report on the inquiry into indigenous health, entitled Health is life, together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—I am pleased to table this report on indigenous health by the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. The inquiry into indigenous health commenced in the last parliament. At the outset, I would like to thank the previous members of that committee, particularly the member for Mallee, Mr John Forrest, my predecessor as committee chairman. They established a solid basis of information for the present committee to work from, as well as creating a very positive, bipartisan and cooperative approach that has continued to characterise the conduct of this inquiry. The goodwill established by the members of the committee, both past and present, is, I hope, an example for all, particularly governments, the general public and the indigenous community, who will have to work together if progress is to be made.The title of this report, Health is life, reflects a fundamental difference between the way that indigenous and non-indigenous Australians consider health issues. For non-indigenous Australians health is normally considered to relate to the general condition of the body and mind. For indigenous Australians health is not the same concept. Some say that it encompasses much more and relates to every aspect of their lives—physical, social and spiritual. This profound difference in world view presents a significant challenge for all, but particularly governments and the health profession. It is something we as a nation have grappled with for some time, and the many efforts of successive governments have left us at a loss to know what to do for the best.There is currently a very significant taxpayer commitment from the Commonwealth government, which now spends around $2.3 billion annually on all indigenous specific programs. Government expenditure on indigenous health programs alone represents around 2.2 per cent of all recurrent health expenditure, which is roughly in line with the percentage that indigenous people make up of the Australian population. Parliamentary committees seem to almost always demand more money from executive government. Whilst we have submitted some suggestions to government in this report, we believe much more research is needed before a final definitive amount could be agreed upon.There have been a lot of previous reports on indigenous health issues, but the committee found that most of the recommendations from these earlier reports have not been implemented or fully effected. Our failure to make significant progress in this area stands in contrast to the situation of the indigenous populations of New Zealand, Canada and the United States. I am sure there are many and varied reasons for this and experiences are not necessarily transferable; however, experiences in these other countries offer hope that improvement is possible over the medium and longer term. There has to be leadership at a national, state, territory and community level to develop and implement the many strategies that can overcome the more serious issues. Most importantly, there has to be strong Commonwealth leadership. The committee found that the planning and delivery of health and related services for indigenous Australians is broadly characterised by a general lack of direction and poor coordination. Services and programs are delivered by a mixture of Commonwealth, state, territory and local government agencies. There is no clear delineation or agreement about which level of government is ultimately responsible for ensuring the continued improvement in the health of Australia's indigenous population. The Commonwealth focuses mainly on primary care, through Medicare payments and grants to the Aboriginal medical services. The states and territories focus mainly on acute care but provide primary care through hospital outpatients and community health programs. Additionally, they provide some support for specific population programs through the Aboriginal medical services. There also appears to be little, if any, coordination between these diverse health programs and programs in other areas important to health and wellbeing such as environmental health, provision of infrastructure, education and employment. The outcome of these piecemeal funding and coordination arrangements is fragmented policy and programs across the states, territories and the Commonwealth.The committee believes, however, that the biggest barrier to progress has been the lack of any real efforts to integrate indigenous community involvement into the planning and delivery of health and related services. This problem involves the mainstream health system and the Aboriginal medical services, which are at times reluctant to come together. In fact, some people acknowledge that a state of conflict can help justify the continuing funding of some services. The committee understands that indigenous communities are not all the same and that the levels of services that are needed will vary considerably between each community. However, if services are to be effective, there is a need for greater collaboration at all levels.It is unlikely that the health of indigenous Australians will improve significantly until the fragmentation of services, cost shifting and lack of agreement about responsibility for indigenous health are fully addressed. The committee believes that for this to happen there must be a clear and specific agreement between the states and the Commonwealth. These agreements need to address not only the respective responsibilities but also how those responsibilities are to be acted upon and the level of resources to be committed by each party. The framework agreements are a reasonable start. The committee considers that there are two main prerequisites that will need to be satisfied before there can be any significant improvement in the health and wellbeing of indigenous Australians.Firstly, the Commonwealth has to adopt a more central and active role in the coordination, planning, delivery and monitoring of health and related services for indigenous Australians. Secondly, the indigenous community has to be allowed to play—and accept that they must play—a far greater role in those same areas. To support the Commonwealth in adopting such a central leadership role the committee has recommended that a National Council of Indigenous Health Affairs be established. This council would advise governments on the coordination of the necessary activity across all areas that impact on indigenous health and wellbeing and across all levels of government. The national council must comprise indigenous and non-indigenous experts in the fields of health, housing, education, employment, culture, planning, management and administration. The council would bring together those people who are most able to unite the community, both indigenous and non-indigenous, and governments to focus on improving the health of indigenous Australians. This council would report regularly to the Prime Minister, and annually to the parliament, about progress in improving indigenous health. In particular they would identify any major barriers to achieving further progress. In accepting the need for leadership on this matter, the Commonwealth also needs to recognise that there will need to be a concerted and continued effort across a range of Commonwealth portfolios for a considerable period.Changes in health outcomes will not be achieved in the short term and there will need to be a committed and bipartisan approach. To support the Commonwealth's effort to achieve effective coordination, the committee believes there will need to be senior representation at the highest levels of government. The committee believes that this must be at the most senior ministerial level and has consequently recommended that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs be placed in cabinet. This would involve an increased level of responsibility for monitoring and coordinating Commonwealth initiatives impacting on indigenous health across all programs. The committee is not proposing any changes in the current portfolio arrangements for specific programs. The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs would not assume responsibility for any programs currently delivered through other portfolios but would, instead, be responsible for ensuring that all those portfolios work closer together, improving indigenous health outcomes. The committee also believes that, as part of this new role, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs should report annually to parliament about the progress of government actions across all portfolios to improve indigenous health and wellbeing. The report would provide a benchmark against which to monitor improvements, or otherwise, in indigenous health, education and employment. As I indicated earlier, as well as the need for the Commonwealth to play a central role, there is a need to ensure that the indigenous community play an active and effective role in the planning and delivery of services for their own community. This means that the community controlled services need to be adequately resourced. Sufficient resources need to be provided for an appropriate level of health care to the community as well as to allow effective and equal community participation in the planning and monitoring of services. We have, I emphasise, suggested that considerable research is needed to accurately document what is appropriate. To support the community in these roles the committee has recommended that a new funding approach be developed. This new approach builds on existing trials by the Commonwealth and provides for a pooling of Commonwealth, state, territory and community funds at the regional level. The community will then play the primary role in determining the allocation and use of these funds. It is proposed that additional Commonwealth funding be allocated over the next four years to support this approach. This is based on the understanding that current Medicare arrangements do not suit much of the indigenous population—like, I might add, much of regional Australia. The states and territories are then meeting the costs of providing services which are normally met by the Commonwealth for the non-indigenous population. The committee believes these measures have to be associated with an increased focus on improving the coordination of health services with other sectors—in particular, the provision of education and the development of programs to significantly enhance employment opportunities.There needs to be a greater focus on meeting the backlog of need in terms of housing and other infrastructure, particularly potable water. In providing improved facilities, greater emphasis needs to be given to the adequate and ongoing maintenance of those facilities. The problems are difficult, but they are not insurmountable. There are practical and effective strategies that can be implemented, which the report has attempted to highlight. The committee's findings are not particularly new. They have been highlighted in many of the reports into indigenous health that have been presented over the last 20 years. Progress can be made in indigenous health only with strong cooperative partnerships between the indigenous community and the Commonwealth, the states and the territories. Goals which allow for an incremental approach can help maintain morale and encourage those most affected. This is not to say that we can move slowly on this problem; rather that a cooperative assessment of what is achievable is more likely to achieve results. Support for strong bottom-up leadership in the indigenous community, along with more effective administration and relevant education, is the key to making the concept of community participation work.On behalf of the committee, I particularly want to thank the members of the communities and hope we can do justice to their views. Finally, I would like to thank all committee members and the personnel of the secretariat for their wonderful assistance in the conduct of this important inquiry. I would especially like to acknowledge the support of Jim Kennedy and wish him all the best in the future. I commend the report to the House. 13:06:0016955Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—It is indeed a great privilege for me to speak today on the tabling of Health is life, the report of the inquiry into indigenous health by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. This inquiry was first adopted in the last parliament. While it is fair to say that at the outset it was clear this was to be an important, probably long and definitely difficult and emotional inquiry, nothing could have prepared me for the journey on which I was embarking. The committee membership has changed over that time. This inquiry has been under the guidance of three different chairs. However, during the 2½ years of work, the committee has remained steadfast in its determination to reach an outcome which we all fervently trust will assist in furthering the health and wellbeing of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.There is no doubting the statistics that the level of health experienced by our indigenous population should be of deep concern to all Australians and that some drastic steps are needed to reach acceptable standards in this area. Some people may still have the view that all Australians should be dealt with equally and that expenditure should reflect that view. This view is completely untenable while the level of health problems in our indigenous population is so severely out of step with that of non-indigenous Australians. We need to spend appropriately to improve indigenous health, and we need all governments—I emphasise `all governments'—to adopt a short-, medium- and long-term view of the problem. While there are some areas of health that can be improved in the shorter term, many issues are longer term and intergenerational. Budget and planning considerations must take all of this into the equation. Consistency must be evident and, most importantly, trust must be given.We must acknowledge where improvements and gains are there to be seen. In some areas of indigenous health, the improvements are clearly evident. We must learn from these experiences and apply those lessons wherever possible. In the course of the inquiry, we have travelled to many communities: remote, rural, regional, outer urban and city. In fact, we have had the privilege of visiting communities in some of the most remote areas of Australia. We have met with hundreds of individuals and groups. We have seen some of the most wonderful examples of dedication, determination, belief, optimism and sheer hard work. We have seen all of this despite the desperate need for assistance and despite the fact that in some cases resources are appallingly poor. Even with the greatest of intent, we have seen that improvement in local health issues seems years away at best. We have heard stories of tragedy, of sadness and of desperation; yet through all of this these people were willing to continue working for a better health outcome for themselves and for their communities. They shared their lives with us.The only way we could hear and learn so much was through the generosity of heart and spirit, the warmth, the trust and the goodwill of the people we met. It is no secret that there have been numerous inquiries of different sorts into indigenous affairs over the years. In fact, I believe that on this committee we were extremely aware that many of these people and communities were unfortunately very used to seeing yet another group of politicians or bureaucrats invade their country and their lives. Who could blame them if they imagined we were involved in producing another report to fill up a bookshelf somewhere? Yet this did not affect them in their willingness to talk to us, to explain their views, to give us their own local ideas of how to tackle certain issues and to talk very frankly about the problems they face each day, about the overt and covert aspects of racism and sometimes about the difficulties they have to deal with in their own communities—the things that affect them every day of their lives.These people shared their personal and family experiences with us in ways that I believe many of us would not find possible. We saw many examples where the line of responsibility between layers of government and authority was blurred, to say the least. We saw communities badly served by the way in which services were built or supplied. We saw houses built but with no drinkable water connected or built with little or no regard for local custom, climate or need. We saw airstrips unsafe for night landing, making medical evacuation difficult. We saw roads impassable during certain climatic periods of the year and roads so rough as to make ambulance travel more perilous than acceptable. We saw some communities with only one nursing sister on call all day every day and, surprise surprise, staff cannot be retained for a longer period. We have attempted in this report to address these types of issues—the structural arrangements which involve local, state, territory and Commonwealth governments as well as all local authorities and communities. Sometimes words can seem a bit inadequate. However, my thanks and the committee's thanks go to each and every one of the people we met and talked with. I will long remember their contributions to this inquiry and, through that, the trust they placed in us. While aware of the difficulty in mentioning one individual—it is a very dangerous thing to do but I am going to—I believe I must make mention of Mr Puggy Hunter, who was Chairperson of NACCHO, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, for much of this inquiry. Puggy went out of his way to assist the committee, travelling with us on some occasions and offering invaluable advice on both culture and health when we were consulting different people, groups and communities. I will always value very much the counsel that was offered by Puggy to me personally and to the committee. While we sometimes found ourselves in the middle of pretty vigorous debate on certain issues—it is after all a parliamentary committee—this committee have worked very well across political differences, acknowledging differing opinion but with one goal in mind: to try to contribute to improving the health and wellbeing of our indigenous communities.The member for Mallee, who chaired this committee until the last election, must be acknowledged. The current chair, the member for Grey, Barry Wakelin, has steered us through the debates—sometimes I am not quite sure how—and has always been willing to hear and consider all views. I thank him for his perseverance and patience. I thank my committee colleagues, both current and past, for their patience, their advice and their comradeship during this journey. This has been a long inquiry, involving a great amount of detail and information. We have undertaken numerous visits, involving a high level of organisational administration. I would like to place on record the work of the committee secretariat, led until only recently by Mr Bjarne Nordin. Mr Jim Kennedy, who was seconded to this inquiry, has overseen the final writing of the report. To Bjarne, to Jim and to everyone involved at that level, I give my thanks for, and my acknowledgment of, your valuable work.The overwhelming impression I have gained from this inquiry is the strong belief I now have that when talking about issues in indigenous health there is, firstly, the need to acknowledge the work and the dedication already evident by those working in indigenous health and the improvements they are making. Secondly, we must listen to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the communities and learn from them. Instead of telling them how to deal with these problems and then probably criticising them if they get it wrong, we must listen to them and work together with them in partnership. There is no doubt at all in my mind about their knowledge, their concern and their determination. I urge all those interested in this whole subject to read all of this report, allowing full understanding of the considerations and the recommendations in which we found ourselves involved. In closing, I sincerely hope that this is the last time a report is needed for any parliament to consider the poor state of health of our indigenous people. I trust that any future report will be one that measures the improvements made. If everyone involved in indigenous health—indigenous and non-indigenous Australians—all approach the future work and developments in this area in the bipartisan way of this committee, this will be the final such report. 13:16:0016956Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I speak today on the tabling of this report Health is life from the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs with the fervent hope that in 10 or 20 years time other honourable members in this place will come to the chamber to speak of marked improvements in indigenous health. It is something that we are not able to do up to today, despite many inquiries and reports over the past 20 years. It is clear that, as this report outlines, the whole issue of indigenous health is a complex one. Yet, as a mother and a pragmatist, I cannot help but feel that basic health services for all Australians ought to be a fairly simple matter, a simple matter of ensuring that practical services are provided where they are needed most—whether that be in remote Far North Queensland or in Redfern in Sydney. I also cannot help but feel that this is one indigenous issue upon which the whole Australian community can unite, if the issue is given the prominence it deserves, because no Australian wants to see their fellow Australians living in Third World standards and suffering preventable diseases. I wholeheartedly support the concept of reconciliation, but I cannot help but feel it has to be more practical. First and foremost, it has to be about making sure that indigenous people have the basics most Australians take for granted, like decent housing, health and education. It is a fact that those pushing for things like a treaty enjoy very comfortable housing and decent health services themselves that many indigenous Australians simply do not—and they should be our first priority.Certainly, on our visits to remote communities, local community leaders were much more interested in discussing how housing and basic services can be improved than in discussing land rights or treaties. As someone who has been an active member of this committee on this inquiry for the three years, I believe that most of the recommendations of this report are fundamentally sensible. It is important that we quantify the extent of the problem, that we devise measures and set benchmarks so that we can gauge how effective future policies are in addressing major health and housing problems. That has been patently lacking in the past. Annual reporting to the parliament on the state of indigenous health will provide an opportunity to see whether progress is being made and to identify what is working. But to do so will require a much greater level of cooperation and responsibility from all stakeholders—governments of all levels, health care workers and indigenous leaders. There seems to be an overriding reluctance to provide statistics and results. It is even seen as paternalistic by some sectors for governments to ask for them. Yet there is a clear responsibility that results ought to be examined if we are to find what is working, and they must be correlated against government funding—not just for accountability purposes to make sure that taxpayers' money is not being wasted but, more importantly, so we can find the programs that are working and direct funding where it is needed most. I am disappointed that this has not been one of the recommendations within this report. I firmly believe that future funding of indigenous health services ought to be clearly driven by outcomes—that is, in terms of the number of patients treated.Early in the inquiry I remember visiting one health service that was packed to the rafters with people who genuinely needed help. The health care workers were very dedicated, devoting a great deal of additional time to seeing people, and the facilities were used to capacity. Clearly, more funding for this centre would have made an enormous difference. Another centre I visited was pristine and exceedingly well staffed, yet seemed to resemble the famed hospital in Yes, Minister. They had a huge operating budget and kept many people employed but there was a lack of patients. Clearly, more funding is needed to address indigenous health in this country, but I have also seen many things during the inquiry to suggest that it is not so much the amount of funding that is important but how we direct that funding .Five short minutes is not long enough to outline all my views on this important issue, but I want to ensure that this report is not lost in the mire of parliamentary reports and that this issue is not swept away by a few indigenous leaders who would have the government focusing on other things. Health is life. I know all Australians genuinely want to see indigenous health improve, which is a true form of practical reconciliation. It is the sort of thing that has been asked for in regional and remote communities, even if it is not being discussed in polite after-dinner conversations in our cities. Many recommendations in this report provide a clear starting point. I look forward to continuing to work with the government to build upon the recommendations and make real progress in this most important issue. I would like to thank all the wonderful people who cooperated with us in giving evidence and welcoming us into their communities. In conclusion, I would like to thank my fellow committee members for their cooperation and their sincerity in looking to a positive outcome with this report. 13:21:0016958Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—How do you hope to address the whole issue of indigenous health as raised in the report Health is life in a five-minute speech? I look forward to another opportunity in the Main Committee when I will have much longer to speak on this vitally important issue. The Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs has worked tirelessly over the past 2½ years to investigate all aspects of this important issue. We have visited dozens and dozens of communities in all states and territories. We have seen the excellent, the good, the bad and the ugly in urban, rural and remote indigenous communities when it comes to health service delivery. Several members of the committee have been with me since the inquiry's inception in the last parliament—Annette Ellis, Kay Elson, De-Anne Kelly, Harry Jenkins and Brendan Nelson. I would like to thank them for their commitment and dedication. As honourable members would know, this inquiry is one in a long line of inquiries into indigenous health. Adoption and implementation of the 35 recommendations will hopefully see the House not having to revisit this issue so thoroughly ever again. All we will need to do, hopefully, is closely monitor and finetune. The foundations will finally be in place to ensure that a health system for indigenous Australians is working just as well as it is for non-indigenous Australians.During our inquiry, we spoke to all the key players involved in the supply of health services to indigenous Australians. What was very evident from the outset was the haphazard and scattergun approach to this whole issue. Like so much in this country, we saw the best and worst of the territorial and departmental approach to service delivery. Governments and their various departments have become very adept at cost shifting and blame apportioning when it comes to the whole issue of supplying health services to indigenous Australians. Because this issue is out of sight and out of mind of the vast number of Australians, all three tiers of government of all political persuasions have literally washed their hands of it. It is too difficult to fix and, besides, it is not going to rate all that highly when the pollsters check on issues that voters are getting upset about.This committee has been determined from the outset of the inquiry to fix this problem once and for all. I have been known to frequently use the expression `It's a bloody shame' as we visited and took evidence at the many communities across the length and breadth of Australia during this inquiry. I, like others, would like to place on the public record my heartfelt tribute to the fantastic and amazing work done by Aboriginal health workers, nurses and doctors who toil tirelessly to provide services to our indigenous Australians. Especially, I would like to highlight those toiling so professionally in the remote regions. Please take a look at appendix C and see the places mentioned to get some idea of just how difficult it really is for these wonderful people to provide medical services for our indigenous brothers and sisters. As privileged Australians, we owe it not only to the disadvantaged and disenfranchised indigenous members of our society but to these dedicated health workers to see that our 35 recommendations are accepted and implemented as soon as possible.I am not that naive to believe that our recommendations will solve all the problems once and forever. Canada, New Zealand and the United States have restructured and finetuned their health delivery to their indigenous peoples. They have radically lessened the mortality gap between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in their countries. Our 35 recommendations have been written in a spirit of bipartisanship with a belief that we owe it to each and every indigenous community to deliver what we expect for each one of us—the most appropriate and the best health system, one that is culturally appropriate, adequately resourced and mindful of the need for diversity to reflect the urban, rural and remote aspect of health service delivery for our indigenous peoples. Finally, I would like to place on record my appreciation for the work done by my fellow committee members and our wonderful secretariat—Angela, Belinda, Bjarne and Trevor. I would like to pay a special tribute to Jim Kennedy for his amazing professionalism, dedication, support and friendship over the past 2½ years as we worked on this report. I would also like to thank John Forrest, the member for Mallee, and Barry Wakelin, the member for Grey, the two committee chairs for this report. I urge all Australians to read this report and place pressure on all of us to see that we finally get it right this time. I highly recommend the report to the House.13:26:0016959Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—If none of my colleagues opposite are going to jump up to speak, I would like to take the three or four minutes that are left. The Health is life report of the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs is a very important report, one that I urge members of the House to take seriously, to read and to hopefully agree with most of its sentiment and most of its recommendations. But, even if members cannot agree with all of the recommendations, I hope they believe that this is a policy area we all must pay attention to.I represent an area where there are 504 indigenous people according to the 1996 census—that is, 0.4 per cent of the population. Indigenous affairs are not very high on the local agenda. My interest in indigenous people first came from having many of them as sporting heroes of mine and my family, but this inquiry has taught me that the issue of indigenous health is something that all Australians should take an interest in. Much of what is set out in the report is a roadmap for progressing many of the things that are under way at the moment. When we asked many people, they said, `There's no need to reinvent the wheel; there's a need to strengthen the existing rather than reinvent.' I hope that is the sentiment that the report portrays.As the honourable member for Franklin alluded to, one of the working titles for this report was `A national disgrace', but that would have been too negative a title. It would not have acknowledged that, in many parts of Australia, much progress is being made. That is a tribute to all those who are involved. It is a tribute to all the governments and all the spheres of governments, but importantly it is a tribute to the communities, especially the non-indigenous communities. These are the communities that, given a chance, will be able to tackle this issue with the greatest success. That again is an overriding sentiment of this report.I will take the opportunity in the Main Committee to express my thanks to the various people who have helped us—those who have been overwhelmingly helpful and open in the way that they have shared their experience. Much of the issues of indigenous health are to do with spiritual and cultural matters. They are difficult for us as non-indigenous people to understand, but this report and this inquiry gave us all the opportunity to listen to and share the experiences of those who are most affected.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Grey wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr Wakelin—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Bills16960R109016960Bill presented by Mr Fitzgibbon.13:30:0016960Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The private member's bill I am introducing today seeks to insert a savings provision into section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act. The effect of the amendment would be to allow state and territory governments to draw down the provisions of 51AC, without fear of having their legislation challenged under section 109 of the Constitution. Section 109 of the Constitution declares that, where a Commonwealth and state law are inconsistent, the Commonwealth law will prevail, and to the extent of inconsistency the state law will be rendered invalid.This is of real concern to the New South Wales government which, in 1998, passed amendments to its Retail Leases Act in an attempt to give small business tenants in New South Wales additional protection against unconscionable conduct. While the New South Wales parliament has passed those amendments—indeed, it passed them late in 1998—they are yet to be declared because, understandably, the Carr Labor government is concerned that a cashed-up landlord could seek to challenge those retail leases amendments under section 109 of the Constitution.Since late 1998, the time of that legislation being passed, the New South Wales Minister for Small Business, Sandra Nori, has been writing to the Howard government, asking it to enact the necessary amendments to the Trade Practices Act to get around the concern that the New South Wales legislation could be challenged. In other words, for two years now, small business tenants in New South Wales have been denied the opportunity to seek redress through the very efficient remedies under the New South Wales act because of the Howard government's inability or unwillingness to make those necessary amendments.The provisions contained within my private member's bill today replicate those that I moved by way of a trade practices amendment on 6 April this year. To my astonishment, the Howard government on that day chose to vote down those amendments. I say `to my astonishment' because I had in my possession at the time a letter from the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Joe Hockey, to the New South Wales Minister for Small Business, Sandra Nori. In that letter, dated 25 October 1999—that is, a full year after Sandra Nori first made her request that that amendment be made—Minister Hockey stated:Concerning the draw down of section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act into states' retail leases legislation, I appreciate this particular amendment is important for the states and I realise that there are cogent reasons to bring forward this proposal as speedily as possible. Accordingly, I will be bringing the need for amendments to the Trade Practices Act to the attention of my ministerial colleagues in the near future and seeking approval for appropriate legislative amendments. I will ensure your office is advised once this has taken place. I look forward to achieving an outcome which will be welcome by everyone with an interest in this issue.Again I point out that that is from a letter written on 25 October 1999. So you can understand full well, I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, why I was surprised when the Howard government, on 6 April this year, chose to vote down an amendment I put into this parliament which would have given exactly that effect. No wonder I chose to put forward an amendment from the opposition side of the parliament because, at that point, it had been two years since the New South Wales government had passed its legislation and just as long since Sandra Nori first wrote to the Howard government seeking that amendment. I must say that that letter from Sandra Nori went through the hands of about three government ministers before landing in the lap of the unfortunate Joe Hockey and before Sandra Nori finally got that response.The flow-on from all of that is that, some time soon after my amendment was voted down in this place, Minister Hockey announced by way of media release that the government would move to put in place the necessary amendments to give effect to that New South Wales leases amendment. That media release was issued on 10 May. So, in many regards, it could be said that the bill I am introducing today is redundant already; that is, the Howard government—after a lot of cajoling from both the opposition and the minister in New South Wales—has finally agreed to make the necessary amendments to allow the states to draw down 51AC of the Trade Practices Act. But I see my decision to proceed with this bill today as insurance. There have now been two years of posturing from the government and it has now been at least two months since Minister Hockey made his announcement. On checking today with the office of Sandra Nori, the New South Wales Minister for Small Business, I have learned that the New South Wales government still has not been informed formally of the government's intention to move on this issue. Joe Hockey's announcement was made on 10 May, yet the New South Wales government still has not been informed formally of the government's intention to move on this issue. So I am determined to proceed with the introduction of this bill.If in the next little while we still have not seen any formal response from the Howard government, I will continue to pursue this bill through to the second reading and, hopefully, another vote in the House of Representatives. This time around I hope that members of this place who have a genuine concern for small business and small business issues might see fit to extend that protection to small business tenants in New South Wales by giving their support to my bill. The government has a bit of history, or a bit of form, in this area. Those who followed the Reid inquiry will know only too well how important retail lease legislation is to small business tenants. Throughout that inquiry, we heard some horrific case studies about how unconscionable landlords can be in their dealings with small business tenants. Unfortunately, but maybe not surprisingly given the very close relationship this government has with large business in this country, those who are typically the landlord in the battle, the government did not choose to adopt recommendation 2.1 of the Reid inquiry. That was a unanimous recommendation of parliamentarians from both sides of the political fence, and it sought in this country for the first time a uniform retail leases code.Not surprisingly, recommendation 7 of last year's Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector, which was a unanimous view again of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate from all sides of politics on that committee, asked this government to act in the area of uniform retail tenancy legislation. Alas, when the government finally responded to the recommendations of that committee, it again dropped the ball on the retail leases issue. Why? It is because, as has been demonstrated time and time again, the government knows on what side its bread is buttered—that is, with the big end of town, those who are usually on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to these retail lease issues.The question which has to be asked here is: where is the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in all this? Again, Minister Reith has gone missing. He has gone missing on the GST. He has gone missing on Ralph. He has gone missing on a whole range of tax issues. He went missing on the revelation that private information being given to the ATO with respect to ABN applications is now being shared with larger companies seeking to build big databases and, therefore, seeking to exploit that information that was not only given in good faith but given as a legislative requirement, given under a cloud of punitive action against those who do not make that application.Again, Minister Reith is missing in action. He was missing in action during budget week when the Howard government extraordinarily chose to cut all research for small business from the Commonwealth budget. Why is that so? Obviously the answer is fairly clear: Minister Reith and the Howard government do not want GST sentiment creeping into small business surveys or small business research. That is why the Howard government took the extraordinary step to cut the final year of funding to the small business longitudinal study, a five-year study initiated by the Keating government on which many researchers and many academics around this country were basing their own small business research. Without any warning, the final year is gone. That study is almost useless without that final year conclusion, yet the Howard government and Minister Reith, who are unwilling to do anything about it, chose to put political expediency before the small business sector and to simply cut that final year of research. The Yellow Pages survey released last week makes one thing very clear: a very important constituency in this country that the Howard government used to claim as its own is turning against it in droves. Why should we be surprised? Not only has this government imposed a burdensome GST upon it; it has failed completely to introduce that GST in an efficient and uncomplicated way. Its greatest crime possibly is not the introduction of the GST but the haphazard and botched way it has sought to implement it. As a result, the small business constituency is turning against it, and we should not be surprised.Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you will indulge me for just a moment while I recognise in the gallery today my wife, Dianne, and three children—Caitlin, Jack and Grace—who do not make it down this way too often because of school commitments. With them is my good friend Graham Deloraine and his sons Matt, Eli and Jessie, and a good friend of them all young Jacob Woodbury. I thank the House for that indulgence.If there is an engine room of growth in this country, it is the small business sector. It is well known that 60 per cent of the employment growth over the last 10 years has come from the small business sector. At this point in our history, a government of any political persuasion should be seeking to facilitate the growth of those small firms, and you do that in a number of ways. In the first instance, you do that by creating a climate of economic growth and a climate within which the price of money is low or, to say the same, interest rates are low. That is the first thing you do. But there are a number of other things you do. You seek to facilitate access to both debt and equity finance. When was the last time we heard Minister Reith talking about finance issues for small firms? Never. You never hear them mentioned.The other thing you can do is ensure that small business has access to decent research. We will never achieve good public policy for small firms until we properly understand what makes them tick, until we properly understand what motivates small firms to grow or to not grow. That is very important, and on that basis I will not say that we have not seen Peter Reith at all on this issue but I will repeat what I said earlier and say that we have seen a bit of Minister Reith on this issue—a $2 million funding cut in small business research, in an attempt to put political expediency ahead of the interests of small business. This is a government which has two policies for small business—the introduction of the GST and the introduction of the so-called option 2 under the Ralph business tax reforms. Small business does not realise yet that the big hit is yet to come. Already struggling with the implementation of the GST, the small business sector has not yet realised what is coming out—that is, the adoption of option 2.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Hunter will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members169621696213:45:0016962O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—On Thursday of last week Launceston, and indeed Tasmania, lost one of its great fighters. Sir Raymond Ferrall, who was born in Invermay in 1906, passed away peacefully in Launceston at the age of 94. In his lifetime he was part of many changes. He was born in Invermay, which in Launceston makes you a swampy, and died a knight of the realm and a freeman of Launceston city.In his extraordinary life he was a journalist, built a small grocery store into a major processing company, founded Qintex, was a warden of the Port of Launceston, was chair of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education and fought tirelessly for the establishment of a northern campus of the Launceston University. And this does not even cover a quarter of his life and business experience. In his life, Sir Ray achieved the respect of businesses, community groups, national leaders and ordinary workers. He will be remembered at a memorial service in Launceston today. The community is the poorer for his passing but the richer for his life. 1696313:46:0016963Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the excellent work of Mountains Community Transport. In the 14 years it has been operating this organisation has provided a highly valued service for many disadvantaged people in the Blue Mountains—the frail aged, people with disabilities and their carers, and people who experience particular difficulties with transport. Residents of the Blue Mountains frequently see their vehicles ferrying clients to medical appointments, on shopping trips and on social outings. Last year their vehicles, along with those of volunteers, notched up close to 350,000 kilometres while attending to the needs of their client base which is approaching 1,700 people. The highly valued service owes much to the ability and commitment of the team, so capably led by Helen Walker and supplemented by a number of dedicated volunteers—amongst these Anne Ford and Ray Millard deserve special mention for their contribution.Two weeks ago Mountains Community Transport held its inaugural fundraising dinner and launched its Friends of Mountains Community Transport supporters program. I wish them well in this endeavour as they seek to enhance their capacity to serve the disadvantaged in the Blue Mountains. There are many in our community who would like to express their gratitude for the improvement to their lives provided by the committed team at Mountains Community Transport. I thank them for their work.1696313:47:0016963Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I would like to congratulate the Blacktown City Council on its 21st birthday that occurs tomorrow. On 6 June 1979 the first meeting of the Blacktown City Council was held in Bowman Hall and was chaired by the then mayor, John Aquilina, now member for Riverstone and New South Wales Minister for Education. In the 21 years since that important day, I am delighted to say that the City of Blacktown has made great progress under the careful guidance of many prominent mayors, including today's mayor, Alan Pendleton. There have also been many fine councillors and they all have played their part in the progress of Blacktown since 6 June 1979.The past 21 years of progress showed up last weekend in the participation rate at the Blacktown festival, and I am sure that the next 21 years will be equally as exciting and as adventurous as the first 21. The first meeting of the temporary council of Blacktown shire was held in the Rooty Hill School of Arts on Wednesday, 13 June 1906. Following this, elections were held and the first meeting of the Blacktown shire council took place on 8 December 1906. The first president was T. Willmot, and the expenditure of the council for its first year was £7,500 and the area's population at the time was 3,000.1696313:49:0016963Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—Over the weekend Australia picked up three of 14 World Environment Day awards, which was fantastic news. One of those groups was the Ballarat based Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers. This group was started in Ballarat. It is now a national voluntary, nonprofit organisation, which completes more than 4,000 week-long conservation projects in urban regional and remote areas of Australia. It has planted nearly eight million trees since it has been going and it also manages the federally funded Green Corps program. I am sure that all honourable members would welcome a regional based organisation, national organisation, picking up a World Environment Day award like this. I congratulate the two other recipients. I say to the ATCV that I am very proud of you and I am sure that all members on all sides of the House representing rural and regional areas would appreciate the significance of a national based organisation being in a regional centre picking up one of these World Environment Day awards. It was fantastic news. While I am on my feet, I also congratulate the Aquinas campus of the Australian Catholic University where I had the great honour to be the occasional speaker on Saturday. Despite the fact that I locked my coat, my mortar board, my gown and indeed some speech notes in my office five minutes before the ceremony, I think all went reasonably well. But I do congratulate this fine campus of a fine university. Ballarat is blessed to have both the Aquinas campus of the ACU and the Ballarat University, both fine institutions.1696413:50:0016964Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—Tomorrow on-site testing will begin at the new Cowan Mine Survival Unit at Myuna Colliery in my electorate. The Cowan Mine Survival Unit is aimed at improving safety and emergency procedures for underground miners. I can proudly boast that Cowan Manufacturing is located in my electorate of Charlton at Warners Bay. The company has existed since 1973 and is recognised worldwide for its work in the development and manufacture of decompression chambers. Bob Cowan's grandfather and father were miners and it is fitting that Bob has developed this unit to help make underground mining safer. The Cowan MSU is a mobile unit which has its own air, water and communications and can accommodate up to 12 men for up to 24 hours. It houses safety equipment and is placed underground for use by miners in case of an emergency. I extend my congratulations and my thanks to Bob Cowan and the team at Cowan Manufacturing, to the CFMEU for their participation and to Powercoal as a partner in the Mine Survival Unit which will assist in saving the lives of miners involved in underground emergencies.1696413:52:0016964Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to make mention of the festivities that were held for Italian National Day on the weekend. Honourable members interjecting— 9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—There is strong support for the Italian community in Australia in the chamber at this moment. I start firstly with the cocktail party to farewell the Consul of Italy, Dr Tony D'Alessandro, and his wife, Paola, who will be returning to Italy after a four-year stint in Brisbane. I am sure they will remember Brisbane very fondly because not only did they serve the community tirelessly but it was also the place where their two children were born. I am sure they will remember Brisbane for many years to come—in fact, whenever they look and see `Brisbane' on their passports.I also want to acknowledge the wonderful work that is done by the CO.AS.IT Association, the welfare arm of the Italian community, and the successful ball that I attended on Saturday night. They do tremendous work with pensioners and, along with the Catholic Education Office, to promote Italian language and culture in schools. It was wonderful to see so many people turn up for the ball and help in this fantastic fundraising venture. I know their social welfare group will continue to work tirelessly for the community.Yesterday I also had the privilege of attending the opening of the Italian Festival at the Italian Australia Centre in Newmarket. The day was glorious. I must say it was absolutely fantastic to see all the wonderful stalls set up with the different areas, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. (Time expired)1696413:53:0016964Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—While the government continues to put the decision of the second Sydney airport in the too-hard basket, it leaves open the possibility that it may seek to satisfy the demands of some of its members by developing Bankstown Airport as a centre for intrastate air travel. The further development of Bankstown Airport is unthinkable given the limitations of the site and the impact of heavier air traffic on areas close to the airport. Bankstown is the busiest airport in Australia with over 450,000 movements each year compared to less than 300,000 at Mascot. The flight path goes directly over the centre of Liverpool, impacting on a number of schools and the major teaching hospital located there. Other flight paths intrude on residential areas of Lansvale, Cabramatta and Canley Vale. Forty-six per cent of traffic at Bankstown already involves intrastate air charter operations. Any expansion by adding the bulk of scheduled intrastate flights would place a greater burden on residents in the Fowler electorate. Heavier and noisier aircraft would no doubt follow such development. This government should immediately rule out any expansion of operations at Bankstown Airport. 1696513:55:0016965St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise today to congratulate the people of Armidale and the surrounding district of Dumaresq on their newly formed Armidale-Dumaresq Council. This has been a voluntary amalgamation over a period of some time. The first election was held last Saturday week. We all applaud the fact that local government is the grassroots level, and it was wonderful to see 28 candidates stand in this local government election to select 10 people. Those 10 people include Peter Ducat, an earthmoving contractor; Brian Kelly, a stock transporter; Peter Monley, the past interim mayor; Pat Dixon, the past deputy mayor; Roger Patricks, a retailer and past councillor on the Armidale City Council; Brian Chetwyn, another small business person, first time elected, which I think is great; Ken Waters, a local grazier; Herman Beyersdorf from the university; Sue King, a previous councillor on the Armidale City Council; and Laurie Knight, a valuer.It certainly goes to show that people are interested in local government, that they are keen to have a voice. As I have often said in this place, there is no point standing on the sidelines or yelling abuse or suggestions. The best thing to do is get in there, have your say and be part of the decision making process rather than leave it to somebody else. (Time expired)1696513:56:0016965Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I want to begin by thanking all the members of parliament, parliamentary staff and others who have sent greetings to me and my wife, Kathryn, on the birth of our little girl, Margaret Persephone Theophanous. She was born on 7 May at 11.18 p.m., and we are obviously very grateful and very thrilled about her arrival. I will be writing to people individually to send them our greetings.I want to refer to two matters that have occurred in my absence relating to issues that have concerned me in my parliamentary work. Firstly, I want to express concern about the developments that have occurred in relation to the three-year visa that this parliament adopted late last year. In the last few weeks the premiers of Queensland and South Australia have expressed their grave concerns about what is happening to the people who are granted refugee status under this new three-year visa and who have to fend for themselves in the community. The circumstances of these people are pretty drastic; they will be placing enormous pressure on social resources. Once again I ask the government and this parliament to rethink the situation of those people. (Time expired)1696513:58:0016965Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I seek to remind people that there are some 1,900 Australian troops still serving in East Timor. Prior to Anzac Day I distributed to my electorate a reminder to all my constituents that we still had troops there. I received a wonderful letter back from Colonel Baker commanding the Australian contingent in East Timor and, more importantly, a letter from Company Sergeant Major Ian Carroll who explained that Alpha Company of 6 RAR was deployed on the Indonesian border and that they greatly appreciated messages from Australian citizens to them. I urge other Australian citizens to continue to write to our troops in East Timor. They will receive, as constituents of mine have received, letters from our soldiers in East Timor.1696613:59:0016966Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—With the early onset of winter and the amount of snow that has fallen, I wanted to bring to the attention of this House a particular alpine region, Mount Buller in my electorate. While the official opening of the ski season will not be until 9 June, it has in fact already opened. There have been only two other occasions in the history of Mount Buller when the lifts have been operating so early—that was back in 1979 and 1964. There is currently 75 centimetres of natural snow, and more than 100 centimetres of snow-making.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Ministerial Arrangements1696614:00:0016966Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time this week. He is travelling to London to attend a special meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group to discuss the situation in Fiji. I also inform the House that the Minister for Trade, Mr Vaile, will be absent from question time today, tomorrow and Wednesday to attend an APEC trade ministers meeting in Darwin. The trade minister will act as foreign affairs minister, and the defence minister will answer questions in the House on behalf of both the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.Questions Without Notice169661696614:01:0016966Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. It follows upon my question last Monday concerning the Solomon Islands government's urgent request for policing assistance. Does the government still maintain that Australian funding for a small contingent of Vanuatu police was an appropriate response to the fast deteriorating security circumstances of the Solomon Islands? Why did the Australian government decline the Solomon Islands Prime Minister's specific request for Australia to contribute police as part of a reinforced Commonwealth police assistance group? Given the potential of the George Speight coup in Fiji to inspire turmoil and copycat action elsewhere, why did the government fail to give anything but a minimal response to the pleas of the Solomon Islands Prime Minister?16966Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The government deeply deplores and is disturbed by events in the Solomon Islands. Any action taken in line with the type of action that has occurred in Fiji is deplored by the government. This action, in particular, which sees the Prime Minister and the Governor-General being held, is completely abhorrent to the Australian government. In relation to the member's question, a joint team of Australian and New Zealand officials arrived in the Solomon Islands on Saturday morning to review the circumstances. We agreed, in sending those people there, to see what circumstances might be in place and to see how we could respond to them. There was an undertaking given that we would fund up to 50 police officers to go to the Solomon Islands to maintain law and order. That is still, of course, being looked at. As members would be aware, the original proposition envisaged some Fijian police going as a contingent as well. That, in view of the circumstances in Fiji, is no longer viable and we are now looking at other areas to fill those numbers.1696614:04:0016966Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In light of celebrations for World Environment Day, can the Prime Minister outline the government's approach to the environment and how this compares with previous efforts?16966Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Riverina for her question. I had the privilege yesterday of attending the celebration of World Environment Day, hosted by Australia for the first time ever in Adelaide. I had the opportunity of witnessing the World Environment Day Global 500 Awards, which are given to people who make a significant contribution to environmental policies all around the world.It is timely that we record the achievements in aid of improving the environment that have been reached during the four and a bit years that this government has been in office. I am particularly proud, as are all members, of the way in which this government has been able to balance a proper concern for the environment with the cause of job creation and economic development. It is very important that you strike that balance. We have been able to initiate many new policies in relation to the environment whilst maintaining a very fast rate of economic growth and generating close to 700,000 new jobs. I can inform the member who asked me the question that in 2000-01 the Commonwealth will spend $1,004 million on environmental policies. This compares with $508 million spent on environmental policies during the last year of the former government's term. Annual environmental spending has in fact doubled in five years, with significant increases in funding for many environmental problems. We will spend almost $1 billion over four years on reducing greenhouse gases and promoting new renewable energy sources—the largest per capita amount in the world.The Natural Heritage Trust is a $1.5 billion effort to repair the environment in a number of areas such as coasts, oceans, rivers, degraded land and biodiversity. Australia's first oceans policy, to provide scientifically based outcomes to protect the marine habitat and promote sustainable development, supported by over $150 million of spending on ocean care, is another policy of which the government is particularly proud. There are improved vehicle emission standards to reduce air pollution from cars and trucks, and our regional forest agreements have put into reserve around 2.5 million hectares of additional precious forest, whilst also promoting new investment in forest industries. We have also, as an Australian first, introduced a new philanthropy incentive to encourage property donations to environmental organisations—something that the Labor Party in the Senate has endeavoured to obstruct and frustrate.So I can say to the member for Riverina on this World Environment Day that in the four years or more that the government has been in office we have given the high priority to care for the environment that we promised during the 1996 election campaign but we have not done that in a fanatical way at the expense of economic growth and jobs. It is a pretty successful claim to be able to say that you have doubled environmental spending but you have also maintained strong economic growth and generated 700,000 more jobs. That is not a trifecta of which our opponents could readily boast in 13 years.1696714:08:0016967Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, is it not a fact that, exactly one month ago, I wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in my capacity as deputy leader of the then returning Australian parliamentary delegation to the Solomon Islands? In transmitting the Solomon Islands Prime Minister's request for Australia to be one of five Pacific countries providing additional police assistance, did I not convey to Mr Downer the Solomon Islands Prime Minister's dire warning that the Solomon Islands police were completely ineffective and that the level of violence could escalate into a nation threatening situation? Did I not warn that urgent action was required lest the Solomon Islands be subverted by armed militias? Did I not also warn against Australia dragging its feet and then having to pick up the pieces of a tragedy which, with more foresight, we could have taken steps to avert? Minister, what is the government's excuse for failing to respond adequately?16967Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—Needless to say, I have not read the member's letter at all but I am very aware of the enormous effort that the government has put into affairs in the Solomon Islands. We have been acutely aware for some considerable time of the deteriorating situation. It is for that reason that we agreed to fund the Commonwealth initiative there. We funded meetings in that area and, as late as Saturday morning, we deployed, with New Zealand, a team there to assess what next could possibly be done in what was clearly a difficult situation. I believe that everything we have done so far completely covers anything that he might have said. RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table my letter of 5 May.Leave not granted.1696814:10:0016968Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the results of the latest ANZ job advertisements series? What does this indicate about the strength of the Australian economy?16968Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for La Trobe for his question. The ANZ job advertisement series for May was released today, showing that job advertisements increased 3.9 per cent in May and are 12.6 per cent higher than they were one year ago. The average number of job ads is now at its highest level since December 1989, which was the previous peak before the Labor Party's recession of 1990. The ANZ reports that recent trends in newspaper job advertising remain consistent with employment growth averaging 16,000 over the next three months. The author of the series estimates that they are consistent with a decline in the unemployment rate to 6½ per cent in September of this year. The government's own forecasts have unemployment falling to 6¼ per cent by June of next year, and so that forecast would be somewhat stronger than the government's own forecasts.Nearly 700,000 new jobs have been created in Australia since the coalition came to office in March 1996. The unemployment rate, now at 6.8 per cent, is the lowest level in a decade—the lowest level since the Labor Party recession of 1990. That is the result of good, sound macro-economic policy not only ensuring that the budgets are in surplus, keeping interest rates down and getting low inflation, but also instituting labour market reform—which would be totally threatened and wrecked by Labor if it ever got itself back into a position of influence.In addition, I notice that in the United States on Friday there was data indicating that the US economy may be moderating somewhat. Unemployment rose to 4½ per cent from 3.9 per cent, and payrolls data was under expectations. This has been interpreted by markets as meaning that interest rates will not be hiked to the extent previously thought likely in the United States, and it has meant that the US dollar, which has been exceptionally strong against all currencies, has come back somewhat against all currencies, including the Australian dollar, over the weekend. Although the government forecasts that growth will moderate somewhat in Australia from its recent record-breaking run above four per cent, the government believes that growth will continue in the high threes—3¾ per cent—consistent with continued jobs creation, new job opportunities, lowering unemployment and benefits to people who are seeking work in Australia.1696814:13:0016968Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why have you attended only two of the past four leaders meetings of the South Pacific Forum? In the light of the developments in Fiji and the Solomon Islands, would you not agree that it is high time your government gave the South Pacific the serious priority that our national interests and the wellbeing of our neighbours demand?16968Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. Implicit in what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that, in some way, the events in Fiji and the Solomon Islands are related to my non-attendance at the last two meetings of the South Pacific Forum. Let me say that that is the kind of superficial analysis of foreign affairs and the kind of knee-jerk automatic negativism for which the Leader of the Opposition is now becoming notorious. What you do, according to the Leader of the Opposition, if you want to be a successful opposition leader, is just automatically criticise the government on everything: whenever something happens, it is always the government's fault—and if you can draw some kind of tiny connection between some completely unrelated event—DT4Crean, Simon, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interjecting about the GST. I thought the question was about the South Pacific Forum. Let me make it very clear that all the attendance of which the former government boasted in relation to the South Pacific Forum did not in any way affect the events that transpired in Fiji in 1987. If the Leader of the Opposition and the former foreign affairs minister, now removed to Paris—or Brussels or wherever it is that he is trying to pour oil on troubled waters and resolve disputes—go back and examine the remarks that were made at the time, and the defence that was offered on that occasion in relation to any criticism that may have been offered to them at that time, they will see that of course the events in Fiji were in no way events for which the then Australian government was responsible. If you want a serious debate on foreign affairs in this country, do not insult the Australian people with trivial criticism. If you want a serious discussion about these issues then to suggest that in some way non-attendance is the cause of these events is completely absurd. But, as the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about the events in the Solomon Islands and the events in Fiji, let me take this opportunity to say on behalf of the government—and, I am sure, on behalf of all Australian people—that we are very concerned about this morning's events in the Solomon Islands. We utterly condemn the kidnapping of the Prime Minister and the Governor-General by armed militants with assistance from elements of the police. The government is as concerned about that situation as it is about the events in Fiji. The events in Fiji are essentially a reaction by the indigenous Fijians against any suggestion that they should share political power with the Indo-Fijian people of that country. Their reaction is racially based. Mr Speight and his supporters clearly want a racial constitution in Fiji. That is quite unacceptable to the Australian government. But, in the final analysis, we have to make certain that any response we give to that situation, as to the situation in the Solomon Islands, is consistent with recognising the right of countries ultimately to make decisions about their own future and to make decisions as to whether foreigners should involve themselves in the internal affairs of those countries. I would imagine that at no stage would the Labor Party support a proposition that we should insert ourselves other than by the invitation of governments.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is defying the chair! The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the member for Kingsford-Smith that this rather puny attempt to blame the government for events that have transpired is absolutely contemptible and will have no substance in the eyes of the Australian people.1696914:18:0016969Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen reports of suggested changes to the government's new tax system? What is the Treasurer's response to these policy alternatives?16969Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Moore for his question. The truth of the matter is that apparently we are now going to see the Labor Party finally unveiling their policy of roll-back on GST. Senator Sherry told the Senate on 13 May 1999:The Labor Party's tax policy will be presented to a national conference which is now scheduled for July-August next year.So in a month's time they are going to present their tax policy. Senator Sherry said:That is when our tax policy will be presented to the Australian electorate for consideration. We are not developing our tax policy on the run.That is fair enough. They had a year from 13 May 1999 and now they are going to unveil it, according to Senator Sherry, in July or August at the national conference. The Leader of the Opposition said the same thing on the 7.30 Report of 23 February. He said:People are entitled to know where the Labor Party stands on the GST and the direction in which we're going. They're also entitled to know exactly what we'd do in the next term of government with the GST. People are entitled to know it and not be deceived. They are entitled to know it and not be deceived. I guess the first inclination of how people were going to be told about the Leader of the Opposition's roll-back policy came with AMWU Secretary, Doug Cameron. When you are in doubt about Labor policy, always go to the trade union movement; they are the people who know. Doug Cameron, the AMWU Secretary, the man who gives the orders to the Labor Party, was on Meet the Press on Sunday. He was asked this question:On the GST, how far would you expect a Labor government to roll back a GST?Cameron: A long way. A long way.Journalist: Could you outline how much?Cameron: I think the Labor Party should really look at the fundamentals.Journalist: What specifically would you like removed?Cameron: We certainly don't believe there should be a tax on clothing.One point seven billion dollars worth of roll-back. No tax on fur coats, no tax on Zegna suits under the Labor Party: $1.7 billion worth of roll-back—of course completely unfunded, except by rolling up income taxes. The Leader of the Opposition was out there this morning making this claim:The GST will take $25 billion out of future budget surpluses.The GST actually raises money. But the Leader of the Opposition said:It takes more than $25 billion out of future budget surpluses.He said he would prefer to spend that $25 billion. What he actually meant was income tax cuts. Income tax cuts are what take money out of revenue and give it back to the Australian people. Your claim that you would like to spend more is a claim that you would like to increase income taxes so you could spend more. The old Labor Party way—tax and spend. And another $1.7 billion of roll-back on clothing by the ACTU.For two years now we have had this farce from the Australian Labor Party that it is so opposed to GST that if it ever gets elected it is going to keep it and then roll it back in some undefined, uncosted, unpronounced, confused, ill-considered way. This is a party which has no position on taxation, no position on economic responsibility, does not have a policy thread to pull together, and now apparently is going to go to its national conference in July and August and tell us about its tax policy. All I can say is we cannot wait to see the Labor Party tax policy. We cannot wait to see it in July and August. We cannot wait to cost it. We cannot wait to hold the Labor Party accountable for once in its life.16970NaN:00:0016970Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you explain to the 1.7 million age pensioners why their pensions have repeatedly fallen below the 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings benchmark since you promised it in 1996? Is it not a fact that this broken promise has cost age pensioners an average of $225 each, over a week's worth of full rate age pension? Do you agree with Senator Newman's response at the weekend that your pension adjustments mean pensioners are in a `privileged position'?16970Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In reply to the Leader of the Opposition I would make the point that the adjustment of the age pension has been strictly in accordance with the legislation—sponsored for the first time by a coalition government; never done by Labor. Labor never introduced legislation to this effect. Labor never introduced legislation of this kind. We brought the legislation in, and the pensions have been adjusted strictly in accordance with that legislation. Of course, one of the features of wage movements under this government compared with wage movements under the former government is they have actually gone up under us. Under the former government you had treasurers and industrial relations ministers running around the country boasting about how they cut the wages of average Australian workers. I am very proud to say that we have lifted the wages of average workers and we have done so in a completely non-inflationary way.The Leader of the Opposition's question allows me to remind the House again of the really good news for the pensioners of Australia that will arrive on 1 July, because there will be an up-front four per cent increase. No matter how excited the member for Lilley and the Leader of the Opposition may get, nothing alters the fact that on 1 July there will be an up-front increase of four per cent. And there will, over the months and the years that follow under the policies of this government, be a permanently guaranteed two per cent real increase in the level of the pension. That is something that the former government was not able to deliver. It is something of which this government is proud, and it is one other example of the fact that this government has delivered on the commitments it made to maintain intact and to enhance the social security safety net in this country. 1697114:26:0016971Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware of any alternative workplace relations policies that currently exist relating to pattern bargaining? How will such policies affect economic development in Australia? Have multi-employer agreements been allowed in the past?16971Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I have been doing my research, and it is interesting to note that there has in fact been no alternative policy espoused by a government in respect of this issue of enterprise bargaining. If you go back to when Labor was in government and introduced enterprise bargaining, all of the speeches of Paul Keating and the like said that we should have enterprise bargaining at the single enterprise level. In fact, if you take out the 1993 legislation there is an explanatory memorandum that was circulated on the authority of none other than the then Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Laurie Brereton, the member for Kingsford-Smith, sitting on the opposition front bench. This is what it says on page 73:The circumstances in which the right to strike is protected by this act are limited to circumstances where the industrial action is related to enterprise bargaining.It really should not come as a surprise, but the fact is that no government in this country has ever advocated industry-wide strikes. No government has ever said that the right to strike ought to be so widely defined that you could have industrial disputes right across an industry, of the sort of course we did once have in the 1970s and which did so much damage to the Australian economy.Opposition member interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—The shadow minister says tell us another one. In 1993 the Labor Party's policy was opposed to industrial action in pursuit of multi-employer agreements. It is only now that they are in opposition—where they are bound hand and foot to the ACTU—that they have decided to change a policy which they themselves once advocated. That is why you are seeing headlines such as we have seen over the last few days from most of our major newspapers: the Courier-Mail, `Beazley stumbles under union pressure'; the Sydney Morning Herald editorial, `Beazley bows to the unions'; the Daily Telegraph, `Stepping back to the dark days'; the Australian, Friday, `Beazley fails industrial reform test'; Wednesday, `ALP caves in to unions over contracts'; Wednesday, `Beazley yields to unions on individual contracts'; and again on the weekend, `Beazley losing the plot for Labor and the future'. Then, just to cap it off—I love those articles written by journalists after they have been speaking to people on the Labor Party side—this journalist, Michael Bachelard, in the Australian has been speaking to the frontbench, and this is what he said when Labor's capitulation to the unions was announced:The response from Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith was swift, fierce and predictable: Beazley lacks ticker; his policy speech was “written and authorised by the ACTU”.But here is the inside comment:People high up in Beazley's leadership group fear Reith is right ...Absolutely. Just to show how weak this man is, it does not matter how excessively, how much, they have capitulated to the unions, their fall-back strategy is that the Democrats would not let such legislation ever get through. This is the deep throat within the Labor Party and here is the quote: Labor insiders say, deeply off the record—yeah, sure—that that outcome would not disappoint them. Then it would just be a case of handling the unions' disappointment.They know it is wrong. They have got a weak leader caving in to the unions, and the people who will suffer are the very employees they claim to represent for the loss of jobs and the loss of investment.1697214:30:0016972Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it a fact that, in breaking your 1996 promise to pensioners, you have also short-changed 590,000 disability support pensioners and 390,000 single parent families receiving parenting payment? Can you confirm that all of these pension rip-offs have saved your government over $500 million in pension payments? Prime Minister, wouldn't the $420 million you are spending promoting your GST be better spent keeping promises you have already given rather than covering for promises you have already broken?16972Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I reject the claim made by the member for Lilley that the promise has been broken. We legislated and pensions are being maintained fully in accordance with that legislation. As far as the government's information campaign is concerned, it passes strange that a party that daily demands more and more information about a major change to the Australian taxation system should complain when a government provides that information. It is the largest change in Australia's history, it deserves a large information campaign, and that is exactly what you have asked for.1697214:32:0016972Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House about increases in education funding? Is the minister aware of any errors in public comments on education funding, and what is his response to these comments?16972Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for McEwen for her question. In question time last week I pointed out that Kim Beazley had made a foolish error in his budget reply when he claimed that Commonwealth spending on education had fallen from 2.2 per cent of GDP five years ago to 1.8 per cent this year. This relies virtually entirely on an error that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPBT4Dr KEMP—Just wait. You did not even listen to the answer correctly, so now I am going to correct you a second time. The Leader of the Opposition's error was to overlook the fact that the earlier figure of—are you listening to this? You must get it right this time—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister may be assured that the chair is listening and you may proceed.BT4Dr KEMP—I felt sure that you were, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition's error was to overlook the fact that the earlier figure of 2.2 per cent included Austudy and that Austudy had been transferred during that five-year period to social security and was not included in the figure of 1.8 per cent. On 29 May I tried to tell the Leader of the Opposition that the statistic on which he had so carelessly relied and failed to check was wrong. But, as the weekend's speech to the Labor Party conference in Victoria shows and as the Labor Party's web site today shows, he is still getting it wrong. He showed over the weekend that he still does not understand. In fact, he was at great pains—and this is a very embarrassing transcript of the Victorian Labor Party conference—to explain to the conference that the 1.8 per cent of GDP was now 1.9 per cent. He missed the point completely. It was the 2.2 per cent that was wrong, as I clearly stated to the House last time, and that that 2.2 per cent on the same basis when you are not comparing apples and oranges is 1.9 per cent. He did not go away and check it the first time—he relied on the member for Dobell, who cannot be relied upon—and he did not bother when he used the figure again to even refresh his memory about what I had put on the record in the House in question time on 29 May. To make the error the first time was carelessness; to make it a second time was stupidity. It shows that the Leader of the Opposition is so careless with the truth and so incompetent that he does not care to go away and check the most basic facts on which his whole attack on the government's education spending relies. This is not a minor fact; this is the absolute foundation of his case against the government. In fact, when the rapid growth of gross domestic product is taken into account, we find that there has been a 15 per cent real increase in education spending during the lifetime of this government—a 15 per cent real increase in Commonwealth expenditure on education— PE4Beazley, Kim, MPBT4Dr KEMP—Go away and do it if it surprises you. You cannot even be bothered checking the facts. What more do I need to do? Do I bring in a chalkboard to show the Leader of the Opposition or do I really just need to convince the puppeteers: Carolyn Allport of the ATEU, Sharan Burrow of the ACTU, Dennis Fitzgerald of the AEU—the Cazza, Shazza and Dezza show. They are the ones who are running the ALP, and I had better convince them because you obviously do not even understand the simplest facts.1697314:36:0016973Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, could you explain how the four per cent increase for a full age pension on 1 July will compensate for the expected 6.75 per cent average increase in prices in the three months following 1 July? Isn't it a fact that these price increases will not flow through to pensions via the CPI indexation mechanism until March 2001—a full nine months after the introduction of the GST? Prime Minister, how can your partisan GST chain ads guarantee that pensions will stay ahead of prices when that is so clearly wrong?16973Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—There will be a four per cent increase, and pensions will always be two per cent ahead of CPI increases. It is as simple as that. No attempt by those who sit opposite to manipulate and distort the truth can alter that fundamental fact. There is a four per cent increase. Pensioners will always be two per cent in real terms ahead of increases in the cost of living. That is a level of support that has never been afforded by any government in Australia's history before.1697314:38:0016973Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, what are the latest indicators of the effectiveness of Work for the Dole? How does this compare with similar previous programs? Are there any alternative approaches to Work for the Dole, and what would be the cost of their implementation?16973Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question and for her support for the latest Work for the Dole project recently announced in her electorate. Work for the Dole is of course one of the signature programs and significant successes of the Howard government. The government regards participation in Work for the Dole as a good thing in itself. Work for the Dole is not just a means to an end. Nevertheless, paid employment outcomes arising from participation in Work for the Dole are a very welcome by-product of this great program. I have previously reported to the House that, based on the 10,000-place pilot program, 34 per cent of participants were in paid employment three months after leaving their projects. I am now able to tell the House that, based on the 27,000 participants who left projects in 1999, 32 per cent of them were in paid employment three months after leaving. This compares with just 21 per cent paid employment outcomes for new work opportunities programs under the former government. This very strong result has come about despite the fact that the percentage of very long-term unemployed has risen from 30 per cent in the pilot program to 42 per cent last year.I have been asked about alternative views. The Leader of the Opposition said of the government's employment services policies:... I've got enough knowledge of this to know that failure in this system that's been established by this Government is virtually inevitable.He said that failure was virtually inevitable. Certainly I would concede that the Leader of the Opposition has had some deep insights into professional failure. He was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training when unemployment hit 11.2 per cent. He was the defender of the union bloc vote and the socialisation objective. Last week, to get some cheers from a union audience, he was responsible for the biggest surrender since Singapore. The employment outcomes of Work for the Dole are at least 50 per cent better than comparable Working Nation programs and still Labor's policy, as always, is simply to go back to the past. The member for Dickson, whom I welcome back to the House, has been repeatedly demanding that accredited training be made a compulsory part of Work for the Dole programs. Based on the costs of accredited training under Working Nation, making it a compulsory part of Work for the Dole would cost up to $2,000 per participant or an extra $100 million a year. That is on top of the $600 million a year more that her changes to the Job Network would cost. This is $700 million more that the member for Dickson wants to spend on employment services. This money would not go to job seekers; it would go to the TAFE system. This money is not designed to benefit job seekers; it is designed to benefit the Australian Education Union's membership dues. It just shows how completely committed the members opposite are to government of the unions, by the unions and for the unions.1697414:43:0016974McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. I refer the minister to last week's Auditor-General's report into foreign exchange management by his department and others. I ask the minister: did your failure to properly oversee this process stem from the need to concentrate your attentions on the seat of Hume and on your campaign to bump a sitting member?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip will come to his question.4I4Mr LEO McLEAY—Minister, can you assure the House that you will have sufficient time available to properly attend to your ministerial duties if this internal fight drags on?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Finance and Administration is welcome to respond to the question if he wishes, but he will ignore the imputation in it.16974Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I welcome the opportunity to refer again to the Auditor-General's report of last week. Before getting to that, let me say one simple thing. I assure all members on all sides of the House that I will be as focused on my duties as I have always been and far less distracted by such peripheral things than the Leader of the Opposition was when he contemplated his change of seat a few years ago.I come to the substantial part of the question, the Auditor-General's report. As I said in the House last week, the government welcomes this report and will look at it very closely. In fact, the government has established a task force consisting of the Department of Finance and Administration, Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Treasury—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPHQ5Mr FAHEY—and also the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to look at all of the recommendations—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned.HQ5Mr FAHEY—to bring the matter forward for government's further consideration in a month's time. But, whilst this matter of the Auditor-General's report is before the House, let me simply point out one thing. The matters referred to by the opposition in the House last week in respect of foreign currency management risk related to a period of many years. I draw the opposition's attention to that report and recommend that they might look at the various aspects of that report—be they in Defence, in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or in AusAID—and that they go back to the period of time over which the Auditor-General examined these issues. It may well be that an examination of those figures contained in the report will draw some very specific attention to people sitting on that side of the House and their management of the finances, particularly in the mid-eighties and subsequently during that 13-year period when Labor was in government. As I made it clear last week in the House, the government will examine all of the recommendations quite thoroughly, as we do in respect of all reports that come from the Auditor-General. But to simply take selected lines, newspapers headlines and indicate that there is a conclusion that can be drawn in no way has any relevance to the period of time in which this government has been responsible for the financial management of our budgets and the taxpayers' money. I can assure you that the reforms that this government is very proud of have benefited the Australian community in a way that Labor could only think about. They could never do it. They were going to bring through accrual accounting year after year but never did it. It simply did not happen—like so many of those matters they were going to do. They mismanaged the Australian budget, and that audit report refers to a period of time in which Labor were in government, so I invite the honourable member who is concerned about me personally to focus on that issue. Don't worry about me.1697514:49:0016975Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House about recent reports from the World Health Organisation on the health and life expectancy of Australians and how we compare to other nations? What government policies and programs have contributed to this situation, and is the minister aware of any alternative policies on this issue?16975Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. Sometimes in health you get a bit of good news. In a report released overnight in Geneva by the World Health Organisation, Australia certainly did have some good news. When you look at life expectancy of healthy years of life and adjust for years of disability, Australia in fact has the second longest life expectancy in the world. This work was done by Chris Murray at the Harvard School of Public Health. Since 1975 in Australia the life expectancy of an adult male has gone up by eight years, which is an extraordinary increase: one year of life expectancy for every three calendar years.There are two reasons Australia ranks so high internationally. The first is our comprehensive universal health care system. The second is the strong public health programs we run. The universal health care system today has costs relatively under control, with health as a percentage of GDP as constant. We have a strong mix of public and private health care provision, the third highest private health care provision in the old OECD of 24 Western countries. Ageing is the least of the three factors in terms of driving population growth, something good for people who are approaching those years themselves. The fourth is we have a very strong evidence base for putting new items onto our health care system, and it is run by science, not by politics. I can very proudly say on behalf of the government that at least three of these four things have improved dramatically in the last four years since the Howard government came to office.In the public health programs: we are world leaders in diabetes, with the National Diabetes Health Strategy; in immunisation, we have improved from being 68th in the Western world for completed childhood immunisation in 1995; we are now into the third national HIV strategy; and we are about to launch a hepatitis C strategy that I believe will be the first in the world. On harm focused strategies, we can take great credit for reducing the rate of smoking, which the World Health Organisation itself attributes as one of the most significant factors behind this extraordinarily good figure. The rate of smoking in Australia dropped throughout much of the 1980s but by 1990 the drop had stopped. This situation applied till 1997 when the rate of smoking in Australia stalled at about 23.8 per cent of the adult population. Because of the tobacco strategy we have run jointly with state and territory governments, there has once again been a drop. We are now down to about 21.8 per cent of the population, which is a very good result internationally—not as good as some parts of the United States but an extraordinary result for a whole country. It is not totally a surprise that we should do so well. Last year when I was in Washington, the ambassador organised a lunch for me with groups interested in health care reform. They rated from the left of the political spectrum, the Kaiser Family Foundation, to the right of the political spectrum, the Heritage Foundation. The universal view from the left to the right was that Australia had probably the most enviable health care system in the world. This was incredibly encouraging because 24 hours later the six premiers and two chief ministers came out and said that Australia's health care was in need of massive reform and we had to start again. The point is that we do not need massive reform in Australia's health care system. We need sensible, incremental, progressive reform to build on what we have had in the past. I would like to be able to compare and contrast the policies of the government with those of the opposition, but of course that is impossible because for the last 18 months we have not seen an original idea in health care from the opposition. We very much look forward to their national convention, and we will be able to judge them then on whether they have done anything in the last 18 months.1697614:53:0016976Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, will you confirm that a student who completes a degree this year will have a HECS debt of up to $25,000 as a result of your doubling of HECS charges in 1997? Is it a fact that the budget predicts that this $25,000 debt will be increased by $700 next year due to the GST? Is it also a fact that in total the GST inflation spike will force students to pay an extra $180 million, almost half the cost of your GST advertising campaign which claims that education is GST free? Minister, how can you claim that education is GST free when the GST is increasing the debts of one million past and present university students by up to $700?16976Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—There is nothing that gets the member for Dobell to his feet more quickly than a National Union of Students campaign. Let me make several points in answer to the member for Dobell. One is that HECS is GST free. There will be no GST charged on HECS. There will be no GST-inclusive index used in relation to the indexation of the HECS repayment thresholds. The system for indexing HECS debt has not changed from the system introduced by the Labor Party. There is no change whatever to the indexation of the HECS debt according to the CPI.Students have benefited enormously from the low rate of inflation that has resulted from the economic management policies of this government. For example, if we look at the indexation of HECS debts over the last three years, because of low inflation, a student with a HECS debt of $10,000 will have paid something like $613 less than under Labor's higher inflation. In fact, a student with a HECS debt of $20,000 would have paid $1,200 less. These are major benefits to students arising from the government's very good economic management.Also as a result of the new tax system, around 80 per cent of Australians will be paying a top marginal tax rate of 30 per cent or less. That means that a student who graduates and starts out next year on a salary of $28,000 will receive a tax cut of $762 per annum. This just shows the absurd scare talk that we hear from the Labor Party, and if, as we know, the National Union of Students were not conducting a campaign we would not have even got a question on this today.1697614:57:0016976Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House of recent comments regarding the government's Employee Entitlements Support Scheme? Minister, what is the government's response to these comments?16976Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Fairfax. He will remember the Daily Telegraph heading last week about—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—`Reith the workers' friend'. WI4Mr REITH—Thank you, Prime Minister—`Reith the workers' friend'. It seems that the message has reached the trade union movement in Victoria— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister!WI4Mr REITH—Sorry, Mr Speaker, I was just putting the article there. It seems that the message has reached none other than—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!WI4Mr REITH—the trade union movement in my home state of Victoria.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.WI4Mr REITH—Whilst it is true that neither Michelle O'Neil or Bill Shorten, from the Right and the Left respectively, publicly supported me personally, I am very pleased to advise the House that there is growing support for the government's Employee Entitlements Support Scheme. This support was revealed in none other than the Labor Party's conference in Victoria over the weekend. Ms O'Neil said:In the absence of any immediately available alternative, it presented the best opportunity to protect workers and their entitlements in the short term.She is a left winger. It was reported that Bill Shorten, from the right wing, was in fact:... backing a motion for the Victorian Government to augment the Federal Government's Employee Entitlements Support Scheme.Just to confirm the fact that the federal opposition has no policy, the Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party said:Labor should finalise its own policy on the issue of protection for workers' entitlements.The fact is that unionists in Victoria know there is only one scheme available—that is, the federal government's scheme. What is surprising is that the one person who does not have a policy and who is not prepared to back this scheme is in fact none other than the Leader of the Opposition. And what does O'Neil say of that? She says, `You shouldn't turn your backs on workers.' No truer words could be said. It is time that the federal opposition finally did something for workers and stood up for this scheme. It is about time the Leader of the Opposition told Bob Carr in New South Wales and Steve Bracks in Victoria that they should actually do something to help workers just for a change.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—John Howard's family policy—Stan's deal.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will apologise to the House or excuse himself from the House. He has already been warned.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What for?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I accept that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of this, but, as the Hansard record will show, I did warn him while he was holding up that newspaper. For that reason, I expected a little more restraint and I ask him to apologise or I will take action.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I apologise. I was unaware that I was warned.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Thank you.1697715:00:0016977Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Again my question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I refer to the minister's claim in his last answer that students should not complain about the massive jump in the HECS debt due to the GST inflation spike—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member will come to his question.MG4Mr LEE—because they would be $762 better off when they start working.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member will come to his question.MG4Mr LEE—Minister, isn't it the case that, on one side of your face, you tell us that the tax cuts are to compensate students for the GST increases of more than eight per cent on clothing, electricity, gas, train fares and so on and, on the other side of your face, you tell us that students can use the same tax cuts to offset the jump of up to $700 in their HECS debt?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. The member for Dobell will rephrase his question in order for it not to have the imputation that it contains, or I will rule it out of order. MG4Mr LEE—The question to the minister is: Minister, isn't it a fact that, on the one hand, you claim that the $762 is there to pay for the higher prices caused by the GST and, on the other side of your face, you claim—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—No. The member for Dobell, I will not tolerate that imputation.MG4Mr LEE—and on the other hand—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question is obviously out of order. You have given him two opportunities. On that basis, the call should be given to the member for Kennedy, who got to his feet.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—On the point of order, Mr Speaker: when our members rise on a point of order—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for Kingsford-Smith and someone on the government benches—I could not see whom it was—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Wilson.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I do not need any assistance from the member for Batman. Whoever it was will exercise a little more restraint. I recognise the Manager of Opposition Business.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I am speaking to the point of order ostensibly raised by the Leader of the House. When people on our side rise on a point of order, you require them properly to identify which standing order it is they are raising their point of order under. The Leader of the House did not, and for one reason: there is no standing order under which that question is out of order. Standing order 145 does not, in my view, contain a provision which rules that question out of order. It may not be a question that is worded in a way which you like but, in my view, it is in order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will rule on the question. As the member for Dobell is clearly aware, the question he asked was couched in language that I thought did not elevate the standard in the House. For that reason, I allowed him to re-ask the question. MG4Mr LEE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I have referred to the minister's previous answer when he referred to the $762 which he said would make students better off after they had started working. I put to the minister: Minister, isn't it the case that you have said that, on the one hand, the $762 is there to compensate students for the higher prices caused by the GST and, on the other hand, you are saying that that $762 will compensate students for the higher HECS debt caused by the GST inflation spike? Which is it?16978Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Let me repeat: there is absolutely no way in which the method for indexing the HECS debt has changed from the method that was used under the previous government; there is no change whatever. Students are major beneficiaries of the tax changes that the government is making. It is worth remembering that, under the Labor Party, HECS debts were indexed by rates of as much as eight per cent; and under this government HECS debts have been adjusted by no more than two per cent since 1997, and in 1998 they were adjusted downwards.1697815:05:0016978Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister advise the House what the federal government has done to help the North Queensland sugar industry to restructure in order to better prepare itself to compete internationally?16978Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Kennedy for his forthright representation on behalf of sugar farmers in his electorate and in particular the farmers in the South Johnston area around Innisfail, who faced the potential of not having a mill to crush their cane this year. The South Johnston mill is facing serious financial difficulties and, without support, it would not have opened this season, and around 300 cane growers in the honourable member's electorate would not have been able to get some or all of their cane crushed this season. The federal government is naturally concerned about the impact that such a closure would have on workers, the farmers and the sugar communities in that region. So we have offered to underwrite a cane growers loan to provide the necessary capital to enable the crush to proceed, as scheduled, next month. In addition, there will be further financial support from the National Australia Bank to enable the mill to open as soon as the necessary infrastructure can be put in place. It is particularly disappointing that in this instance the Queensland state Labor government was prepared to do absolutely nothing. It seems as though it was going to allow the mill to close and the cane to simply rot in the field. That is disappointing. There was no-one from the Labor government prepared to stand up for the workers or for the farmers. Fortunately, this government has acted and provided a lifeline for the farmers in that area.This loan does not avoid the need for restructuring in North Queensland. In time for next season, there will have to be a significant restructuring of the milling capacity, and arrangements put in place. The industry acknowledges that. The board of South Johnston acknowledge it. The cane grower representatives in that area are now working towards developing a permanent regime to ensure that that area can continue to grow sugar and to crush it in a way in which there are satisfactory returns to growers and the communities as a whole. This is a significant step by the federal government to show its real concern for farmers in that area and to guarantee that their crop will be crushed this season.1697915:08:0016979McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware that the Australian Taxation Office plans to sell email addresses and other private details of more than two million small business entities—information collected from the ABN application forms—for $20 each? Why did you not ensure that small businesses were aware that their private information provided in good faith could be on-sold without their knowledge? Minister, given that your department facilitates ABN registration through its web site, and given the privacy concerns you raised yesterday, will you now give parliament an assurance that this `profit from privacy' will cease immediately?16979Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I have obviously been making further inquiries this morning, and one of the things I have been looking at is the `Guide to registering for the New Tax System', which does advise people what the circumstances are and what information will be available. You are also wrong in the premise of your question suggesting that much of this information has not been available in the past. The fact of the matter is that, for companies on the Australian company system with an ACN number, much of that information has been available. What is different is that, amongst other things, we are going from a paper based system to an Internet based system. One of the good things for small business is that a lot more information is more easily available through the Internet system, and obviously if you are in small business you do need to be able to verify numbers that are provided to you. The issue has been raised and we are obviously looking at it. If there is anything further to be said, it will be.1697915:10:0016979Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Is the minister aware of reports that Australia's consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, is investigating customer complaints about the problems in using frequent flyer points? Would the minister advise the House of any further information that has come to his attention in relation to this matter?16979Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Groom for his interest in this important matter. More than 4.2 million Australians are part of frequent flyer programs, and a lot of those programs have been associated with the use of credit cards over the last few years. In fact, over the last five years to March 2000, there has been a 37 per cent increase in bank credit cards. Now there are more than nine million credit cards in Australia. A survey by the Australian Consumers Association found that 60 per cent of Choice readers had changed their spending habits because of credit reward schemes. There are a number of different types of reward schemes in place. Of course, you can use reward points to redeem everything from a toaster through to clothes, whatever the case might be, but it seems that most Australians—certainly 4.2 million Australians—are using them to gain access to frequent flyer seats on commonly used routes at a domestic and international level. The domestic frequent flyer schemes are provided by Qantas and Ansett. There are, of course, the international alliances involving One World and Star.The key issues that the ACCC is looking at are the availability of flights and the timing of and restrictions on access to those flights. It needs to be pointed out to consumers that frequent flyer points do not come free; consumers pay for frequent flyer points. Therefore, they have a right to know when the seats are available, they have a right to know the information and they have a right to get access to those seats; having paid for frequent flyer points, they should be able to redeem them when they choose.ZD4HowardMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice169801698015:13:0016980Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Both the member for Franklin and the member for Lilley asked me questions about the impact of the GST on pensions, and I made the point in answer to the honourable member for Franklin that there would be a real increase in the pension of two per cent, and that claim drew a bit of flak from those who sit opposite. I might remind them that, in a message to the electors of Hotham, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated that `the real increase in the pension will, therefore, be two per cent'. That was a statement made by the member for Hotham. The other interesting statement contained in the document put out by the member for Hotham was that the pension would continue to be linked to what he incorrectly called Labor's benchmark of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. In other words, the member for Hotham does not even believe the press releases of the member for Lilley.169801The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:1698074ET4BevisTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of the state of Queensland draws the attention of the House to the damaging impact of the GST on education. The GST will increase the cost of books, school uniforms, shoes, excursions, public transport and extra-curricula activities such as swimming and music lessons.Your petitioners therefore ask that the House exempts education from the GST.74Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis (from 74 citizens)169805083SBurkeTo the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We, the undersigned residents of Clayton Victoria, strongly object to the erection of a concrete communications tower at the CSIRO site in Clayton. The tower is located close to the boundary fence in Bayview Avenue, adjoining a residential area. It will be used for microwave communications. Our objections to the tower are as follows:(1) Residents were not informed of the plans to build this tower.(2) The tower causes a huge and detrimental visual impact on the surrounding area and is visible in a wide arc.(3) The tower may adversely impact on the value of surrounding properties with a flow-on effect for the income of the City of Monash.(4) The impact on health of microwaves is at the very least still not proven. The microwave dish points directly over residential properties.We request therefore:(1) That the tower be dismantled.(2) That a comprehensive environmental impact statement be prepared including an investigation of the health impact of the transmission of microwaves. (3) That a thorough process of consultation be undertaken with residents in the neighbourhood.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heed our wishes.50Ms Burke83SMs Burke (from 50 citizens)169811797T4CrosioTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of Parliament of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that John Simpson Kirkpatrick of Simpson and the donkey fame, be awarded a Victoria Cross of Australia.Under the Imperial Award system, the award of the Victoria Cross was denied to 'Simpson' as the result of an error in the original application. A second application, in 1967, was also denied as the British Government claimed a dangerous precedent would be set, in spite of such a precedent already existing.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to ensure the appropriate recognition of John Simpson Kirkpatrick.179Mrs Crosio7T4Mrs Crosio (from 179 citizens)16981527T4CrosioTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the massive loss of jobs in the finance industry (40,000 jobs lost from the big four banks in the 1990s), the lack of staff in major banks (particularly the Commonwealth Bank) and resulting lack of customer service and branch closures spread throughout Australia.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will implement a charter of community service obligations, requiring Banks to:adequately staff all branches for satisfactory customer servicekeep branches open unless it can be proven to be unsustainable to keep the branch52Mrs Crosio7T4Mrs Crosio (from 52 citizens)1698139WF6DanbyTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned, draw the attention of the House to the discrimination experienced by same sex couples in the provision of superannuation benefits.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to reintroduce and pass the private Member's Bill, entitled the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Amendment Bill, introduced into the House by the member for Grayndler, Mr Anthony Albanese and seconded by the Member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Michael Danby.39Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 39 citizens)16981321WF6DanbyTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We, the undersigned, wish to draw the attention of the House to the inadequate investigations to date, regarding the activities of alleged Nazi war criminal, Konrad Kalejs during World War II.Your petitioners ask that the House ensures that the Australian Federal Police investigate to full extent all available evidence pertaining to Konrad Kalejs' war time activities. And that, the Australian Government fully explains to the Latvian authorities Australia's new laws on extradition.Further, that if the Latvian Government fails to apply to extradite Kalejs that the Parliament of Australia legislate to extend changes to the Citizenship Act facilitating a civil process to enable Kalejs' deportation.321Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 321 citizens)1698135883REdwardsTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the need for urgent assistance for Vietnam veterans' children due to their father's exposure to 31 toxic chemicals and anti-malarial drug Dapsone during the Vietnam war.Your petitioners ask the House to support decisions in Volume 3 Validation Study on Morbidity of Vietnam veterans and children, revealing:Increased levels of spina bifida in children of veteransVeterans' children's death rates above those expected based on Australian community standardsCancer of adrenal gland in veterans' children to be further investigatedCleft lip/palate in veterans' children significantly higherSuicide rates three times more prevalent in veterans' children Extra body parts not assessed due to no corresponding community dataTherefore, we women and children request urgent medical, hospital, pharmaceutical and financial aid be provided for Vietnam veterans' children suffering ill health due to their parents' service in South Vietnam.358Mr Edwards83RMr Edwards (from 358 citizens)16982168T4FergusonTo the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.This petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate that under current legislation the GST will not be included on dockets and that consumers will not know how much GST they are being charged, or whether they are being charged correctly.Your petitioners therefore request the Senate that when a business provides a consumer with a receipt or docket issued in respect of a taxable supply the receipt or docket must separately include: (a) the price of the goods or services excluding the GST; (b) the amount of the GST; and (c) the total price including the GST.16Mr Ferguson8T4Mr Ferguson (from 16 citizens)1698211524XS4LawrenceTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.This petition from the undersigned respectfully points out that there is an increasing and urgent demand from the people, to protect all remaining high conservation value forests which support flora and fauna unique to Australia, thus complying with the United Nations Biodiversity Convention to which Australia is a signatory. We have a responsibility to future and present generations, and the necessary reasons, knowledge and technology to act now on the following achievable solutions.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives legislate to:immediately stop all logging and woodchipping activities in high conservation value native forests;ensure intergenerational equity by planning for the rights of future generations, and protecting in perpetuity all biologically diverse old-growth forests, wilderness, rainforests and critical habitats of endangered species;facilitate rapid transition of the timber industry from harvesting high conservation value native forests to establishing mixed species farm forestry on existing cleared and degraded lands, using non-toxic methods to protect ecological sustainability;maximise use of readily-available plantation timber for industry needs, using appropriate forestry techniques and progressive minimal-waste processing methods, such as radial sawing, and wherever possible, reuse and recycle wood and paper products;support incentives for nationwide employment in composting, soil remineralisation programs, and the planting of trees and annual fibre crops, inter-grown with appropriate fruit and nut trees and medicinal plants;encourage sensitively-managed, environmental education tourism in appropriate forest areas, with full respect for natural ecosystems, Aboriginal cultural heritage, sacred sites and other sites of significance;progressively utilise technological expertise and resources transferred from the military sector, to help implement these tree planting solutions; and to motivate the international community to follow this example.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.11524Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence (from 11524 citizens)1698219MK6MossfieldTo the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives.We are concerned about the terrible debt burden placed on many impoverished nations. In many cases their citizens do not have adequate food or clean water, nor access to education or health care.Background:The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative was created by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other bodies to deal with this issue. Improvements were made at the 1999 initiative whereby countries would be accepted for possible assistance if they had a debt to export ratio of 150 % per annum. Proposals were made to provide quicker and deeper relief than before.Criticism:The Jubilee 2000 Debt Coalition is a well supported, international movement that developed during the 1990's. They proposed that many impoverished nations should have their debts completely cancelled. By early 2000 Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom moved beyond the initiative by cancelling bilateral debts that did not include ODA relief. In March the US Congressional Meltzer Commission also recommended a major write-off of HIPC multilateral debts. On 20th March the United Nations Administration Committee on Coordination, Sub-Committee on Nutrition stated that 'the nutritional health of children and adults often deteriorates as a result of cutbacks and austerity programs imposed by international institutions like the IMF.' They called for an urgent injection of $70 billion per year through improved debt relief and aid provision.In early March Kofi Annan UN Secretary General criticised the tardiness of the creditors in providing promised relief. Even by April only 5 nations had reached 'decision point'. Creditors gave, one of these countries, Tanzania, only $7 million discount on its annual debt repayment requirements. Currently the national mainly relies on coffee for export income. One third of Tanzanian children are malnourished and one half do not attend primary school. The minimal relief given to Tanzania, and the lack of clear provision for the majority of countries, highlights the inadequacy of the HIPC reforms.In April 2000 Kofi Annan UN Secretary General stated that all bilateral, multilateral and commercial debts should be completely cancelled. He also recommended that a new arbitration system be established 'to balance the interests of creditors and sovereign debtors and introduce greater discipline into relations.'We therefore request that the Australian Parliament calls upon the Federal Government to:(1) Actively work to ensure there is adequate international funding of the current and future debt initiatives in order to facilitate deep, and swift debt reduction. We welcome the government's contribution to cancelling multilateral debt of A$55.5 million, and the bilateral debts of Ethiopia and Nicaragua. The government should also cancel the bilateral loans to Vietnam. In this way we would be joining with the other nations that have already done so. We request that the government maintain existing AusAID provisions.(2) Acknowledge that the 1999 Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative is totally inadequate to deliver a clear exist from an unsustainable debt burden for indebted nations and requires further reform.(3) Actively lobby for definitive cancellation of the unpayable component of debt for the indebted nations. This would clearly affirm our government's determination to uphold the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This would be a major step toward providing every person in the world with adequate food, health care and education.(4) Work to ensure the cancellation of all identifiable odious debt. Odious debts are those that result from unrepresentative governments borrowing money to oppress the people of the nation that is then required to repay the loan.(5) Actively attempt to ensure that the World Bank and IMF carry out transparent consultations with indebted governments, civil society, the private sector and external donors to develop poverty reduction strategies. This would involve funding being allocated to relevant civil society groups to enable their participation in negotiations.(6) Work for the establishment of an international arbitration body that deals with both loans and debt repayments. Discussion should be fair and transparent to help ensure the debt crisis does not return in the new millenium.We residents of Greenway therefore request that you present our petition to the Australian parliament for their urgent attention. Would you please advise us of action taken by the Government to contribute toward resolution of the debt crisis.19Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield (from 19 citizens)16983860J4RuddockTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain parishioners and visitors State Patricks Church, Asquith in the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House our concerns regarding the Northern Territory's Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders Bill of 1999.We believe the recent death of a fifteen year old Aboriginal boy who was being detained in Darwin under the Territory's mandatory sentencing laws was avoidable.We believe the Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders Bill 1999 is discriminatory, disrespectful, morally abhorrent, racist and unjust.The Mandatory Sentencing Bill takes the responsibility for law and order away from the local custodians of the law in each Aboriginal community in the Territory.Despite the Royal Commission's inquiry into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and 339 recommendations later, Aboriginal people are still 14 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Aboriginal Australians. In the Northern Territory, 72.8% of the prison population is Aboriginal. This compares with 33.1% in Western Australia and 21.6% in Queensland. Does the Northern Territory Government genuinely believe that mandatory sentencing laws are making a real difference.There is a better way. We believe the boy's local community and family could have undertaken a more appropriate action under customary law and the young boy would probably still be alive today.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House consider enabling and supporting Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to implement their own laws as responsible, respectful and valid, ways of dealing with offensive law breaking behaviour.We request that the Northern Territory government repeal the Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders Bill 1999 immediately.86Mr Ruddock0J4Mr Ruddock (from 86 citizens)1698480848SeckerTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Your petitioners humbly pray -Considering that:(1) the Government has proposed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) and, relying on the outcome of the recent elections, intends to introduce legislation for such a Tax;(2) the Government's proposals, as published, discriminate between the providers of orthodox and complementary medicines and services by making the former GST-free and the latter subject to a 10% GST; and(3) many Australians desire freedom of choice as to what medicines and services they use.Therefore, your Petitioners request that, in the design of a GST, the House ensures that complementary and orthodox medicines and practitioners are treated equally, so that:(1) all therapeutic goods on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and all herbal remedies prepared extemporaneously by herbalists and other natural therapists from raw materials, are GST-free; and(2) all services provided by herbalists and other natural therapists are GST-free.80Mr Secker848Mr Secker (from 80 citizens)16984636848SeckerTo the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, a context plan of action to be taken before the general release of GMOs into the open environment, a moratorium on gene technology until the government labels foods GMO Free including meat, fresh fruit, vegetables, fish and processed foods - Genetic Modified Organism Free labels on all food.And your petitioners do humbly pray636Mr Secker848Mr Secker (from 636 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business169841698415:17:0016984Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I move:That this House:(1) recognises the importance of preserving our military history and heritage for future generations;(2) applauds the work of the volunteers and returned service men and women in promoting and preserving our military heritage; and(3) calls on the Government to retain in public ownership sites of significance for our military heritage and history, for example, the Fremantle Artillery Barracks and associated Army Museum.This is a very important matter not just for the people of my electorate and the people of Western Australia but for all Australians. Every week in Fremantle at the Fremantle Artillery Barracks there are a number of volunteers, many of them former servicemen and servicewomen, who go to the Army Museum located there and develop and tend the exhibits. There is, for example, an exhibition of a typical prisoner of war camp in South-East Asia. This week and last week and in the recent past that has been painted by an 82-year-old veteran who is helping refurbish the gallery. It is their way of paying tribute to those soldiers who did not come back. This is under threat because the government intends to sell the artillery barracks and close the associated museum and move it elsewhere. They are for sale by the Department of Defence. I want to tell this House that they should not be for sale under any circumstances. Future generations do not want to see these exhibitions stored away in a shoe box somewhere in other barracks and away from public view. It contradicts the objectives the government has outlined in the Memories and Memorabilia program, which is part of the government's much publicised Their Service—Our Heritage program. The Army Museum is based at the Fremantle Artillery Barracks which is itself a very significant part of Australia's history and heritage. I find it extraordinary that Defence are even contemplating selling the barracks. I see the Minister for Defence is here. It is his portfolio. Minister, I urge you and associated ministers to desist from the sale of this very important site. The Fremantle Artillery Barracks and the associated signal station are permanent entries on the Register of Heritage Places and since 1982 they have been on the Register of the National Estate. They are recognised in Western Australia and Australia wide as significant for our heritage and not just our military heritage. If you have a look at the actual listing at the time of permanent registration, you will see that there is clear indication that this site has historic, aesthetic, environmental and social significance. In other words, it meets all the criteria. The statement of significance at the time read: The place has historic value in its associations with the quarrying of limestone in the early years of Fremantle's development, with the story of the development of the state's military history and the development of professional military forces in Western Australia following Federation, and with the development of a national coastal defence system prior to World War II. This goes right back to settlement. The listing says:It has aesthetic value in its topography, its plantings and in the buildings and spaces created mainly by Hillson Beazley in his original concept of 1911.The listing goes on to indicate the very significant social value associated with the barracks. It says:The Artillery Barracks has strong associations for service personnel who trained or were stationed at the barracks throughout its 84-year history. The relocation of the Army Museum to the Artillery Barracks has made the place a reference point for former service personnel and their families seeking information about their or their relatives' involvement in Western Australian military history. It is open to the public and many visit every year. Such sites are, sadly, becoming increasingly rare as the defence department disposes of them, and this one is now in the defence department's sight, in the minister's sight. Minister, this cannot be sold. The minister should intervene at this stage and prevent its sale. I know there are members on both sides of the House urging this course of action, and I hope that the minister will listen to them. The site contains the parade ground, for example, from which the Anzacs marched off to war in 1914, and it was a very significant part of Australia's coastal defence effort in the First World War and the Second World War. The Army Museum too is vital for Western Australia. It might have escaped the notice of some members here, but it is very difficult for Western Australians to get access to the Australian War Memorial to learn about their heritage and history. They are very dismayed—and some have written to me in these terms—to find that the government is prepared to spend some $11.9 million here in Canberra on a new display but they are unwilling to save the Fremantle barracks and the museum at a cost of around $4 million.I think it needs to be said that Western Australians have donated significantly: there are donations and acquisitions in the museum that are second to none. For instance, it contains three Victoria Crosses that have been given to Western Australians—those of Western Australians O'Meara, Gratwick and Starcevich. They are a very important part of our history. If they were located in Canberra they would not be available to the young people of Western Australia to examine and understand. We have a rare military medal awarded to a nursing sister in World War I. It was only one of seven given to an Australian. There are numerous diaries and original letters from the front, including Gallipoli, France and Flanders. There are photographs from the colonial period right up to and including East Timor. There are rare books. There is a significant selection of military vehicles. There are badges, insignia, uniforms and equipment, including rare and unique prisoner of war items. There are battalion colours, firearms, edged weapons collections and captured relics. If all of this were to be moved it would be lost to the museum, it would be lost to Fremantle and, I believe, it would be lost to the people of Western Australia. This is a very significant and substantial site, and I doubt that there is anything like it remaining anywhere else in Western Australia. It is cherished by Western Australians. It is also a critical link, it has to be said, between Fremantle and Australia's military heritage. This is not some parochial matter; it is significant for all of us. It contains thousands of items that have been donated by Western Australians. Displays have been assembled and are conserved by volunteers. I have inspected them, as have others. They include a range of displays which are very important to the people of Western Australia. For instance, there is a pre-1914 gallery with displays from original settlement to the First World War. There is a significant gallery on the Great War, and it includes a life-sized display of a trench which was built by volunteers and which would be enormously difficult to move. There is a Second World War gallery and a Second World War POW gallery which includes a graphic, life-sized Japanese POW experience display. This is the one I mentioned earlier which is tended by returned servicemen, ex-prisoners of war. There is a post-1945 gallery which includes Japan, Korea, Malaya, Indonesia, Vietnam, Somalia, Timor and UN activities generally. There is also an outdoor military display. All of this would be lost.This very important museum is open to the public. It is of great significance for schools. There is also an interesting display on women's services which are often overlooked by state museums. Again I call the minister's attention to the fact that over 12,000 people have signed a petition in a very short period calling on the government to retain this site. There was a march through the city of Fremantle last month which some 2,000 people attended, many of whom were returned soldiers. One person at the march, Mr Peter Treasure, is typical. His father passed through the barracks on his way to World War I and his brother was stationed there after World War II. I do not think it is reasonable to ask these good people to have to fight again to preserve the memory of their comrades. The government appear to be pressing ahead, however. It is impossible to get straight answers. I invite the minister here to give us some straight answers about what is actually going on. Defence seem to be negotiating with the University of Notre Dame to sell this very important site for about $4 million.Parliamentary Secretary Abetz told a local newspaper, the Herald, that keeping the barracks in government ownership could not be justified. I found that an extraordinary statement—and an extraordinarily insensitive statement, I might say. The statement that he gave to the newspaper said:The purpose of defence is to defend Australia and its interests.What are these if they are not interests that Australians hold dear? He said:This is the core business of Defence ...;He went on to say:In the case of the Artillery Barracks, it is no longer the most effective use of limited Defence resources to retain this property ...;You will have to forgive us: we have seen lots of money thrown around by this government in recent months, and we are very worried indeed about the government's priorities. Yet limited Defence resources cannot be used to keep this open. According to Senator Abetz:The Barracks will be sold and the resultant funds used to support the “sharp end” of defence equipment and the support of on-going defence operations.There is no recognition of the significance of military history and heritage. Senator Abetz said the department had commenced negotiations on the future relocation of the museum, but they have no idea where it will go. It has already been moved once. The government do not seem to understand that Australia's interests include paying respect to those who fought and died for us, and for those who returned. A civilised society would not diminish its history and heritage and ignore the work of dedicated volunteers. If the government paid more attention to funds management they would not be in this fix of having lost $2.89 billion, according to the Auditor-General's report just last week. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:27:0016987Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—Tens of thousands of Australians engage in an act of remembrance each time they drive to Sydney from Canberra or from Canberra to Sydney along that section of the Hume and Federal highways now renamed Remembrance Drive. Dotted along the route are the rest stops named after some of the 96 Australian recipients of the Victoria Cross, often posthumously awarded. While keeping weary drivers alive on the road, the VC rest areas also serve to keep alive the memory of the men to whom we each owe so much, with inscriptions of the citations for which they received our highest award for military bravery.Those who begin that journey in Parramatta, as I did last night, do so from the home of the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers, one of Australia's oldest military regiments, who are housed in Australia's oldest continually occupied military barracks. As patron of the Lancers, one of the great occasions of my calendar is attending the annual regimental dinner. This year it was held at Old Government House, Parramatta, the early seat of government in the colony of New South Wales, with the officers in their dress uniforms and Major General Warren Glenny presiding as the honorary colonel. Just before dinner is served, the officers stand at the command of Commanding Officer Lieutenant Colonel Philip Bridie to recite the regiment's guidons, the battle honours of each campaign in which the regiment has served from the time of the Boer War. Thirty names ring out through the night air—from Sari Bair to Jerusalem, Jericho, Wareo, Borneo, Rumani, Jaffa, Balikparan, South Africa, Gaza-Beersheba, Egypt, Jordan, Nablus and Damascus.The ceremony has particular significance for me as I reflect on the war service of my late grandfather Donald `Doug' Cameron. Doug and his brother Jack were partners in a blacksmith's shop in Coraki on the North Coast of New South Wales. Jack signed up at Lismore on 25 September 1914, sailing for Egypt from Enoggera with the 5th Light Horse, 2nd Expeditionary Force. Doug followed in March 1916, joining the same regiment in October that year. The two brothers were both in the saddle, on their own horses, at history's last great charge of mounted cavalry at Beersheba.Something of the spirit of those troops may be captured in a family anecdote handed down in Cameron folklore over the years, which, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will recall for the House. Allegedly, the two brothers were on mounted scout patrol, close to the Turkish encampment. At dusk, they left their horses at the base of a huge sand dune and clambered to the top to get a glimpse of the enemy. They saw the encampment at some distance but, to their interest, the latrines were situated between the top of the hill and the camp. The two brothers then saw the legs of a Turkish soldier protruding beneath a hessian curtain, so they took aim with their 303 rifles and fired a shot right at the dunny as this soldier sat there conducting his ablutions—purely for the pleasure of watching the fastest evacuation from that stall known to mankind! It is said that they had difficulty remounting their horses they were in such fits of laughter.They both returned to Australia and married, and I am a product of one of those unions. But, in the next war, their nephews Robert and John from Mackay in Queensland were less fortunate. Robert and John were both Rats of Tobruk. Robert Cameron enlisted in May 1940 with the 2nd/9th Battalion, 6th Division. He escaped with other members of his unit from Greece to fight in Crete. When Crete subsequently fell, he was evacuated only to have his troop ship sunk by torpedo. He was plucked from the Mediterranean by the Australian cruiser, HMAS Perth, which I suppose is one reason why I am happy to endorse the motion of the member for Fremantle. Rejoining the troops in Tobruk, he was killed by a landmine on 30 January 1942. His brother John likewise served in Libya, Syria, Palestine and Tobruk. Finally, in Gaza, he was killed in action on 9 August 1941. The sense of remembrance is really the purpose of this motion today. My grandfather and his brother were among the force that General Allenby led to the gates of Jerusalem, where the general dismounted on 11 December—that historic date—to enter the city on foot as a mark of respect for the birthplace of Christianity. That sense of remembrance is an important thing, especially at the gates of Jerusalem. The old testament prophets exhort the Jews to remember on no fewer than 121 occasions. The Jews have always understood that we cannot truly know who we are and where we are going unless we remember who we were and whence we have come. I suspect, on a functional level, that the survival of the Jews over the centuries against all odds is due, in part, to their determination to remember. Allenby entering Jerusalem on foot also highlights that these men were not fighting for glory but to protect a set of values that was under threat. In remembering them, we remember the ideals, the values and the institutions for which they fought.In his book The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington cites seven defining characteristics of Western civilisations—the things these men and women were protecting. He refers to the classical legacy of Greek philosophy, rationalism, Roman law, Latin, to Christianity and the multiplicity of European languages. He says that Christianity is the single most important characteristic of Western civilisation. He talks about the separation of spiritual and temporal authority, a division which contributed immeasurably to the development of freedom in the West. He refers to social pluralism—the rise and persistence of diverse autonomous groups not based on blood relationships or marriage—which was critical to the devolution of power upon which democracy is based. He refers to representative institutions and the rule of law, suggesting that no other contemporary civilisation has a legacy of representative bodies stretching back over a millennium. Finally, he refers to the tradition of individualism, which saw the individual emerge from the homogenous social classes of feudal and pre-feudal societies and civilisations.In a speech to a collection of young leaders recently, the Prime Minister highlighted the three things he regarded as most responsible for Australia's record—rare among modern nations—of an unbroken century of democratic self-government. The three things he referred to were robust parliamentary democracy, an incorruptible judiciary and a free press. These things, I suggest, are worth fighting for.I confess to having little knowledge of the Fremantle Artillery Barracks, and I can speak with no authority on its heritage value. I understand and support the efforts of the Minister for Defence to shift resources to the pointy end of Australia's defence capability. I frankly doubt that such a late settlement as Perth could carry the same heritage weight as Parramatta. I nonetheless confess that if I were in the same position as the member for Fremantle I would probably be arguing the same motion. I want to congratulate John Paterson-Kane and Bill Matthews who were the driving force behind the successful citizens' campaign to save the Lancer Barracks when that facility came under threat from the former government.As the member for Fremantle correctly says, this act of remembering is itself one of the critical cultural values that we fight to defend. I want to congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in particular for his efforts to continue the work of remembrance begun by the former government. It was perhaps the most popular program of any instituted by the previous government, and our colleague Con Sciacca perhaps the most popular minister in the previous government.I want to conclude with a thought from that great liberal John Stuart Mill, for whom the minister at the table, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, holds a particular reverence. He said: War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worthy of war is worse. Any man who has nothing he is willing to fight for—no cause greater than his own personal safety—is a miserable creature, who will never be free, unless made and kept so by better men than himself.Lest we forget.15:37:0016989Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I am very pleased to join with the member for Fremantle and the thousands of volunteers and supporters in their campaign to save the Fremantle Artillery Barracks and the Army Museum of Western Australia. I congratulate the member for Fremantle for putting this motion forward today. Indeed, I call on the government to rethink its decision. This heritage precinct should not be for sale. Indeed, the government that can spend in excess of $400 million advertising a new tax system at the same time as it seeks to sell part of its military heritage to raise $4 million has, in my view, its priorities all wrong. Indeed, I call on the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs not to sell this precinct. If they are to proceed with this sale, then they will be turning their back on the spirit of Anzac and on the people who, over the best part of this century, sacrificed much to create that spirit.I want to refer to the call from the Army Museum of WA for people in Western Australia to rally and to help save the barracks. In their pamphlet they say:Support the CampaignThe time has come for Western Australians to take a stand and tell Defence in Canberra `enough is enough!'.We stand to defend the home of our magnificent museum that preserves and displays the memory of those Western Australians who fought for Australia.We hold in utter contempt those politicians and bureaucrats who, with hands on their hearts, capitalise on Anzac Day each year and then behind closed doors, decide to sell our Barracks and Museum.The pamphlet says:Show them all - that the spirit of Anzac is alive and well in Western Australia. ... ... ...Keep Fremantle Barracks in Federal ownership and as the home of the Army Museum of Western Australia.I attended that march. People marched for something like two kilometres. There were in excess of 2,000 people. Some of them were in wheelchairs; some were young families with children in prams; some were old diggers, old veterans with walking sticks. But they made that long march and they got to the Fremantle Artillery Barracks and had their rally. I was very pleased to see that it was a turnout which bridged the generation gap—given the ages of people, from the very old to the very young—and indeed it bridged the political gap, because there were people there from both sides of the political fence. I must say that I am sorry to see there is no-one from the government speaking today in support of this motion. I intend to quote briefly from a letter that one of the people there on that day wrote to me:My name is Melany Thomas at only fourteen years of age I have a very strong view and respect for the Army and the ANZACS. For both of my parents were in the army for twenty six years combined also both my great grandfathers were either in Boer War, World War One and Two. Even though my parents have left the army I still consider myself part of the army family.... ... ...To decide to pull down the barracks now gives me and many others the impression that just because there are only two original ANZACS left that it gives the government the right to pull it down. Once these two great men are gone who and what will remind us of the great and noble things men and women did to make us and our country who we are today.To pull the FREMANTLE ARTILLERY BARRACKS down or just thinking of it brings many tears to my eyes.That is from a 14 year-old girl, one of the thousands who attended that rally. I also quickly want to refer to another letter that was sent to me by Lynette Starcevich. She is the daughter of Leslie Thomas Starcevich. His VC, as the member for Fremantle indicated, is stored very respectfully at the museum. In the last sentence of her letter to me she says: My father was a quiet achiever in his life and so are his children, but like our father, when cornered we will fight back.That was the message of those 2000-plus people who attended that rally. I have heard people here today talk about the sharp end. Without the heritage and the history, and without the care of those two things, you do not have a sharp end in defence. I call on the government not to sell this important piece of heritage that belongs to all Australians.15:42:0016990Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—In joining in this debate, I would certainly like to endorse the first two parts of the motion by the member for Fremantle. Wherever possible, I think the government should certainly retain public ownership of sites of significance to our military heritage and history. The only point that makes me a little curious about this motion is that it is my understanding that the original decision to sell the Fremantle Artillery Barracks was in fact taken by the previous government. I suppose that has been overlooked now.In talking to the motion, I would like to talk about a couple of very exciting projects that have been developed in my electorate of Wannon and that do in fact go towards recognising the importance of preserving our military history and heritage for future generations and that certainly applaud the work of volunteers and returned servicemen and service women. These two projects have both been developed with Their Service Our Heritage funding—something that this government is rightly very proud of and that all Australians and all members of both sides are very keen to support. What is quite special about these projects is that they have both been developed on the Internet.The first one I would like quickly to talk about is called Faces of War. This was developed by the Ararat Secondary College, through some very good work initially by a teacher called Joanne Tate. The site, developed with the secondary college students, hosts artwork from veterans, Holocaust survivors and refugees; commentaries by the students on aspects of conflict; literature reviews and poetry; and details of projects being undertaken around the world. This is one very significant point. It has grown very rapidly and has well over 5,000 pages on the site, and it has won a number of international awards. It has certainly led to contact with school from all around the world, including from Russia, Poland, the United States, Romania and Slovenia. The students are exchanging information and are certainly being encouraged to interview their parents and grandparents to add to the sum of knowledge about the war experience.The second one I briefly would like to talk about is the one that has been developed by the work of Deakin University, through their Centre for Regional Development at the Warrnambool Campus, very ably led by Dr Gordon Forth. Dr Forth, through a $25,000 grant received in September 1998, set about developing this war heritage web site. It is, I think, an extremely successful way of bringing together so much of the history of south-west Victoria. It also recognises, as the motion says, the importance of preserving our military history. As honourable members would know, there are many small centres these days where the local hall is falling in disrepair. But, more importantly, as on this occasion, the honour boards that are in those halls are not being preserved as well as they might. Through this project, those honour boards, firstly, are being collected so they are preserved and, secondly, are being added to this web site.It is not only about bringing this information together; the site was developed as a national model for other regions. So, again, this is an example of south-west Victoria leading the way in providing a very practical and sensible way of ensuring that so much of this important local history is preserved for future generations. This is all about honouring the men and women from south-west Victoria and the contribution they made to the conflicts of the 20th century, most notably World War I and World War II, but not forgetting the others, including the Boer War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. I would like to pay special tribute to the work of the members of the Hamilton History Group and Deakin University in relation to this. I also seek leave to incorporate the web sites of these two projects in Hansard. They are both rather long, so I seek leave to incorporate them rather than read them into Hansard. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Unfortunately the guidelines provide that if they are capable of being read they cannot be included in Hansard.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—Mr Deputy Speaker, they are very long. I think it would be very difficult.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The guidelines do not cover it. Have you taken the opportunity of showing it to Hansard in advance or to me?8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—I have shown it to the—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is irrelevant whether the member for Dickson is happy. The guidelines are that matter that is capable of being read cannot be incorporated in Hansard.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that it would be very difficult to read these. They are very long web site addresses. I really think it would save us a lot of time if these were incorporated.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I would like to accommodate the member for Wannon—whose time has expired, by the way—but the guidelines are quite clear. They are straightforward. They apply to every member in this place and the other place. There have been many occasions when people on both sides have been knocked back because they do not meet the guidelines. I am sorry, but I cannot—8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that you consider this because when you read them I think you will see that these are very lengthy. It would be far easier for the proceedings to have them incorporated. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member, but I am afraid I can do nothing at the present time.DK6Hockey, Joe, MP10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sorry, but it is not open for debate. Do you have a point of order?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—I seek your indulgence.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—On very limited indulgence.15:48:0016991Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—On indulgence, I ask if I can read them into Hansard?10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is agreed.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—South West Victoria's War Heritage web site is: www.deakin.edu.au/fac. arts/swwh/. The Faces of War web site is: www.araratcc.vic.edu.au/users/jot/fow/faces99/front.htm. I am happy to provide that to Hansard.Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member. In conclusion, I would like to suggest to the member for Wannon that he could have read them in in far less time than it has taken to argue about whether it met the guidelines or not.The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills16991R109016991Consideration resumed.Bill read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business1699116991NaN:00:0016991Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—I move:That this House:(1) condemns the Zimbabwe Government for allowing the current grave situation to continue in which;(a) serious economic difficulties are leading to considerable unrest; and(b) agricultural production has been jeopardised by the invasion of commercial farms by squatters and the squatters' actions have been ruled as illegal by the High Court of Zimbabwe;(2) supports the Australian and British Government's strongly expressed concerns about events in Zimbabwe; and In the closing days of the Second World War people looked back in anger, sadness and shame as events in Germany unravelled and the full extent of an attempt to annihilate people due to their race unfolded. The Holocaust stands as a graphic reminder to countries, governments, and indeed to individuals, to never sit back and ignore the annihilation of people because of their race, religion or the colour of their skin.We have seen ethnic tensions across many nations in the years since the Second World War, and for many people there is a feeling of powerlessness and a questioning of what one individual can do to stop this. As I stand in this place today and speak to this motion, I admit to having had the same sense, and yet to stand back and say nothing may indicate a lack of concern at best, allowing events unfolding in Zimbabwe to go unchallenged. One commentator during the early days of the Bosnian conflict said that the evil being perpetrated was bad enough, but what was worse was the indifference that allowed it to happen. It is therefore my intention to draw to the attention of my colleagues in this place and to the Australian public the blatant behaviour of the government of Zimbabwe in ignoring the rule of law and the government's constitutional responsibility to maintain a civil society.Today I want to add my voice to those calling for the Zimbabwe government to restore an orderly and democratic government now, to support the representative group of 1.4 million Zimbabweans who joined in the peace march in April to support the rule of law. Each person who speaks out adds weight to the condemnation of the Zimbabwe administration by the British government and by our own government. In answer to a question in the House on Tuesday, 9 May, by my colleague the member for Moore, which read:Since the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group met in London last week, violence and the illegal occupation of farms continue in Zimbabwe. Would you inform the House of the Australian government's response to the ongoing violence in Zimbabwe and of any action being taken?Minister Downer's answer reflected on the longstanding role Australia has played in assisting Zimbabwe to achieve constitutional government—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Standing order No. 57, Minister Hockey.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—the rule of law and a civil society. He underscored the concern of Australia and other countries, including many neighbouring countries of Zimbabwe. He highlighted the particular concern that the situation in Zimbabwe is so serious that farmers, farm workers and members of the opposition continue to be killed and assaulted. Up to the time of that question, 19 people had been killed. The known total now stands at 25, including white farmers, black farm workers and opposition party supporters. Farms continued to be illegally occupied and the owners intimidated and bullied by illegal squatters. Mugabe not only took no action to stop this but ordered the police to take no action. It is totally unacceptable that this thuggery—including rape, kidnapping, looting, burning, beatings, murder, illegal occupancy and intimidation—is being sanctioned by a government which ignored the rulings of the Zimbabwe High Court and did nothing to enforce the rule of law and protect people's legal rights.President Mugabe proposed to reclaim without compensation 840 farms owned by white farmers. He called a referendum on the issue of compulsory land acquisition, and the people of Zimbabwe spoke. He lost that referendum. Not satisfied—and indeed angered—by the results, he and his government have sanctioned the killings, intimidation and assaults by the so-called veterans. The Mugabe government has now legislated, in questionable circumstances, to compulsorily acquire land without compensation, gazetting 840 farms two weeks ago. Farmers have one month to appeal if they own an identified farm.Many of us yearn for a world where decent behaviour toward others is driven by a sense of fair and humane treatment. The hope for a world where these qualities could surpass the letter of the law may never be realised. Some may say I'm a dreamer—as that great song goes—but to have elected governments so blatantly ignore the rule of law and to thumb their nose at the international community is totally unacceptable. These are practices that we can reasonably expect to put behind us in contemporary democracies. Whatever has gone before may arguably be unjust and unfair—and, in fact, the white farmers themselves agree that land redistribution is necessary but point out that the government's haphazard way of dealing with the issue is likely to destroy the commercial farming sector, which forms the backbone of the Zimbabwean economy. There are ways to go about this, and clearly this government has taken an approach that cannot be supported by anyone who believes in the rule of law and in democracy. This unjustness and unfairness of the past that may be argued can never be an excuse for unleashing a torrent of unlawful killing, intimidation, assaults and ultimately the illegal removal of legitimate rights from existing farmers in Zimbabwe.Our government has joined the British government in condemning the blatant behaviour of the Mugabe government in ignoring the law and ignoring the constitution, allowing lawlessness to engulf the country. The Commonwealth team, headed by the Rt Hon Don McKinnon, has played a leading role, calling on President Mugabe to call a free and democratic election. I understand that their work has resulted in the Commonwealth Secretary-General being given an assurance by President Mugabe that he has called for an end to the violence and will continue to do everything possible to restore normality to Zimbabwe. Those assurances come too late for the 25 people who have died and for the families who are left grieving. The sincerity of the promise to restore normality is still to be demonstrated.The National Democratic Institute, which has set up Team International headed by a Nigerian, has conducted a pre-poll assessment and maintains that there cannot be a full, free and fair poll because the level of intimidation is so great. This calls into question whether people will even attempt to exercise their democratic rights at the poll. This study provides a useful point of reference, though, for the international observer team—including our own parliamentary colleagues who are currently in Zimbabwe as part of the international effort—now that an election seems to be forthcoming. This team includes members from the European Union, the Commonwealth and the Southern African Development Community. There are encouraging early signs that our observer team is already having a moderating impact as preparation takes place for an election later this month, and we wish them well in the task ahead. Clearly, it is going to be a very difficult one.It is my hope that all people with a commitment to the rule of law, constitutional government and fair and humane treatment of others regardless of creed, colour or race will not feel that sense of powerlessness that overcomes so many, that many messages condemning the action of the Zimbabwe government will be sent to their representative in Australia, High Commissioner Professor Patel, in Canberra. If you have a voice, speak out. If you have a pen, write. If you have a computer, email. Do something. Make your voice heard. Put all corrupt leaders on notice that the people of the world are watching and will speak out against violations of the law and human rights and corrupt, unjust leadership. And remind these people—these so-called leaders—that there is a terrible toll exacted as a result of their actions in terms of human misery, increasing lawlessness and corruption, poverty exacerbated by a failing economy, and loss of credibility and standing in the international community. So we call on the government of Zimbabwe to do the right thing, to ensure that there are free and fair democratic elections and that the intimidation, brutality and lawlessness which currently continue within Zimbabwe is stopped.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?834Lawler, Tony, MPMr Lawler—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:59:0016993Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—There is a certain irony in the motion before the House today, not because the subject of the motion is in any way unimportant—recent developments in Zimbabwe are important; not because we in this House are uninterested in the violation of fundamental human rights, wherever those violations occur in the world—we are not uninterested; but because this is one of the rare occasions on which we are debating foreign policy questions in this House, and at a time when Fiji is in flames, the Solomon Islands are imploding, there has been a declaration of secession from Irian Jaya-West Papua, PNG is at a point of total economic fracture, the international aid project currently under way in East Timor engaged in the rebuilding of that country is fundamentally under threat, our bilateral relationship with Indonesia is still in tatters and our broader relationship with the region is still recovering from the trifecta of the prime ministerial handling of Hansonism, the Howard doctrine itself, not to mention Alexander Downer's most recent and novel contribution to international relations theory called `practical regionalism', which I think means something like this: `We like your money up there in Asia, but we are not particularly fond of your culture.' Despite all these things, it is very difficult in this place to actually have a serious debate on future directions in foreign policy. And this was capped off last weekend with the announcement that Radio Australia, the primary means by which Australia gets the national message out to the region and the world beyond, had been sold off through its leasing rights and naming rights whereby Radio Australia in effect becomes Radio Armageddon under those who will now run the show. Despite this rolling series of crises across our neighbourhood, what Paul Dibb has rightly described as this `arc of instability' across the north-east, north and north-west of this continent, are we in this House able to have a fundamental debate about future directions in foreign policy? Absolutely not. It seems that the central organising principle at work in this government is that the further from home the issue and the less purchase the government actually has on influencing the issue, the happier they are to actually have a debate—for example, one on Zimbabwe, important though that may intrinsically be. The closer you get to home, the more acute the interests are at stake and the greater our capacity to influence events in those areas which are of direct interest to Australia, the further this government runs from having such debates.What of the situation in Zimbabwe? The analysis, which my colleague has just referred to, is a complex one. There are two factors at play in Zimbabwe at the moment: one is a failed 20-year long process of land reform in Zimbabwe; the second is the determination of Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF party to hang onto office by whatever means available to it. There is a major problem with land reform in Zimbabwe, one which President Mugabe has failed to address effectively over the last 20 years, despite substantial financial aid delivered by the then colonial power, Britain, to the incoming Zimbabwean government through the Resettlement Grant (1981-1996). Much of this financial aid was, regrettably, squandered and effective land reform did not proceed. In 1998 we had a second attempt at this exercise through the Land Reform and Resettlement Conference, which was participated in by many international governments as well. Again, aid commitments were made, but the actual implementation of the land reform program agreed to at that conference, involving many international donors, has not taken effect.In January 2000, the Mugabe government sought by referendum to amend clause 57 of the Zimbabwean constitution to allow the compulsory acquisition of land. Despite that referendum having been defeated, this has now been enacted through the Zimbabwean parliament. The result of all this is that it now seems the Zimbabwean authorities are actively encouraging those whom it describes as war veterans to go on the rampage not just against white farmers but against the political opponents of the ruling party in the lead-up to the 25 June elections. This is where the rubber hits the road because President Mugabe, after 20 years of rule, is singularly disinclined to surrender himself fully to the democratic process. He seems to be prepared to do anything within his power to prevent the Movement for Democratic Change from assuming executive authority and has therefore resorted to this—officially, it seems—sanctioned campaign of terror to intimidate his political opponents and to turn the continuing presence of 4,000 white farmers into their own version of wedge politics within the Zimbabwean domestic body politic. Unless President Mugabe changes his approach to this, he will regrettably go down in history as yet another dictator. What can the international community do about the above? As the previous speaker pointed out, the Commonwealth, by sending a team of election monitors to the Zimbabwean elections, can assist, and it is worth while that we have an Australian participation in it. The second thing the international community can do is to support British government policy, which insists on a continuing conditionality between the cessation of violence and the proper implementation of a land reform program on the one hand and the resumption of formal bilateral aid on the other. In the meantime, in the absence of those conditions being met, all forms of aid delivery to Zimbabwe should be undertaken through non-governmental, private sector, private entity mechanisms.This whole issue, though, throws into stark contrast some of the points I was making at the outset of this debate. The mechanism available to the British government to effectively communicate its message on these questions throughout Africa is the BBC. The British government actually has an international broadcaster capable of doing that. Do we in this country any longer have an effective international broadcaster after what has been done to Radio Australia? Regrettably not. It sinks further beneath the waves the longer this government stays in office. You would think that, with a deteriorating external security environment, as we have in this part of the world, what you would need is a reliable means of getting your message out, of having your voice heard. Not with this lot, not with the current government. Firstly, we have had the hatchet taken to Radio Australia. Through the Mansfield review, we have had the attack on the ABC, the attack on the ABC's budget and the attack on the ABC's independence. That has been continued into an attack on the resource allocation to Radio Australia itself—$6 million taken out of its annual operating budget out of a total budget of some $14 million. The result: foreign language staff reduced from 144 to 68 and Indonesian language staff for broadcasts into the Indonesian archipelago down from 16 to 8. Then we come to the Cox Peninsula transmitters. We had three 250-kilowatt transmitters capable of broadcasting a message across South-East Asia, across the south-west Pacific, throughout East Asia and through most of South Asia. Now, as a result of the sale, the flogging off, of these assets, what do we have? We have a single set of transmitters operating out of Shepparton, Victoria which are much weaker and less capable of reaching parts of the south-west Pacific, PNG and parts of eastern Indonesia. If we need to actually ramp up the time that we have available to Radio Australia, what do we do? We have to purchase on a contract by contract basis maybe a couple of hours a day from an independent, privately owned transmitter in what part of the world? Taiwan. We used to have our own transmitters in Darwin capable of doing this. We now go on to the open market, the spec market, to try to buy a bit of time here and there in order to get our message across. So this government has cut the budget to Radio Australia, reduced its staff and flogged off our three principal transmitters at Cox Peninsula.What the government is doing as a consequence of this is destroying one of the great national institutions of this country. Radio Australia has a 60-year long history. Members opposite, this is a child of the first Menzies government. Furthermore, the Cox Peninsula transmitters themselves were brought about as a consequence of a report delivered to the Menzies government in the early 1960s after Confrontasi with Indonesia. These are part and parcel of your heritage, yet you are taking the broadaxe to them. I do not understand the logic. In the political theory books you are supposed to be the conservatives, on about the business of preserving our institutions; yet what you seem to get the most delight and satisfaction from is taking the meat axe to things like the independence of the Public Service, the Australian Electoral Commission, the ABC, Radio Australia and anything else which happens to get in your road. The spurious argument used by people like Senator Alston is that things like short wave become a dated technology. Senator Alston is wrong. If he were right, why is it that the BBC, the Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, Radio Nederland and all such comparable international broadcasters are expanding, not reducing, their international short wave broadcast capacity? Where is our Minister for Foreign Affairs in all of this? He is missing in action. If you had read the Australian on Saturday you would have seen a most damning quotation from Don McDonald—not one of our mates but one of yours—saying:What I would really like is an expression of support from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the unique role of Radio Australia in the region.He is not one of our mates; he is one of yours. If he says it is crook, it must be real crook. (Time expired)16:09:0016996Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I rise to support this motion on Zimbabwe. I thank the previous speaker for his espousing of economic theory, being part of a party that left Australia with an $80 billion deficit for this government when it came to power. To date, my figures say that 28 people from Zimbabwe, mostly supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, have been killed since January by pro-government thugs. The violence is largely interpreted as an attempt by the long-time ruler, Robert Mugabe, to hold power after the 24 June national election. While the invasion of major land-holdings has captured media attention, analysts say frightening those farms' employees away from voting for the MDC is actually the primary objective. It is also widely understood that many of the economic difficulties referred to in this motion, such as spiralling inflation and a jobless rate—it sounds familiar; it sounds like the previous government—that has risen up to 50 per cent in 10 years, are a direct result of the siphoning of public funds over many years by Mugabe and his cronies. This corruption and the poverty it causes at the other end of the social spectrum are the reason for the emergence of strong opposition to Mugabe's autocratic rule.Meanwhile, the land invasions continue to escalate unimpeded by police authority and in spite of being ruled illegal by the country's High Court. This appearance of tacit government support for the land seizures and accompanying brutality have rightly raised government protests both here and in the UK. Strong concern has also been raised by Zimbabwean expats and others in my own electorate of Parkes as the situation has deteriorated for the wellbeing of both black and white communities. Such blatant thuggery in the lead-up to the June ballot does not fill me personally with confidence that voting will be conducted fairly and freely. Unfortunately, it would be true to say that the presence of European descended farmers among the government's victims certainly propelled the land crisis onto the world media stage. An even more brutal Mugabe campaign against opponents some years prior to this received little world attention, probably because the victims' African ethnicity reduced their news value to the major international media networks.While at this stage the Zimbabwean crisis barely compares with other African woes, such as the massive blood-letting in the Eritrea-Ethiopia war or the persistent atrocities in the Congo, Sierra Leone or Algeria, Zimbabwe's sudden slide in that direction is particularly distressing. Despite Mugabe's nepotism and mismanagement, post-colonial Zimbabwe had until recently enjoyed a stability and a relative prosperity seen in few parts of Africa today. But reports from the country in the past few days tell of a pre-election exodus to surrounding countries—and abroad on the part of the one per cent white community. This reflects the growing fear that the full weight of civil war may return—a prospect relished by no-one outside the ranks of the impoverished, pro-government thugs for hire, the so-called war veterans.The Australian government and world community must continue to keep a watchful eye on developments in the country because of course there are always distractions emerging elsewhere, including important ones such as Fiji and the Solomons. A timely, well-ordered departure of those wishing to leave is infinitely preferable to a panicked, last-minute scramble if the situation deteriorates more rapidly than we have realised. Along with the growing violence is the equally tragic exodus of African professionals, fleeing the stifling political atmosphere of Mugabe's Zimbabwe. With its agricultural economic base crumbling and its educated professional class emigrating, Zimbabwe's prospects have slumped to those of too many other African basket case nations. The added possibility of civil war is almost too awful to contemplate, and that a world leader in the form of Mugabe appears to be courting such a catastrophe in a bid to hold power is an outrage. It is essential for the future prospects of the people of Zimbabwe that the rule of law and order be firmly re-established and the rule of the mob abolished once and for all. It is also vital that the June elections be free of intimidation and the underhand tactics of one more tyrant that Africa could so desperately do without. May I commend the actions of the Australian government so far on the issue of Zimbabwe. I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is currently overseas engaging in dialogue about what the world community may do to influence the situation in Zimbabwe. I stress again the interests of the people in my electorate of Parkes who have raised the issue with me—both expat Zimbabweans concerned about family and friends and well-meaning people in the community concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe and about other places to our near east and north.16:14:0016997Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I would like to add my voice in support of this motion on Zimbabwe. Obviously it is very important that the concerns of the community are heard. The situation in Zimbabwe is definitely a drastic one, as other speakers have already mentioned. I would also like to draw the House's attention to problems that exist in Africa, not just in Zimbabwe. I actually have a very large community of people in my electorate who come from the Horn of Africa countries, such as the Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia. They have lived in countries that have been war-torn for many years, mostly blacks fighting blacks—not the situation that has been highlighted here today. They actually rely fundamentally on our Australian embassy in Harare for applications that are processed when people are seeking to obtain refugee status here in Australia. Certainly, many of my constituents have family and friends who are still totally dependent on the post in Zimbabwe. I would like to add to the motion before the House today my concern that whilst we must of course take the necessary steps to promote peace and democracy in Zimbabwe we must spare some thought for the other neighbouring countries that have faced very dire circumstances and we must also understand that the number of deaths in Zimbabwe to date has been relatively small. We nevertheless should do everything we can through the Commonwealth and through the offices of our government to effect lasting peace in Zimbabwe. I know that the member for Pearce, in moving this motion, did acknowledge that the land distribution in the past in Zimbabwe had been a matter of unfairness. I think there is a lesson for us in that, which is that we must also take to heart here that unfairnesses of the past can become a threat to democracy and that if they are allowed to fester and brew, if we do not acknowledge those unfairnesses of the past, we can get to very drastic and dramatic circumstances such as those in Zimbabwe. I am not suggesting—and I do not think any of our Aboriginal community in Australia would suggest—that such drastic action would be taken here in this country if the Prime Minister cannot be moved to recognise some of the unfairnesses of the past, but I do think it is a lesson for us to draw from the circumstances in Zimbabwe. We must understand that unfairnesses in the past—whether they be through actions like the stolen generation, unfair distribution of land or a failure to reconcile our past with the future—can become a threat to democracy, and we do not want that to happen in this great country of ours as well.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for private members' business has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for Gellibrand will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Grievance Debate16998Question proposed:That grievances be noted.1699816:18:0016998Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—Many have spoken of the remarkable piece of history created on Sunday, 28 May, when we saw hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians walk across Sydney Harbour Bridge. This is my first opportunity to speak on behalf of my community in relation to that Sunday. In our own way, Canberrans also created their own piece of history on Sunday, 28 May. The emphasis on Sydney as the place to host the Corroboree 2000 and the Walk for Reconciliation celebration meant for some Australians that they would be excluded because of distance or just sheer inability to get to Sydney, despite their wish to participate. We have already read of some communities taking matters into their own hands and organising their own reconciliation events for that day and that weekend, and that is precisely what happened here in Canberra. With some limited publicity, word got around that a march across Commonwealth Avenue bridge would be held on that Sunday, 28 May at noon. Robert Macklin, a journalist at the Canberra Times, played a very key role in getting the march off the ground, with mention in his regular column in that newspaper. I understand also that local radio and TV media promoted the event in the limited time they had, and I thank them for their efforts.As a result of the attempts to get word around about the march, we had the wonderful response of around 5,000 people coming out on what happened to be the coldest May day on record for the ACT. I remind members and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this was the day the first ever rugby league game was played in snow; this was the day when it was 1.7 degrees at 3 p.m. in the ACT—in other words, it was winter. It rained, sleeted and snowed, but the warmth and generosity of the people who were able to participate in that march on that Sunday would have thawed any cold Canberra day. I cannot say `cold Canberra winter's day', because the first official winter's day had yet to arrive at that time.The Canberrans who marched represented probably every age group and every socioeconomic group. Some people came in wheelchairs, some younger ones in strollers, there were dogs rugged up for the weather, young people, family groups and individuals. In fact, I found it difficult to recognise many people because of the amount of clothing they had to wear to brave the elements. Renowned poet Judith Wright, now in her mid-80s, came to see the crowd off, and to lend her support. She is quoted as saying at that time: The last time I walked across the bridge was in the 1988 protest when almost no whites walked but Aborigines came from all over Australia. I am proud today to see the change of heart. Congratulations, Canberrans!Once across the bridge, and with the weather closing in even more, some of the marchers had to understandably head for cover. However, a majority were able to keep on, and the march passed in front of the Aboriginal tent embassy and beyond to the Lodge, once the permanent home of the Prime Minister of Australia. I was interested to learn later in fact that the Prime Minister was at the Lodge that afternoon. I think he had been in Canberra the night before to attend the famous Brumbies game, but sadly he could not find it possible to join the crowd outside the Lodge that afternoon. The crowd gathered, and a minute's silence for reconciliation was observed. It is fair to say that the walk back to the assembly point was a real test, with deteriorating weather. I must record the appreciation by all involved of the officers of the Australian Federal Police, who arrived on the scene early in the proceedings to ensure that the surprisingly large crowd were able to negotiate the traffic and the roads safely. Their cooperation was of great assistance. At the outset it was envisaged that the people participating would walk along the barricaded footpath on Commonwealth Avenue bridge. If that had been the case, I think we would still be marching because of the amount of space that would have been required for this big crowd. In fact the crowd ended up taking over one or two lanes of Commonwealth Avenue. It is fair to say that amongst that crowd would have been very many and varied views on how an official apology should be offered to indigenous Australians, to the stolen generations. One thing was very clear, however: the enormous disappointment in the role being played by the Prime Minister in his handling of these issues. There is now no doubt at all that Australians are looking for reconciliation with indigenous Australians. Not only does last Sunday, 28 May show this; the polls are now starting to show it as well for those who wish to read them.The people of Australia are looking for leadership, for direction, but sadly—I say very sadly, and I say that very sincerely—the current Prime Minister has found it all too hard to deal with. He seems to be sticking to his own small-minded, personal view of the world as he sees it, and in doing so he risks condemning all of us to the same view. At least that was how the situation could have evolved if not for the overwhelming people's movement for reconciliation, now so evident.What a remarkable outcome—and in some ways it is quite tragic, I think, in historical terms—that the Prime Minister of this country has allowed the central issue and meaning of reconciliation to pass him by. He is now isolated, I believe, and quite alone on this issue, as we see the people's movement for reconciliation continue to grow, evidenced yet again yesterday by those marvellous scenes in Brisbane. It is not surprising that the Prime Minister copped some criticism from the press. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald reported on Monday, 29 May: `Sorry PM, you flunked the test'. The paper went on to report:John Howard's decision to squib the people's walk yesterday showed poor judgement and a lamentable failure of political courage—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that it is not common to take a point of order during private members business, but if the member wants to launch an unfair attack on the Prime Minister she can do it with a substantive motion. She should not use private members business to viciously attack another member of parliament.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—There is no point of order. The honourable member for Canberra will continue.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—As I said, the quote from the Sydney Morning Herald read, and I repeat:John Howard's decision to squib the people's walk yesterday showed poor judgement and a lamentable failure of political courage. Even if it's too hard for the PM to do a U-turn on the apology, that was no reason to avoid the bridge. By joining, indeed leading, the huge crowd, Howard would not have committed himself to anything beyond what he says he believes in—advancing reconciliation.I suppose the voting public will have a great deal to say about the Prime Minister's actions. In many ways, Australians throughout the country can identify with most of the sentiments expressed in a letter to the editor published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 May, which stated:Aghast I watched the document of reconciliation brought to Bennelong Point amid such celebration and hope, only to have it handed, by a delighted and optimistic young Aboriginal messenger, to Dr Evelyn Scott. John Howard has never failed to represent all Australians as much as he did last Saturday at Corroboree 2000. His failure to accept the document on behalf of this nation means we are still not free of the shame of our history, although we do seem to be closer to acknowledging it.But after the events of recent times we can now all have the confidence that we are not so condemned, as I mentioned earlier. The movement for reconciliation is leaving behind—in fact, has left behind—the current Prime Minister. True reconciliation in this country will happen despite him.In closing, I refer back to the events here on Sunday, 28 May. I was one small part of that crowd of 5,000. Like everyone there, I felt an urgent need to play my part in standing up for those lost generations, for those who have suffered so much in the past, for the healing that has occurred and for the healing still needed. I am sorry for all that has happened to our indigenous people over the 212 years of white settlement, and I am pleased to be part of a community that stood so proudly on this occasion. I find it most appropriate in a grievance motion to bring these points of view and these comments to the attention of this House. If anything, we should be grieving for the Prime Minister's lack of ability to stand up as big as the office and say that the parliament of Australia is sorry. 1700016:27:0017000Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—In recent weeks, there has been considerable publicity about the plight of home buyers whose futures have been thrown into uncertainty by the crash of building firms. I wish to raise today the plight of another family whose savings and future are being seriously jeopardised by the actions of a building company, Stradbroke Island Homes Pty Ltd, formerly BL&M Grollo Homes Pty Ltd, and a director of the company, Mr Barry J. Rumpf. I should indicate at the outset that the company in question, formerly BL&M Grollo Homes is not—I repeat, not—the company of the well-known builders and developers Bruno and Rino Grollo, nor so far as I understand does it have any business connection with them.Let me briefly outline the background and facts of this matter. Grollo Homes were contracted about August 1992 to build a new house for Mr and Mrs Amato, an elderly couple. Work finally commenced in February 1995. A building permit and subsequent variation permit were issued. The latter expired in June 1997. The building is defective and incomplete. In fact, on 20 March 1996, more than four years ago, the builder suspended the works. This was found in a case before the Victorian Administrative and Civil Tribunal to be unlawful on the part of the builder. Moreover, the tribunal found in its decision on 31 August 1999 that the builder had engaged in fraudulent conduct in submitting plans to the local council bearing a photocopied signature of Mr Domenic Amato, a son of the couple in question. The tribunal ordered the contract be terminated, the building—at that stage incomplete—demolished and the builders to pay $56,000 to the Amatos, that $56,000 being the moneys that had been paid to Grollo Homes, the builders. Information obtained in relation to BL&M Grollo Homes Pty Ltd shows that, during litigation, a Mr Barry James Rumpf was appointed as a director. The company changed its name to Stradbroke Island Homes Pty Ltd and the company changed its registered office to Stradbroke Island, Queensland. Subsequently, the day after the court proceedings were completed, the company went into liquidation. Stradbroke Island Homes Pty Ltd, after several court judgments against it, did not defend winding up proceedings and, as a result, a liquidator has been appointed. The liquidator was informed that Stradbroke Island Homes has no assets and that the company records were destroyed or lost in a fire. The registered address of the company has been changed between 261 Bulleen Road, Bullee, and Tipplers Island Resort, South Stradbroke Island a number of times. The Bulleen address, 261 Bulleen Road, is the advertised address of Grollo Homes.All inspections on the Amato house were carried out by Luigi and Jason Grollo, the most recent being on 15 June last year. Letters delivered to the Amatos have all been in Grollo envelopes. The day before the liquidation, the company purported to assign the debt—that is, the amount under the building contract—to Mr Barry Rumpf. The director of the company at the time the liquidator was appointed was Mr Barry James Rumpf. Mr Rumpf is not a registered builder, I am informed, in either Victoria or Queensland. Property transfers also took place during litigation, and no consideration appears evident on the documents in relation to the transfer. It is noted that Mr Luigi Grollo was a director of BL&M Grollo Homes Pty Ltd and is presently a director of Grollo Real Estate Pty Ltd.A company known as BL&M Grollo Homes Pty Ltd is presently trading with an identical logo to that previously used by BL&M Grollo Homes Pty Ltd; it also has the same business address, registered address, the same phone number and the same facsimile number. Moreover, they are the same addresses and phone and facsimile numbers as for Stradbroke Homes Pty Ltd. A number of photographs that I have in my possession which were taken in April this year clearly indicate that BL&M Grollo Homes Pty Ltd is the builder of a house currently in Wantirna, Victoria. Indeed, the signs appear to be the same signs previously used by BL&M Grollo Homes Pty Ltd before it became Stradbroke Island Homes Pty Ltd. It would appear that the company known as BL&M Grollo Homes Pty Ltd should no longer be trading, as that name was changed to Stradbroke Island Homes Pty Ltd on 7 September 1998 and, according to the statement of affairs received from the liquidator, Stradbroke Island Homes Pty Ltd is in liquidation, with debts of approximately $1 million. Given that the company is still being advertised, I have to ask: is this a phoenix company operation; and, if so, who are the persons and/or companies that are benefiting from such activities?This brings me to Mr Barry J. Rumpf, who was listed as a director of the company at the time of the liquidator being appointed and who, I am informed, is not a registered builder in Victoria or Queensland. Indeed, Mr Rumpf appeared for the company in the action in the Victorian Administrative and Civil Tribunal. Alleged loans provided to Stradbroke Island Homes Pty Ltd from various companies, as shown in the statement of affairs, appear to be from companies related to Mr Bruno Grollo, Mr Luigi Grollo and Mr Mario Grollo, the three people involved in BL&M Grollo. Indeed, the addresses of the companies noted on the statement of affairs are the same as the residential addresses of these persons. Moreover, Mr Rumpf, as a director of BL&M Grollo Homes Pty Ltd, purported to assign to himself a sum of $70,000 previously claimed from Mr Amato in relation to the building dispute. The purported assignment, I believe, is invalid.In 1987, Barry James Rumpf was convicted of offences involving the promotion of schemes for the evasion of tax. On two counts of conspiracy, he was sentenced to two years and three months, and four years, respectively; the sentences were served concurrently. It was also revealed in the Full Court of the Victorian Supreme Court that, in 1986, Justice Southwell committed Rumpf for contempt of court for negotiating a promissory note with which he was expressly restrained by an injunction; and that Justice Ryan also committed him for contempt in the Federal Court of Australia for his refusal to sign several authorities, as ordered by that court.Mr and Mrs Amato are left with a partly built house that they have been ordered to demolish. They are owed $56,000 plus costs, which Stradbroke Island Homes Pty Ltd claims it cannot pay. The liquidator says that he has no funds to pursue the matter, unless the Amatos cover his costs. The individuals involved in the company appear to have transferred assets to companies associated with themselves. The company's statement of affairs also reveals loans to it from companies associated with the individuals involved. These loans are also relied upon in part to claim that the company has no assets. Moreover, the people involved appear to be still building under the name Grollo, and the ASIC and the Australian Taxation Office seem to have done little, despite requests from the Amatos and me to address the situation. These activities raise serious questions that should be thoroughly investigated. I call upon the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Taxation Office to fully investigate these matters.1700116:35:0017001Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I bring to the attention of the House this evening the ongoing issue of the logical consequences of banking industry deregulation. Far from the promised consumer paradise, the results have shown that the big four retail banks have operated in monopolistic collusion, particularly in relation to bank fees and charges, interest rates and bank closures. It is time to expose this charade. The charade is that we falsely believe that Australians who rely on banking services will benefit from banking industry deregulation through greater competition for banking services. Indeed, the opposite is true.The result of banking industry deregulation has been a collapse of banking services. Banking industry deregulation is an unqualified failure for the customer. Bank closures, increased bank charges, fewer retail services and greater difficulty to access one's own money are just some of the consequences. Non-banking financial institutions have not been able to provide the comprehensive service of banks; they are not serious competitors. There is no clear competitor coming onto the scene. Potential new competitors in retail banking have not come to the rescue to put some serious competition on our community shop street corners. Instead, we have the four big banks—Westpac, Commonwealth, ANZ and National—acting as an oligopoly, crowding out potential retail competitors. So where does a consumer turn when they are aggrieved by the conduct of a bank? There are two levels of grievance: those that go to issues of an individual claim for wrongful conduct, and those that go to issues of policy or principle. It is my intention to show that, in Australia, in neither case are the needs and interests of the consumer satisfied.I turn first to the issue of individual claims. A person aggrieved of individual claims is directed to the Australian Banking Industry Ombudsman Ltd, ABIO. I say `limited' because an investigation of this so-called ombudsman reveals this entity is in fact a company limited by guarantee. The members of this limited liability company are none other than the banks themselves. The board consists of six bank representatives of the Australian Bankers Association and one representative from the Reserve Bank. The ABIO scheme boasts independence through the establishment of the Banking Industry Council. I cite from the `Guidelines to the Terms of Reference 1997', issued by ABIO, which says that the ombudsman's independence is vital to the scheme's success in providing a fair and effective problem solving service for consumers and banks. Standing between the board and the ombudsman is the council. The council consists of three bank representatives and three consumer representatives and is chaired by an independent chairman. The guidelines go on to say:The Board—that is, the board of ABIO—fulfils the following functions ... 1. It appoints the Council and the Council Chairman.So much for independence! Banking industry self-regulation is more galling than other forms of industry self-regulation. It is true that industry self-regulation exists in many industries such as in telecommunications and other areas, to name a few. However, banking industry self-regulation stands apart from these other industries in self-regulation in one important respect: unlike other industry self-regulation, this industry group has seen fit in its wisdom to give the title of `ombudsman' to banking industry self-regulation. It has done this to deceive the consumer, the person who will see the word `ombudsman' and take false comfort in the mistaken belief that the ombudsman is in fact the truly independent overseer or watchdog of the industry. The consumer will not see that this ombudsman is in fact none other than the banks themselves.Let this parliament think about the repercussions of this for a moment. We have a banking industry ombudsman who is a private company, owned by the banks, limited by guarantee. What is an ombudsman? The text of Margaret Allars's Introduction to Australian Administrative Law states:The office of the Ombudsman functions as a watchdog over the executive, by investigating complaints and making recommendations to the administrator whose action is investigated and to the responsible minister. Unlike his counterpart in the United Kingdom, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is not an adjunct of Parliament, but operates independently in response to complaints, exercising wide-ranging powers to obtain information.This quote raises several telling questions about the executive management of Australia's banking industry. I wish to put these questions and then provide answers to them. What executive powers are being watched over? None. That is not the role of the Banking Industry Ombudsman Ltd. Who is watching over the exercise of those powers? There is no-one watching over the Banking Industry Ombudsman Ltd. Under the Banking Industry Ombudsman Ltd charter, is there any accountability for banking industry practices to the Treasurer or any other responsible minister? No. The truth is that this so-called banking industry ombudsman is no ombudsman at all. The position is a fraud. The ombudsman must be an officer of the government, not a private corporation contrived by the very corporate identities that the so-called banking industry ombudsman is supposed to be overseeing. There are several ombudsmen appointed by the Governor-General in existence within our Commonwealth jurisdiction and also state and territory ombudsmen appointed by their respective governors. They are, without exception, government agencies whose responsibility is to oversee the conduct of a certain jurisdiction. This is so even in private corporate affairs, such as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. If it is good enough that the ombudsman overseeing the telecommunications industry should be appointed by the people, why is this not the case for the banks?The Banking Industry Ombudsman Ltd must have its charter removed and be shut down. It is a fraud, a mirage and a false hope to those crying for justice against the excesses of the four major banks who have raped our country for too long. Every additional cent of bank profit, every cent of additional dividend distributed, is being paid for with our very lives. Banks in the bush are being shut down and now significant numbers of metropolitan bank branches, including Westpac's Homebush, Croydon Park and Concord branches, have recently been closed. Entire shopping and residential communities are now being reduced to non-serviced residential wastelands, lacking services for their thousands of suburban residences. This has outraged local residents like Russell Wilkins, Paul Johnston, Frances Drury and Michael Taylor who all told me yesterday that they have had a gutful of the banks.I turn now to the issue of banking industry regulation. The government has stripped itself of dispute resolution responsibilities by the appointment of a banking industry subsidiary company. So what about banking industry regulation and the issues of bank closures, service levels and corporate responsibility? We have reached the point of no return with banking industry liberalism. Utilitarianism has reached its logical conclusion. The hard-headed logic of `real dollars makes real sense' has reached its logical end. Banks are more concerned about the dollars and cents or bottom-line economics. Banks see ethical discussion and philosophical argument as a nonsense that has no relevance in the real world of banking and finance.As well, I now wish to bring to this House's attention the bottom line about philosophy and ethics in the context of this debate and show the banks where this hard-headed economics is taking us. Let us start with the logical consequences of self-regulation. Here we see the effect of non-government intervention. Talk to the banks and they will tell you what most other large corporate boards of directors will tell you: `Our obligations extend only to the letter of the law', or you might get the answer, `Our primary obligations are to our shareholders, our company as a whole and our creditors.' They are very brave words. Comments such as these remind me of the recent closure of the Homebush branch of the Westpac Bank. In this case, Westpac led Strathfield Municipal Council to believe that, in return for its business, the Homebush branch would remain open for five years. The ratepayers of the Strathfield local government area were dudded when the bank closed three years later. I take this opportunity to congratulate the President of the Homebush Main Street Committee, Marlene Doran, on her magnificent campaign on behalf of the citizens of Homebush.If you go to law school and study commercial law, you will be taught that every company has five duties: duty to the law, duty to the shareholder, duty to the company, duty to the creditor and duty to society. The banks have simply employed a paradigm of selective amnesia and forgotten their duty to society. The term `good corporate citizen' is now replaced with the rider, `We owe a duty to society so long as it profits the bank.' The rider is clearly evident with Westpac's sponsorship of the Olympics—they throw enormous money at the Olympics while closing three of their branches in the immediate vicinity of the Olympic site at Homebush. This is not the purpose of banking industry deregulation as first envisaged. The banking industry has used its clout to turn what was a noble policy direction into a self-serving feeding frenzy of immoral and unsustainable greed. The banks are determined to squeeze every cent of profit for the benefit of their shareholders—indifferent to the long-term social and economic consequences of their actions on the Australian economy. The conduct of the banks is economically unsustainable for Australia. The remedy to this situation is not going to be easy. The message to the banks is clear: reinvent yourselves. Remember your duty to society. This parliament must demonstrate leadership and reinvent the banks' responsibilities to the public. This includes the following: remove the Banking Industry Ombudsman Ltd and replace it with a real ombudsman, appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendations of this parliament, with real powers of accountability; introduce legislation that compels duty obligations on the banks in terms of minimum standards of services; introduce financial liability legislation that makes corporations legally liable for their social costs—if a corporation is free to profit from their investments, they should be liable for the social costs they incur—and review the concept of limited liability of shares to accommodate social costs. These proposals are put in recognition of Westpac's recently announced $818 million half-yearly profit. These profits are obtained by economically immoral means. I say `immoral' because the question is raised: $818 million profit—at what cost? So, too, they must pay from these profits for the social costs of increased banking fees, bank closures and diminished service levels that are the real costs of these profits, costs we as a community must pay for the benefit of the banks' shareholders. The social injustice in this matter is manifest and must be addressed by this parliament. (Time expired)1700416:46:0017004Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I would like to take this opportunity of relaying to the House a very interesting experience I had recently and also to praise the excellent work done by the Sunshine Coast Helicopter Rescue Service over the last 20 years. This service was established by the late Mr Des Scanlan, who was very much an icon of the Sunshine Coast, a person who had given many hours to the community and without whose energy the Sunshine Coast Energex Helicopter Rescue Service would not be performing the outstanding job that it currently does.Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, you would be interested to know that last year the service flew 1,274 missions, clocking up 1,314 hours providing a much needed service both for people on the Sunshine Coast and those in the country. In fact the three Energex helicopters fly all the way from Bundaberg in the north, south to Tenterfield and to Western Queensland. This service is called upon to assist the circumstances of climbing accidents, traffic accidents, hospital transfers, ocean rescues, land searches, fire spotting missions and surf patrols. The helicopters are very well equipped and they carry essential emergency rescue equipment including heart-start monitors, 3,000 litres of oxygen and 400 litres of portable oxygen, a stretcher and vacuum mattresses, a nightsun spotlight with 30-million-candle power, a portable mini syringe pump, communications equipment and much more.This service has been responsible for an increasing effort on behalf of the local community over the last 20 years, from when it had only one helicopter, one full-time pilot and 12 volunteers. In its first year of operation it completed 300 missions. Having said that, this is clearly a service which is owned by the Sunshine Coast community, which continues to expand its area of territorial operation and which over the last 20 years has saved the lives of so many people both on the coast proper, in the hinterland and in surrounding country areas.As members of parliament we are often subject to criticism; sometimes it is justified and on many other occasions it is not. As politicians, we ought not to hesitate to do something different. I participated last Friday week in a competition to raise money for the Sunshine Coast Energex Helicopter Rescue Service by enabling the winner of this competition to push a pollie—namely me—out of a plane at 10,000 feet. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—That is a big task. I bet they enjoyed it.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It was a very interesting experience and I would commend it to the honourable member opposite. The arrangement was that those who pledged donations to the helicopter rescue service had their names put in a barrel in a competition widely promoted by radio station SEA FM and the winner was announced on air. In fact, some thousands of dollars were raised for the Sunshine Coast Energex Helicopter Rescue Service and the prize for the winner was to be fortunate enough to go up in the plane and physically push me out of the plane, as well as a parachute jump for that person. Six months ago when I spoke with SEA FM and the helicopter rescue service with a view to organising this fundraising experience it seemed a good idea. The media were present at Caloundra airport and they asked me how I felt. I was a little nervous and a bit apprehensive. I pointed out that I had made a new will, that I had rung a few friends to say goodbye, that I had had a last supper the night before and that the sky diving company had advised me to wear a body bag with a zip. With that gallows humour, I got on the plane and I was told it would take some 20 minutes before we reached 10,000 feet. So I thought I would have at least 20 minutes of life left.I looked out of the window and I saw the beautiful Sunshine Coast, and what an absolutely magnificent privilege it is to represent the most wonderful area in Australia. I could see the beaches all the way from Caloundra through to Maroochydore. I could even see the electorate represented by my colleague the honourable member for Fairfax—areas north of Maroochydore. We got to 2,000 feet, 3,000 feet, 4,000 feet and I peered out of the plane and I looked at those beaches and I thought, `I could manage a jump at that height.' Then I looked at the altitude meter and we got to 5,000 feet and then 6,000 feet. I felt the time starting to ebb away and I thought, `They are going to stamp my file “certifiably insane”.' Then we got to 10,000 feet and the door was opened. Naturally, being someone quite cautious, I stepped back from the open door because obviously one does not want to fall out of a plane, and then it occurred to me that this was the reason the plane was up there. I realised on the way up that with the media at the airport I had no realistic opportunity to back out with a skerrick of credibility, so I had to go through with it. It was a tandem jump. I crossed my arms, and Natasha Must, who works for the Sunshine Coast Weekender, an excellent publication, pushed me on the chest—and out I went. I free-fell for some 6,000 feet, taking 35 seconds. It was a bit disorienting as I spun around in every possible direction—and I saw the beautiful Sunshine Coast from many angles that I had never expected to experience. Then, at 4,000 feet, the parachute opened, happily, and gently we came down to earth. I am able to say that it was a wonderful chance to do some real good for the Sunshine Coast Energex Helicopter Rescue Service. It was the first time I had done a parachute jump and it was certainly the first time I had ever been on a `parachute push', but it was a particularly interesting experience to be poised at that open door at 10,000 feet, and then to experience the push and then the whoosh of the wind and the freefall. Then there was the exhilaration of landing on the beach, right on the cross that the skydiving company had placed there, though when I saw the cross from some distance up I was a bit concerned about the purpose for which it was there. Many people would ask `Why did you do it?' I did it because I was really keen to do something for the Sunshine Coast Helicopter Rescue Service. It was also a wonderful experience. It gave me a chance to appreciate the Sunshine Coast from an angle, from a perspective, that one does not normally have the chance to. Some people might say, `Well, it's a good way for politicians to come down to earth,' or `It's wise to keep your feet on the ground,' but seeing one's electorate from 10,000 feet is certainly a very great leveller. I would like to thank all of those involved in this fundraiser for charity: the local radio station, SEA FM, which has a very strong following on the Sunshine Coast; the Sunshine Coast Energex Helicopter Rescue Service, and all of the many people on the Sunshine Coast who donated money and who raised some thousands of dollars for this charity. I would like to congratulate the winning contestant, Natasha Must, who was so inspired by the opportunity to push a pollie out of the plane that she leapt out just moments afterwards on her own tandem jump. Both of us arrived safely. It was a great experience, and it was a wonderful opportunity to raise money for this important community service which has saved very many lives over the last 20 years.1700616:54:0017006Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I recently had a very disturbing letter from a veteran advocate in Perth. It reads thus:Dear Mr Edwards,I write this letter to register my disgust and also to inform you of the bureaucratic nonsense that currently prevails when a Veteran suffers a psychotic breakdown. I will document the chain of events below, which I was involved in.On Sunday the 9th of April 2000 I received a phone call at approximately 1600hrs from a neighbour of Ken Freeman, a Veteran, who I had been dealing with and assisting in submitting a claim for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to Veterans Affairs. The neighbour told me that Ken had informed him that he was about to commit suicide and was in a very poor state of mind and appeared to have completely broken down.I inquired of the neighbour if he was prepared to keep Ken safe whilst I arranged his admittance to the Hollywood Clinic which at that point I thought was put in place to deal with such emergencies. I then rang the Hollywood Clinic and spoke with the duty staff and informed them of what had transpired and also informed them that Ken had been attending Dr Oleh Kaye, Psychiatrist, and was in possession of a report that had been sent to the Veterans Affairs Department in support of his claim for Post Traumatic Stress. I then requested that I deliver Ken to the Clinic for immediate treatment given his state of mind. I was advised by the duty staff that they could not admit Ken even though there was adequate bedspace, because they needed a referral from a Psychiatrist before the admittance could take place. I then informed the staff that Dr Oleh Kaye could not be contacted and could they suggest an alternative with a view to having Ken admitted to the Clinic for treatment as soon as possible. I was then informed to take him to either Royal Perth Hospital or Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital to see the resident Psychiatrist for a referral.I arrived at the emergency department of Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital at 1722hrs the same day. Ken was seen in the emergency department by the Medical Doctor on duty who I advised what was required of him, to have Ken transferred to the Hollywood Clinic for immediate treatment. He then advised us that the resident Psychiatrist would see Ken in due course. At approximately 0130hrs on 10th April 2000, some eight hours later, Ken was finally seen to by the resident Psychiatrist.I must inform you, those eight hours I spent with Ken without any help from any medical professional in the waiting room of the Sir Charles Gairdner Emergency Department were somewhat upsetting to say the least. Ken was admitted to hospital at approximately 0200hrs on the 10th April 2000 and I was informed by the resident Psychiatrist that Ken would be transferred to the Hollywood Clinic later that morning. I then left the hospital at approximately 0215hrs, 10th April 2000.At approximately 0830hrs on the 10th April 2000, I received a phone call from the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital resident Psychiatrist informing me that despite his referral, the Clinic would still not accept Ken, as approval to admit him had not been received from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and could I sort it out. I then rang the Veterans Affairs Department to ascertain why Ken was not being transferred to the Clinic. I was advised that until he could furnish proof that he was in fact a Veteran, transfer could not take place. I point out, for your information, that his Veterans Affairs file number was WSM 8465. I then arranged for proof of this to be faxed to the Veterans Affairs Department at approximately 1000hrs 10th April 2000. Ken was finally admitted to the Hollywood Clinic some eighteen hours after the start of what I considered a life threatening emergency.The reason I write this letter Mr Edwards, is that Ken Freeman, an ex member of the Special Air Service Regiment died on the 12th April 2000, two days after being admitted to the clinic. I feel that an argument could be mounted that the bureaucratic lunacy that surrounded Ken, and given his fragile condition even I, a non-medical professional, could see he was in, could have contributed to his eventual death two days later. What I ask Mr Edwards, is that Ken's death not go unnoticed and that other Veterans do not have to continue to endure these continual bureaucratic bunglings that ruin lives; you help to address this would be appreciated.Having received this letter, I had discussions with the writer, Mr Eric Giblett, a JP, and also with Mr Freeman's widow. They feel very strongly that they do not want Ken Freeman's life to pass without something being done. I have put a series of questions to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and I hope that he will call an urgent review of the admittance procedures. I do not want to apportion blame or point the finger at any person in particular, but there was obviously something very wrong with the system. If that something is still very wrong with the system, then it must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Like Mrs Freeman and her two children, I do not want Ken's death to pass without the matter being addressed. To do so, in their own words, `would be a waste of his life'.I also want to take the opportunity to compliment Eric Giblett. Eric is a dedicated advocate and voluntary worker. It is on those like him—for it is often on their shoulders—that falls the heavy burden of support for fellow veterans. These two men were close friends. I can imagine that those eight hours that Eric Giblett spent with Ken Freeman would have been difficult hours. I do not know what the answer is, because our system relies so much on volunteer help. I think the volunteer help in this particular circumstance went a long way. I think we need to recognise, too, the volunteer help that veterans give other veterans in every state, in every ex-service organisation and in every group that is set up to assist fellow veterans. I am sure that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is sitting at the table, would be most concerned about this circumstance. I earnestly ask him if he could, with the resources of his department, to ascertain what the procedural problem was and, if there is a problem, to have it fixed up.I did not want to delay bringing this letter to the attention of the House much longer, but I would have liked to have known the cause of death. There has been a coronial inquiry, but at this stage there has been no public announcement of the results. Once again, I ask the minister to address the questions and this issue. I am sure that he will be prepared to do that.1700717:03:0017007Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—I rise this evening to talk about an exceptional young man by the name of Jesse Martin from Sassafras in Victoria. He is one of my constituents. Most of you, I hope, would have heard the name Jesse Martin. He is an adventurer and yachtsman who, at the tender age of 17, left our shores to sail his yacht Lionheart around the world, unassisted and single-handed. He departed Melbourne on 6 December 1998 at age 17; he celebrated his 18th birthday at sea on 26 August 1999; and he sailed back through Port Phillip heads at 6.28 in the morning on Sunday, 31 October 1999, aged 18. He therefore holds the world record as the youngest person to sail around the world non-stop and unassisted and without the aid of fossil fuels.There are a number of words that come to mind when I think about the extraordinary achievements of this young man—words like dedication, determination, courage and role model. Dedication: Jesse started out on this adventure years before when, as a very young teenager, he decided he wanted to do this trip. It was not so much that Jesse wanted to be a yachtsman—in fact I believe that since he has returned he has not been back on board Lionheart to take it out to sea—but rather he wanted to achieve being the youngest person to sail around the world single-handed. He wanted to demonstrate to the world that it could be done without the use of fossil fuels. So, certainly, Jesse was dedicated.Determination: some of the time at sea it was lonely and boring for Jesse. There were quiet times, times in the doldrums, times when it rained incessantly, times when the wind disappeared and times when it blew. He discussed his trip in a recent interview with Maree Curtis in the Herald Sun. She reported: He asks if I would like to see a rough-cut of the eight-minute promo for his documentary. It begins like a Boy's Own adventure. There's Martin waving goodbye, reading in the sun, strumming his guitar, putting Lionheart through her paces, at one with his vessel and the sea. Then there he is, nine months later rounding the Cape of Good Hope, crying, shaking in terror inside his cabin while outside the wind howls and bounces him around like cotton wool. The camera is only inches from his contorted faced. “I'm so scared,” he says, voice breaking with sobs. He looks terrified. He is cold and wet and alone, he has no one to share his fear with, no one to tell him it will be all right. He is a scared little boy and your heart breaks for him. Later, he will describe it as the worst night of his life.Courage: unmistakable courage in the heart of adversity and in undertaking the absolute unknown. This trip was his first ocean voyage in which he sailed a yacht by himself. He had sailed in the ocean in order to prepare himself, but he had never sailed single-handed in the ocean before he left on this remarkable journey.Role model: I believe that he is a role model for all of us, not in the sense that we have to do the unachievable but that we set should goals, no matter how small, for ourselves and work to achieve them. What Jesse has done is to help young people around the world focus on what they can do with their lives. His mother, Louise, even mortgaged her house to help buy the yacht to allow him to make his safe journey. His mentor, the yachtsman John Hill, my friend, taught him how to sail along with his father and worked tireless numbers of hours with him on the detail of getting ready for the voyage, in making sure that he had the safety equipment, the back-up, the food, the water and everything that he would need. His major sponsor was Mistral, and another sponsor and the reporter of his voyage was the Herald Sun.John Hill rang me one day, asking for support for Jesse. One of the things I did was to say, `Look, John: I've got a Red Ensign.' For those of you who do not know what a Red Ensign is, it is a red version of the Australian flag, one that I used to fly on my ocean-going yacht. `I would like Jesse to fly it out of the heads and take it around the world and bring it back to me.' He did that, and it hangs on the wall in my study at the moment, proudly. I did that because of some hope, perhaps superstitious or otherwise, that that might help bring him home. I have to say to you that his skill and determination and the nature of his vessel all had a lot more to do with it than did the little flag.Setting goals is important for all of us. In that context, I remember last year, in September 1999, attending the Older Persons of the Year Awards here in Canberra. You might not recall reading and hearing a lot in the press about it, but at the awards night there were 50 older people whose lives were told about to the assembled group. Two ladies whom I had dinner with were, I thought, worthy of comment. Veronica Adams of Emu Park, Queensland at 90 first rode a Harley Davidson motorcycle; at 91 went camel riding; at 92, tandem skydiving; and at 93, hot air ballooning and hang gliding. Florence Houghton of Prahran, Victoria was 94 then, and she has been into aerobatic flying, tandem parachute jumping, hot air ballooning and Harley Davidson riding, and she has sped around a racetrack with Peter Brock at 250 kilometres an hour.In welcoming Jesse home, I would like to say that it is not just what the young do or what the old do, but what all of us can accomplish. We do not have to do such dramatic things, but it is good to know that there are people like that who are willing to participate. On 26 October, Jesse, in his final report to the Herald Sun at a position 38 degrees 28 minutes south, and 135 degrees 49 minutes east, wrote:Well this is it, the last diary entry I'll be writing. Early next Sunday morning I expect to cross the imaginary line between Point Lonsdale and Point Nepean at the Port Phillip Heads. A gun shot will signal the end of the voyage after nearly 11 months at sea to give me the record of being the youngest solo, non-stop and unassisted circumnavigator.... ... ...If anything, the end is going to be more hazardous than sailing in the middle of the ocean. Firstly, there are heaps more things to bump into - including land and other boats - and secondly, I've got the most treacherous port entry in the world to contend with before I can relax. ... ... ...I have never been one to like sudden change. I hate getting haircuts for this particular reason but I can't see any escape from the inevitable surprises awaiting me on shore. The picture in my mind of friends was taken on December 6 last year but since then heaps of things have occurred. People have dyed and cut their hair, grown taller, driven cars, crashed cars, met new friends and gone different ways. There are people I'll never see again in this life but also many friendships made that would otherwise have not happened. This trip has had the single most effect on me in my life and is going to climax on Sunday when all the changes become apparent and I'm left to choose a new direction for my life as a young adult. And so I'm taking these last few days of the voyage to reflect on life, to think about how things are and how I'd like them to be and prepare myself for Sunday as the curtain draws to a close on everything I once knew to be certain.It is clear to me that we need role models, and it is clear to me that Jesse Martin is one. During his trip, he spent incredible numbers of hours sending emails to young schoolchildren, talking about his environmental dreams in his attempt to publicise the need for the world to dramatically reduce the burning of fossil fuels and so help reverse the effects of global warming. (Time expired1700917:13:0017009Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Today I grieve for the demise of parliamentary democracy in Fiji. At the outset, I should indicate that, in a short adjournment speech last week in which I noted that the hostages still remained as hostages and called for their safe release, I mentioned as one of those hostages Nareish Kumar, the member for Labasa Open, who was the delegation leader of the Fijian delegation that attended the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum here in Canberra in January of this year. I place on the record that I was pleasantly surprised to read in media reports later in the week that I was in error in believing that he remained a hostage. He was amongst a second group of hostages who were released, and I am pleased for him as an individual; but I still iterate my point that we as parliamentarians look forward to the early release, as soon as possible, of Prime Minister Chaudhry and his 30 fellow hostages.At the APP Forum, the Fijian delegation, in speaking to a motion about regional peacekeeping, indicated that Fiji had a long history of involvement in peacekeeping forces; that they had been involved in the Middle East, in Namibia, in Afghanistan, in Iran and now, of course, in East Timor, and that they were justifiably proud of those efforts. But the delegation also put on the record that it is a paradigm shift from conflicts between states to conflicts within states. In particular, the Fijian delegation highlighted that in the small island states of the Pacific, the reality about these conflicts within states is hard to deny. They spoke of the coup d'etat in Fiji which was followed by struggles in Papua New Guinea, in Bougainville. They highlighted the animosity amongst the tribes in the Solomon Islands, the internal power struggles in the Kingdom of Tonga and, at that time, the recent assassination in Samoa. But it is even more chilling to read the comments that followed about Fiji in particular, because in that contribution to the APPF, the Fijian delegation said:Whilst we continue to engage ourselves in peacekeeping duties between other states and groups outside of our country and our region, we could very well find ourselves being the next target for peacekeeping duties.I sincerely hope that the situation in Fiji does not deteriorate to the extent that international peacekeepers are required. However, the remark by the Fiji delegation members shows the fragility of the democratic settlement in Fiji. In 1997, when the Reeves commission had brought down their review and suggested amendments to the previous 1990 racist constitution, I stated in the debate upon a motion in this place:Regrettably, there is a small band of extreme nationalists who wish to see the 1990 racist constitution maintained as is.One would hope that the mainstream elements of the indigenous Fijian community do not allow these extremist tendencies to subvert the process of constitutional reform and national reconciliation.With the revoking of the 1997 constitution by the new military regime there has been, sadly, an effective return to that constitution of 1990. Those who have resorted to kidnapping the democratically elected government of Fiji claim that they have taken this course of action because of a supposed threat to indigenous Fijian rights. However, the 1997 constitution specifically provides for the protection of indigenous Fijian rights. Usually this term refers to the right of land guaranteed through the recognition of customary title, but in the Canberra Times last Tuesday Denis O'Brien, one of the drafters of the 1997 constitution, indicated that about 85 per cent of land in Fiji is owned in this way and these arrangements have been enshrined in that constitution. Furthermore, the Native Lands Act and other pieces of legislation which deal with land cannot be amended without the approval of at least nine of the 14 members of the Senate appointed on the nomination of the Great Council of Chiefs. The 1997 constitution guarantees indigenous Fijians at the very least 23 of the 71 seats in the House of Representatives, and the Great Council of Chiefs appoints 14 of the 32 members of the Senate, as well as the President of the republic and his or her vice-president. It cannot be said therefore that the 1997 constitution fails to take the interests of the indigenous Fijians into account.It may well be that there are some legitimate grievances held by some aspects of the indigenous Fijian community, but resorting to the overthrow of the democratically elected government hardly seems the best mechanism to address those grievances. It has to be remembered that the 1997 constitution was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and that Fijians of all ethnicities were working together for the greater good of their nation. But, as has been stated in the media, both here and in Fiji, Mr Speight's actions may have more to do with his and his cronies' business interests and dealings and with personal megalomania than with indigenous Fijian rights. Given the rhetoric that Speight has been spewing forth about depriving Indo-Fijians of their democratic rights to vote and to stand for public office, and given the apparent willingness of the chiefs and the military to negotiate with Speight, the future does not augur well at the moment for Fiji.What Fijians have to understand is that while the solution to these problems lies in their own hands, the international community cannot sit back in a state of bemusement at the actions that have taken place when it took so long—nearly 12 years—to put in place the 1997 constitution that we thought saw an end to the types of actions that we now see in Fiji. The situation now begs the questions: what action should be taken? What actions should Fijians take? Already we see that those divisions that are historic within the Fijian community have come into play and there are differing views on what the solution should be. It should be remembered that the Council of Chiefs itself is a mechanism that was put in place by the first British governor when Fiji became a British colonial state and does not have any basis as a form of indigenous governance. So, whilst we wait for the continuing discussions to take place, what then should the international community do? Pleasingly, media reports that are coming out of Fiji indicate that Commodore Bainimarama has indicated to George Speight and his followers that they will be barred from participation in any interim government. Commodore Bainimarama was quoted as saying that if Speight was involved there would not only be backlash by the local community but by:... the overseas community if any member of George Speight and his team is a member of the interim government.He has also indicated that the European Union had written to Fiji, warning that if Speight was included in a new government it would not buy Fiji's sugar, one of the Pacific nation's most valuable exports. So we see that the international community can have a role in making sure that there is a quick resolution and return the parliamentary democracy if pressure is applied appropriately. As has been indicated by the shadow foreign minister, we believe that we should not have this wait and see approach to applying sanctions to Fiji. We realise that these will have disproportionate impact, but we believe that there has to be an immediate signal given to Fiji that their type of action cannot be tolerated. We must send a signal not only to Fiji but now, regrettably, to the wider region—for those conflicts and revolts that we are now seeing in the Solomon Islands—to clearly state that these types of behaviours will not be tolerated. The real resolution of this crisis can only come when constitutional democracy and constitutional order in Fiji are restored completely. Fiji has a democratically elected government under the prime ministership of Mahendra Chaudhry. That situation should only ever be allowed to change through a vote of all Fijian people in free and fair elections, not through the barrel of a madman's gun.1701117:23:0017011Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the commitment of small business within Australia and, more particularly, in my electorate of Riverina. It was with great pride that I recently had the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon. John Anderson, in the Riverina. During that visit the minister had the honour of officially opening the new premises of Hartwigs Trucks. Hartwigs commenced trading in 1923 and now has the third and fourth generation of the Hartwig family in Robert and Tim Hartwig, who command respect within the road transport industry. Robert and Tim now employ in excess of 75 staff, and in completing this $3 million upgrade Hartwigs has become the largest road transport service facility in Australia. This expansion and leap of faith by the Hartwig family is not only the jewel in the Hartwig crown but also the jewel in the future of the Riverina and specifically Wagga Wagga. The Hartwig family have always been committed to servicing their customers, and now they are committed to servicing the national and local transport industry needs from one of the most technically modern and impressive buildings in the southern hemisphere.Then last Thursday evening I had the privilege of joining with John and Gordon Braid and their families and many industry supporters at a function to commemorate the golden anniversary of Wagga Motors—that is, 50 years of business activity that has provided employment and economic benefits to the district and has assisted in keeping `Wagga Wagga moving'. The Braid family made their commitment to the people of Wagga Wagga and the Riverina when Jim Braid purchased Wagga Motors in 1950. In partnership with Harold Stivens they traded through the good and bad times. Wagga Motors and the Braid family tradition was strengthened when John and Gordon took over the business in 1964. They have run the business, expanding the entire operation many times over, now employing 75 members of our community and providing for the future of their families and many others.The year 2000 has brought many changes in our business world. However, the Hartwig and the Braid families have not stepped back from their city. They have moved forward and adapted to change and have continued to provide the Riverina with a family focussed service, employment opportunities and a choice of products. As corporate and community citizens they have made Wagga Wagga a better place to live and raise our families. These companies have also invested in infrastructure within their local community. Their money stays predominantly local and multiplies to bring added benefits to the district. In expanding their business they utilise local providers. They traditionally buy local, because they are local. Their profits do not disappear into national profits or, indeed, into overseas bank accounts. Their money stays to support the community that they service.Being a small or medium business in the city or the country has never been an easy task. It takes enormous courage to continue to risk one's family, home and all of one's possessions in order to provide a living and employment, not only for family members but for the community at large. Small business operators are precariously positioned every day that they open their doors to the ever demanding and sometimes very hard to please consumer. The small business owner embarks upon customer service training, they try to deploy self-taught psychology practices, they submit themselves to abuse, they develop tolerance and patience, they dress up, they dress down, and they engage active listening skills—all of this and more in the hope of making a sale that will pay the next week's overheads in order to keep the doors open for the convenience of the customer, to continue employing their staff and to make a profit. Yes, a profit—dare we say it? This profit means that they do not have to be reliant on the government and they can continue to fulfil the role of being Australia's largest employment provider. This profit also keeps the bank manager happy, even though their fees escalate and their service rapidly decreases. The banks definitely need to be assured that we are returning profits to the almighty shareholder—that is, if we still have a bank manager; more often we now have a `relationship officer'. For interest's sake we should look at the ever encroaching multinational supermarket chains, which are currently usurping market share by extended trading hours and encroaching on the traditional small business areas of the local pharmacy, local butcher, local newsagents, local fuel distributors, and so on. By extending trading hours the multinational undermines the viability of the small business operator. Multinational and major retailers have been collectively able to bargain with employees to minimise their penalty rates for extended trading—for example, Sunday trading—whilst small business are bound to pay full penalty rates. This is indeed an unfair advantage to the major retailer. Oversupply of trading hours is a deliberate strategy to reduce the number of competitors, usually small business, within the marketplace. The statistics indicate that for every three people employed in a small food store only one is employed in a supermarket chain. The dominance of major supermarket chains is now in excess of 82 per cent of the market, and this market share has been mainly at the expense of small business owners and operators.I should also mention government behaviour. Successive governments have impacted greatly on the humble small business operator by applying myriad taxes and then adding another few just in case they missed one somewhere. Payroll tax seems to tell us just how ridiculous it is that we should want to expand employment opportunities. It is as if state governments decide they had better put a tax on these jobs in case these small business operators really do want to embark upon the path of employing people. A small business operator sets about identifying his market, establishes a niche and builds the operation to deliver what the customer wants. Maybe the customer is a state or federal government department that has required this business product. It could be cars from Wagga Motors, trucks from Hartwigs or printing supplies from a local printer. The list is endless.Now that we have overcome the hurdles and established this market and are happily going along employing people, paying taxes, supporting other businesses and supporting ourselves and our families—guess what. The government decides to move that department to somewhere in another state or another city. We stagger around stunned from this blow. We are not crushed—maybe we are, but we are certainly not sure how this could ever have happened. Occasionally that is pretty easy for someone, usually in a high-rise office, who has gotten hold of a little slice of power, a road map and a red pen. Do you know what happens then? Some of us will self-destruct; however, most of us will pick our busted bodies back off the floor and start all over again because we have the courage of our convictions, we have our strength and we have our principles. Some listening to this may think I am a disillusioned and bitter small business person. No, I am not. I am a very proud person—proud of all the small business champions in my electorate of Riverina and beyond, who are taken for granted and are often not considered in the decision making process. I am proud that, in that sea of faces, my very own husband and my sons are showing the strength of their principles and the courage of their convictions. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I say `Long live small business!' for if small business does not survive then the hopes of future employment for Australians will be sadly diminished.10000Hawker, David (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—The question is:That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills17013R1038BillsR104017013Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.17:32:0017013Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—As the advisers box is flooded with officials from the department and various agencies, I rise on behalf of the opposition to lead the debate in this House on the government's Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000. I indicate to the House that I have had prepared a second reading amendment which reflects the opposition's views at this point in the cycle. I am quite happy for that to be circulated in my name at the appropriate stage, and before the conclusion of my remarks I will formally move that amendment.The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill arises from the government's framework legislation, which was enacted by the parliament in 1998. That legislation—the conversion to digital television legislation—set the framework for Australia's television broadcasting industry, both commercial free-to-air broadcasters and our national public broadcasters, to make the conversion from analog to digital. The short rationale for conversion to digital is that digital is inherently more efficient than analog in its use of the terrestrial spectrum and it potentially provides a far greater range of services for a consumer. Parliament agreed to the government's framework legislation almost exactly two years ago, in June 1998, and at that point in time the Labor opposition pursued two amendments to that legislation. One amendment was to reduce the government's proposed moratorium period for commercial free-to-air broadcasting licences by two years to 1 July 2007 and the second aspect of the Labor Party's thrust, in the course of the debate on the framework legislation, was to require a series of reviews to report back to the parliament rather than the government's then recommended model, which was a series of disallowable regulations.As a result of those reviews the government made a series of policy decisions in late December last year and now seeks to effect those decisions with this legislation under the umbrella of the 1998 framework legislation. Without going into exhaustive detail, that framework established, as I have indicated, the moratorium period for commercial free-to-air broadcasting licences until 1 January 2007; it effected a loan of spectrum to commercial free-to-air broadcast licence holders to make the conversion to digital broadcasting, in particular higher definition digital television, HDTV; it required a simulcast analog and digital broadcast until 1 January 2009 and, on the expiration of analog broadcasting, the return of the analog spectrum to the Commonwealth; it envisaged a new provider of information services—datacasters—who were not to provide services which were broadcasting services; it ensured that commercial free-to-air broadcasting licence holders were not able to become subscription television industry players but provided that commercial free-to-air broadcasting licence holders could use some of the spectrum made available to them for the purposes of what is described in the legislation as `enhanced services', but not for multichannelling; and, depending upon your point of view, it left open the question or tilted the parliamentary lever in favour of whether the ABC and SBS, the two national public broadcasters, ought to be able to multichannel.In the course of the various reviews, a range of these issues have been considered, in particular whether the definition of datacasting ought to be amended in any way—a definition of datacasting being contained in the 1998 digital conversion legislation and effectively defining a datacasting service as not being a broadcasting service—what the nature and extent of enhanced services should be and the issue I have referred to, the question of whether the ABC and SBS ought to be able to multichannel. The government announced some policy decisions in late December 1999. It was not quite as we anticipated with Richard. It was not quite Christmas Eve, but it was getting there. It was enough to disturb the Christmas Eve shopping nonetheless. On 21 December, the government, through the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, made a number of public policy announcements which this legislation seeks to effect. Amongst those was a decision by the government that it require that there be a broadcast of not just high definition TV but standard definition TV and that there be a simulcast requirement for high definition TV and standard definition TV. When you add to that simulcast requirement the requirement that analog continue to be broadcast or simulcast, you have in effect a triplecast. In response to that decision, on the same day, 21 December, I indicated on behalf of the opposition that, given that this decision was made on the grounds of accessibility and affordability for consumers, we would not oppose that part of the government's decision. The legislation which is before the House effects that public policy decision. The second of the decisions was a detailed indication as to a definition of datacasting. The government indicated that that definition would be content based, that it would be based upon content or program distinctions. It also indicated some details as far as enhanced services were concerned but was silent on the question of whether the ABC and SBS would be able to multichannel, the decision in respect of the ABC and SBS not being announced until the legislation was presented. From memory, that was on 10 May, a couple of weeks ago.I might digress from substance issues to the question of process and timetable. For the sake of industry certainty, it is obviously clearly desirable that this legislation be enacted by the parliament prior to the parliament rising for its winter recess on 29 June. Upon the introduction of the legislation into this place—it was introduced here together with the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Amendment Bill 2000—the Senate under its processes automatically referred the legislation to the relevant Senate legislation committee to conduct an inquiry and to report to the Senate on Thursday, 8 June. Public hearings were held by the Senate committee on Wednesday and Thursday last week. The Senate committee was prevailed upon by all of the usual suspects and some new ones to examine the effect of the government's legislation. The Senate committee, which has had the task of a detailed examination of the legislation before the House, will not report until Thursday. On that basis, the House will not have the advantage and the benefit of the Senate committee's report in advance of its own deliberations on this bill. On that basis, the opposition propose to make some general points but to reserve our right to make detailed amendments, if any, to be pursued at the Senate stage.On the process and timetable point, it was expected by industry and the opposition that, having made the 21 December 1999 decisions, the government would introduce legislation when the parliament resumed after the Christmas break and as early as February or March this year. In any event, that did not occur, and the government has now left the parliament in the seriously difficult position of being required to deal with detailed and complex legislation on a short timetable. All my entreaties to the minister to provide me with a copy of the draft bill in advance of its tabling fell upon deaf ears. We are doing our best to ensure that we are in a position not to delay consideration of this legislation, but the process has been less than ideal and the second reading amendment, which I will formally move later, reflects that.I will return to the major issues that I think the Senate committee will be seized of and what may well be the focus and some of the key issues in this place. It is unquestionably the case that the proposed datacasting model or definition by the government is much too restrictive. It is content based, not service based. The ABA is effectively given the job of determining on a program by program basis whether a particular `genre' of content—to use the expression adopted by the government—is datacasting or broadcasting. I make two comments in that respect, both of which I have previously made publicly. In my view, as soon as you attempt to introduce into Commonwealth statutes a distinction based on French language, you run into trouble immediately. I will give just one modest example. The government has put the ABA in a position where it may well have to determine the distinction between things which are informative and educative but not lightly entertaining. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is an obligation on my part to inform you and educate you, but I dare not lightly entertain you. There are many things in life that I might want, but being a member of the ABA and determining that distinction is not one of them! The second grave risk as far as the government's proposed datacasting restrictions are concerned is that you run the risk of stifling a new information service before it has had a chance to flourish, that you essentially kill it at birth and that the regime that you propose for it is much too restrictive and, as a consequence, it will not get off the ground.The third point regarding restrictions on datacasting—and this is made adroitly by the Productivity Commission and made in this place, to the embarrassment of the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party—is that it is clear that rural and regional Australia stand to suffer most as far as a restrictive definition of datacasting is concerned. As I indicated when the government made its initial policy announcement in December and consistently since then, on this side of the House we will be looking to a more general definition of datacasting, a definition of datacasting which more warmly embraces the future, which is not predicated on arcane distinctions and which might actually give a new information service industry the chance of flourishing.As far as the ABC and SBS prohibition on multichannelling is concerned, on this side of the chamber we will pursue, here and in the Senate, the view that the national public broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS, ought not to be restricted from multichannelling. They do not come into direct competition with the commercial free-to-air broadcasters, they do not come into direct competition with the subscription broadcasting industry or the pay TV industry, but they perform essential public and national interest good, again particularly in rural and regional Australia. So the second reading amendment will reflect that the government's restriction on datacasting and the government's restriction on the ABC and SBS not being able to multichannel will do disproportionate harm to rural and regional Australia as those areas are deprived of what could be a flourishing new information industry and information services.As far as enhanced services are concerned, there is a distinction in the legislation between multichannelling and enhanced services. The framework legislation is predicated on the basis that the commercial free-to-air broadcasting licence holders can engage in enhanced services but they cannot multichannel. When you look at the fine print between the government's announcement on 21 December and the legislation as introduced into the House, there are two areas which, on the surface, appear to take the boundary further out, as far as enhanced service is concerned. One is the overlap provision. The government's previously announced position indicated that overlap of a sporting program would be allowable if that abutted a scheduled news program—the six o'clock news being the obvious example. That definition of enhanced services will now apply if a sporting program abuts any scheduled program. The second provision is the notion of one sport, one venue—a new concept introduced into the legislation whereby, if the same sport is being played at the same venue, the enhanced service definition will apply. The obvious example there is the Australian Open or Wimbledon where you can have matches at the same venue—one on centre court and one on one of the outer courts.The fourth area where I think there will be a focus in the Senate committee and in this place is the abundance of reviews which the legislation suggests. Aficionados in this area may well recall that the 1998 legislation suggests a whole series of reviews which are already required by this parliament to be conducted. They are a series of reviews too many to commit to memory, so I am again indebted to Dr Pelling in the advisers box for providing me with a very neat summary which I will use for more than just today as an aide memoire. There are a series of reviews to be conducted before 31 December 2005—they arise out of the 1998 amendments—and a series of reviews proposed to have been conducted under this legislation before 1 January 2004. Those reviews, for example, go to a general review of the legislation, a review of the HDTV quota arrangements and a review of the datacasters' transmission licence holder licensing arrangements at the expiration of the free-to-air moratorium period on 1 January 2007. As a general proposition, my own view is that all these reviews should be statutory, all these reviews should return to parliament and all these reviews should be timely, and some of them should be held sooner rather than later and earlier than currently suggested. There are also a couple of reviews which the government has suggested, either by way of press release or by way of second reading speech. The government, through the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, has indicated that at some point in the cycle it would be sensible or desirable for a review to be conducted in advance of the expiration of the free-to-air commercial broadcasters moratorium on 1 January 2007. Given that there is a review suggested in the legislation for what consequences might flow to datacasting transmission licence holders at the expiration of that moratorium period, also having a review as to what general circumstances might apply at the expiration of the moratorium period might also be a sensible thing. So I think one can give serious consideration as to whether a review in advance of the expiration of the moratorium period would not be a sensible thing to do. That does run the risk that it opens it up to the argument that the moratorium period ought to be extended. This is not something I had in mind—just to calm the excitable listeners who may be taking note in this area.The government has also suggested by way of a second reading speech given by the minister in this place that there be a review by the ABA of the question as to whether streaming video and audio is a broadcasting service or not, and it is suggested that this occur within the next 12 months or so. Again, because of the importance and relevance of that issue, it seems to me appropriate that that review be required to be a statutory review.To summarise, I think there are four issues which need very serious attention in the Senate committee, in the Senate itself, in industry debate or in here. The first is the definition of datacasting and the too restrictive nature of that definition; secondly, the desirability of the ABC and SBS to be allowed to multichannel; thirdly, the question of enhanced services and whether the difference in the proposals between the government's policy announcement in December and now is significant and breaks the framework tone, which is that just as datacasters cannot be de facto broadcasters neither can enhanced services be de facto multichannelling; and, fourthly, the nature, extent and series of reviews. That is not to say that they are all the issues in play. Other issues have been discussed in the Senate committee and have been the subject of commentary in the various public submissions that have been made in respect of the legislation.In addition to the usual array of HDTV versus SDTV, what the cost will be, what the take-up will be, how successful the triplecast will be and whether HDTV will ultimately be successful, and in addition to the datacasting definition, the question of enhanced services and the question of reviews, a range of interesting issues have been deliberated. One is the capacity of a datacaster to become effectively a one-click Internet service provider. When the government was giving consideration to its legislation, for one dreadful moment many of us thought the government would seek to impose the same content based restriction as it does on datacasters for the web site itself. The legislation envisages that a one-click entry by a datacaster customer to a web site will enable access to the web site. Fortunately, there is no great attempt at that same content distinction, if only on the basis that even the government by now would have learnt from its own online content legislation experience that that would be an impossible task. There are two issues which will fall for consideration: firstly, the practical limitations that technically are placed on the capacity of people to have access to the Internet via a datacaster; and, secondly, whether or not a walled garden Internet site ought to be accessible via a datacaster. There is also the question of interoperability and standards, and the Senate committee hearings have seized on the question of whether the Dolby audio standard ought to be preferred to the MPEG standard. This is really one for the aficionados, but the question in public policy terms here is whether one adopts what is described as a proprietary standard or whether one adopts a platform which one might regard as being open and accessible. So attention needs to be given to that point. A separate issue which has popped out of the legislation and has not previously been referred to in any great detail is the question of EPGs, electronic program guides. The open and accessible as compared to the closed, proprietary or restricted availability of electronic program guides will also fall for consideration.The question of datacasting transmission licence holders has been the subject of commentary before the Senate committee. The legislation suggests that datacasting transmission licence holders will receive what is generally a standard 10 years plus five years option for a datacasting transmission licence under the Radiocommunications Act, or the Radcom Act. So one could envisage that, in 2000 or 2001, a person or a corporation may become the proud possessor, after a price allocated base system operated in the marketplace, of a 10 plus five year datacasting transmission licence.The legislation envisages a review, in advance of the expiration of the moratorium period for free-to-air broadcasting commercial licences, of what regulatory and revenue arrangements might apply to that licence if it comes to pass that the datacasting transmission licence holder was in a position to transmit unencumbered or unrestricted broadcasting services content. A restricted datacasting licence is inherently not as valuable as an unrestricted broadcasting service licence. In my view there is clearly a need to pay serious attention to what competitive and regulatory arrangements might apply if that were to occur and what revenue might flow to the Commonwealth by way of a betterment tax, for example, if that enhancement or uplift does take place. That issue needs to be the subject of serious consideration. A datacasting transmission licence holder, under this legislation, can only be effectively guaranteed 10 plus five years of transmitting restricted datacasting content, however. So this legislation ultimately restricts that. The parliament should reserve to itself the public policy questions of competition, regulation and revenue to the Commonwealth if there is to be an uplift to essentially a broadcasting services content transmission licence.A separate issue, which I have referred to, is whether streaming audio and video is a broadcasting service. There is also a question for the national broadcasters—the ABC and SBS—as to whether they can use their own streaming audio as part of a datacasting service if indeed they use some of their spectrum to be datacasters. The legislation envisages that, if the commercial free-to-air broadcasters use some spare spectrum to engage in datacasting, they pay a fee. How that fee is raised, struck or determined has not yet been designated. The ABC and SBS argue that there is no point in them paying a fee for the same purposes, on the basis of their distinction as national public broadcasters. That seems to me, frankly, a sensible argument because, with the ABC and the SBS, what the Commonwealth wins on the merry-go-round it generally loses on the slide. So, as an in-principle starting point, I cannot see the sense in requiring the ABC and SBS to pay a fee if and when they engage in datacasting.To bring these issues to a conclusion: community broadcasters are not dealt with by the legislation. Community broadcasters, in particular, will remember—even if the government does not—that the government made a commitment when it first announced its proposals to effect a transition or conversion to digital broadcasting that community broadcasters would be guaranteed spectrum to effect that. They are still waiting. As I understand the evidence given by the community broadcasters, they are still waiting to get a reply from the minister, let alone a substantive decision. So there is an issue as to how community broadcasters will be managed or governed in this process. Captioning has been the subject of three ranges of comment: firstly, by regional broadcasters, who say that the standards might be a bit too tough for them; secondly, by people interested in captioning, who say that the standards do not go far enough; and, thirdly, by the closed captioning industry, who essentially say that these are good proposals and much better than the current analog requirements. So far as regional broadcasters generally are concerned, in addition to captioning, there is the question of equalisation, a decision made by the government in the budget, and whether the timetable still remains appropriate for the transition of regional broadcasters to a digital framework.These are some of the issues which no doubt will fall for further consideration when we get a chance to contemplate the Senate committee's deliberations and the various evidence and submissions made before it. This is unquestionably an area where the devil is very much in the detail. On that basis, as I have indicated publicly today, we will be reserving to ourselves the right, following the Senate committee report, to announce specific detailed amendments which we would seek to move in the Senate, reflecting some of those concerns and issues to which I have referred.Well assisted by the Clerk, I now would like to formally move the second reading amendment, paragraphs 1 to 7, which has been circulated in my name. On the moving of that amendment, I indicate that we will now apply ourselves very much to the detail of the Senate committee deliberations, with a view to amendments that we would move in the Senate to ameliorate the mistakes that we believe the government has made. I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House (1) condemns the Government for the inordinate amount of time it has taken to introduce the bill, and the unacceptably short time now available for parliamentary consideration of the measure;(2) regards the narrow approach taken to the definition of datacasting as much too restrictive and certain to risk stifling a new industry before it emerges;(3) deplores the Government's failure to enhance the future potential in this area, as evidenced by its datacasting proposals;(4) calls on the Government to allow the national public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, to multichannel;(5) believes that the restrictions on datacasting and the prohibition on the ABC and SBS from multichannelling will have particularly adverse consequences for rural and regional Australia; (6) believes that the enhanced services provisions in the bill go further than previously anticipated and will require careful scrutiny; and(7) believes that there will need to be careful, appropriately timed and statutorily based scrutiny through the review provisions proposed in the bill”.10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Is the amendment seconded?XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.18:03:0017018Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—It is a great pleasure to join this debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 and Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Amendment Bill 2000. Unlike the member for Perth in his contribution, I do not pretend to be a nut-and-bolt man. I like to look at the direction in which the ship is heading to make sure the rocks he seems to think are on the horizon are not going to be there. I admire the technocratic contribution from the member for Perth, and I suspect the three people stuck in traffic in Sydney listening to the debate fell asleep about 20 minutes ago. But I digress. I guess what we are seeing here is a continuation of the pattern of those opposite. If there is a simple measure, if there is good news, if there is some certainty being given to an industry, if there is some certainty being given to consumers in Australia, the Australian Labor Party will find everything which could conceivably be wrong. Under every rock, there is a funnel-web spider. And I find that sad.However, despite all I have just said, I think it is important to state very clearly on the record what is before us tonight. Before us tonight is legislation for certainty for a mature industry—a mature industry which rightfully expects to continue as an industry, despite technology intervening in what it has been doing up until now. We have, without doubt, a desperate need to make sure the mature players in our television industry understand this government is giving them the tools to go ahead and do what they say they can do. But, for the consumers, we have also put in place a number of measures which will protect them from those industry players not doing what they have said they will do. The member for Perth says that one of the four points of concern, interest, discussion or debate around the industry is to do with the nature and extent of various reviews. I suspect, as frightening a prospect as it may be for the member for Perth—and I suspect for Minister Alston, if he is listening to this—I actually have a meeting of minds with the member for Perth on this matter because I also have a concern about the nature and extent of reviews. But the one thing that is firm in my mind is this: the year of 2005, as is mentioned in this legislation, is the outward figure. I can state quite clearly that I, amongst other members on the government side of this place, will be very proactive in keeping a constant eye on this industry to make sure high definition television—which they are promising movie quality telecasts through—is not a Trojan Horse for other circumstances. Right up-front in this debate I will say again, as I have said on another occasion—I think it was the introduction of the original legislation involving this—I will not settle for any sort of Trojan Horse approach by this industry. They either deliver what they have said they will deliver or I will be in here beating the member for Perth or his successor in moving some sort of change to the legislation.I also have some concern about the ABC and the SBS in regard to their multichannelling aspirations. I am not saying anything I have not already said—I certainly did champion the cause—because I firmly believe the ABC and the SBS are different to commercial television operators in this country. I also will be keeping a very close view on what the Senate committee throws up. But, of course, Senate committees, by design, tend to throw up political solutions, not necessarily good public policy solutions, and I will not be hoodwinked into any stunts from those opposite.There is no doubt in my mind the ABC and the SBS do have a valid case for being treated differently. Within their charter—and if it is not firm enough within their charter I believe we should perhaps even consider revisiting their charter to ensure the ABC and the SBS keep an even stronger eye on the consumer—they claim they have great responsibility for airing a range of voices and for ensuring all Australians have access to various services they do not readily see on a commercial operator. So the ABC and the SBS rightly set themselves apart. Yet all too often, quite frankly, they have wasted a lot of the transmission time they currently have. So, against this background, whilst I am in favour of multichannelling, I would like to see what it is they firmly propose to do.It would not just be people stuck in traffic in Sydney, Brisbane or wherever who might be listening to this debate at some stage if the ABC or SBS were to have multichannelling. Part of the penalty might be to broadcast this place. In the absolute interests of proper disclosure, considering that around this building the broadcasting of the television picture is handled very well by the Sound and Vision Office in this place—the quality is great, whether the content is up to it I do not know—there is no reason why that could not be rebroadcast constantly on some sort of multichannelled environment through the national broadcasters. It is against that sort of basis that I would be supporting some sort of multichannelling. But that is not within this legislation before us. It is important, though, for me to state very clearly that I do have a great deal of support for what is before us, but I would be less than consistent in this public debate if I did not restate my ongoing endeavours and enthusiasms for a number of other aspects not contained in the bill.After all, if we do not get the sort of good consumer outcome that the industry say they are going to bring about, perhaps in years to come some will say, `Why didn't we just simply throw the entire spectrum available open to tender? Why didn't we just simply say to K.B. Packer, to Kerry Stokes and to folks at Channel 10, for instance, to stand in a queue, bid for the spectrum and start their business all over again?' I think that would have been a great natural injustice if we had done that directly to that industry, and I think it is right that we are giving them the chance to prove what they say they can do by allowing them to continue with certainty, to plan, to implement and to get on with the job that they have already been doing for 40 or more years in this country. It is important to understand that this legislation is all about letting them get on with the job. If we do not get on with passing this legislation—and whilst this government is never afraid of accountability and welcomes any reviews and any positive suggestions that come from the Senate, not political suggestions—we are going to let down this industry and we are going to find that all of the things we aspired to do may in fact fail on the vine. I certainly hope that is not what the member for Perth would be intending to do. Consumers can look forward to a new range of possibilities out of the idiot box. The box in the corner will change its shape, its size, its purpose and its role in our society as a result of this. It is one of the two great technologies that exist in this world today that everything else plugs into—the other being mobile telephony. The role of the television is more than just simply to gather news and information at 6 o'clock at night—although I think more people are watching it at 10.30 than ever before. It is not just a place to watch the Sunday night football or the movies. It is something which in fact will be at the heart of communication between consenting adults and, with their permission, their children. The Internet will, of course, plug into the television set. The role of datacasters in streaming more information through the television set, which you will pay for access to, will become more pronounced as a result of this regime. So it will mean more information to more people faster but in a more convenient way than has ever been the case.As most people in this place would realise, information in itself is power, and it allows people to gain the knowledge they need to make the decisions they have to make. So, naturally enough, the gatekeepers of that information are in a very powerful position. So, rightfully, this government is putting in place a legislative regime that will give certain powers to the Australian Broadcasting Authority to oversight the conduct of the owners of the right to use the spectrum to broadcast the information to the consumers. Whilst I would happily enter a debate and discussion about the role of regulatory authorities in this regard, I do think there is a genuine need to have proper regulation to protect the people whom we represent in this place.Another part of me says, `Let's just open the spectrum up and, as long as two people aren't broadcasting on the one frequency, let's have a happy time,' and that should be the level of regulation. When I consider that, ever since any form of technology has recorded images or recorded sound, there has always been those who will peddle bad images—I am not talking about rude pictures as much as I am talking about offensive matter, matter that is misleading or unfairly reported, or whatever—there has always been a need to have a certain amount of regulation to make sure that some people are not inadvertently offended by the material they may happen across. In that regard, the government is certainly maintaining its strong commitment to looking after consumer sensitivities.We are also concerned about the cost of access to this new technology. There has been a great deal of debate about that and the concentration on various numbers in America about the cost of the high definition television sets and the high quality receivers that will receive this wide cinema quality picture and show it in your living room, lounge room or wherever. There has been a lot of discussion about the cost of that with tens of thousands of dollars being mooted and only a few thousand people in America, or 15,000 people out of the entire nation, using it. A lot of misleading nonsense is being peddled about that. There is also a standard definition of quality which is being used throughout the United Kingdom and is also being allowed for in this bill which provides for a cheaper form of reception equipment and, therefore, a cheaper option for consumers. I must say that broadcasting in a triplecast concept—that is, broadcasting in digital high quality, digital standard quality as well as the ongoing effort in the analog system, which we currently have—is a greater cost to the television industry. One would suspect against that background, despite all my own concerns, reservations and threats about what the industry may happen to do or not do over the next couple of years, that no industry would be interested in effectively dragging the chain that they themselves have created. They would not necessarily want to see high definition television fail. They would not necessarily want to see it fail at all because, after all, they make money out of selling access to the spectrum that they themselves have permission to use. That is what advertising is—selling access to air time. That is how commercial television stations make their money. Of course they want to see sets in use. They want to see people having access to their programs. So they would have an absolute vested interest in making this whole new regulatory and legislative regime work.Despite all of that, if they do not get it right—if they do not sell the need for people to go to this new technology and if people do not take it up and high definition programming does not meet the sort of quota commitment that we have offered in this, which is 20 hours per week—then there will be a review process that will discover whether or not the technology is a goer, whether or not the legislation is 100 per cent correct. I find it distressing though that those opposite expect us to know absolutely everything about these outcomes years before they are likely to be obvious. We are working in a legislative regime which is almost impossible to accurately predict. That technology is changing the goalposts and the rules of the game is an obvious statement. But it is astonishing to find that the opposition would try to create some sort of scare or doubt campaign based on the fact that the government cannot successfully crystal ball where things are going to be five years from now. That is why I was pleased to see me, amongst others, successfully champion the cause of constant reviews in this process, to bring forward the ready assessment of how successful this process has been. In an area of high changing technology, if you want to learn from what you have done in the past you cannot allow yourself to do what was done with analog phones 10 years ago by the then government who proceeded to sign away in a legislative way the right for analog phones to continue, not realising that at the same time people were taking up the phones and there were huge numbers—hundreds of thousands—of people disenfranchised by the compulsory end to the use of the analog mobile phone system. We cannot allow the same thing to happen in the digital television regime. So from a legislator's point of view, I am pleased to see a few safety valves put in to what we think is going to happen and a few brakes put on the excesses of an industry that once they have the spectrum are not going to happily and readily give it up. I think we have a great deal of the balance right. We do not suspect for a moment that the legislation is 100 per cent perfect and, looking back through Senate hearings last week, even Mr Tony Branigan from the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations said that he does not believe the legislation is 100 per cent perfect. But I think we need to make an effort to try to get as best a set of possibilities in place so that a mature industry—which is generating hundreds of millions, probably billions and tens of billions, worth of income for this nation, which generates a lot of jobs, offers creative people avenues and outlets but, most importantly, keeps people entertained and informed—can continue with a great deal of certainty. I think the other thing worth noting is that any comparison to the United States that may be offered by those opposite in their contributions to this debate is simply not a fair comparison. The United States rushed in and came up with a technical system for broadcasting which in itself hampers the performance they have even today. Australia waited a long time with regard to colour television—and I think Aunty Jack brought it in in about 1973 as the screen faded from black and white to colour, live from Wollongong. We saw colour television on the PAL D format, which was technically the best format which existed. America had had colour television for 20 years prior to that and they have an inferior quality broadcasting system—and some might think content wise as well—which is the NTSC, which the industry calls `never twice the same colour' which in itself establishes the industry's own lethargic attitude towards the American standard. So any offerings from those opposite about the take-up of technology in America underplays the value that Australians have in the quality of the broadcasting system we already have in this country. By the same token, we also have a number of other problems that I think have to be understood as background to this legislative regime and they are all based on technology. If you look at the question of convergence and the way the various media are themselves all running into one, you will see that it is going to be very difficult for us to successfully legislate in the year 2000 and know exactly where things might take us as far as access to the Internet and the broadcasting of pictures and radio down the line are concerned. So I think we have again said that we have a range of measures in place which seem right today, but we will review these matters over the next few years to make sure that we have it right. It is a very exciting area, an area that is going to be the basis of so much of our community in a way that no longer means people will sit at home and be lethargic behind their sets but will be actively involved in the means of communication with each other using their television sets as the core of so much of their community activities and involvement.The power of the industry which provides access to the spectrum that we regulate is immense. It is an industry that in itself does need to be subject to the sorts of reviews the government has proposed here. I believe that we have now set in place a tremendous set of standards for consumers—that industry are required to carry 20 hours of content inside the first two years of operating HDTV—and it is going to be very obvious that if they do not meet those particular standards there will be a need to review what we are putting through the House today. We have within the legislation a number of very straightforward definitions with regard to what must be carried and what is required of the broadcasters. We have some very straightforward rules as far as datacasting is concerned. It is very obvious to me, as somebody who used to be involved in the media industry as a professional, that it is easy to tell the difference between a moving picture and still picture. So for those opposite to suggest that there is some confusion about what datacasting means, I think they have become too technocratic. There are two categories under datacasting. Category A is largely entertainment. The datacasters will be able to provide extracts of programs as long as they do not exceed 10 minutes. That is very easy to follow. Likewise, for category B, which is news, weather and financial business information, bulletins of any length can be carried but again moving pictures are not to exceed 10 minutes. They are very simple definitions. They have a consumer focus. They have an industry focus. This is all about providing certainty to a very important industry, one that provides ready streams of information to Australians. The bill I think has a good measure, given that we do not know where technology is going to take it. I am disappointed those opposite are still flopping around trying to find reasons to be negative and scare people. I commend the bill to the House. Debate interrupted. Private Members' Business170221702210000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Before I call the honourable member for Lowe, I believe the honourable member for Wannon wishes to correct a statement he made in debate earlier today.18:22:0017022Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I seek your indulgence to correct that mistake. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—During private members business I suggested that the sale of the Fremantle Artillery Barracks was a decision taken by the previous government. That was in error. The decision was taken towards the end of last year by the current government. Bills17023R1038BillsR104017023Debate resumed.18:23:0017023Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the BSA, and the Radiocommunications Act 1992, the RCA, to refine arrangements for the introduction of digital television and establish a system for the regulation of datacasting services. The conversion to digital broadcasting required amendments to both the BSA and the RCA. The former sets out the ownership and programming conditions for broadcasting licences and is administered by the Australian Broadcasting Authority. The latter regulates the usage of the spectrum including the licensing of transmitting apparatus and is administered by the Australian Communications Authority. These amendments were contained in the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Act 1998, which provides the legislative basis for the scheme. The act instructed the ABA to formulate digital conversion schemes for commercial and national broadcasters in accordance with the policy objectives described in this act. The digital conversion act was accompanied by related revenue legislation, the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Act 1998. Datacasting is defined in the digital conversion act as a service, other than a broadcasting service, that delivers information to persons having appropriate equipment to receive that information where the delivery of the service uses the broadcasting services bands. This definition is required because the market for datacasting does not as yet exist. The precise nature of datacasting is still unknown. Because of these and other uncertainties, the digital conversion act also required the minister to have reviews conducted in the following areas to see if amendments to the legislation were required: enhanced programming, the scope of datacasting services, multichannelling by the national broadcasters—the ABC and SBS—retransmission of free-to-air digital broadcasting services on pay TV systems, underserved regional licence areas, convergence of broadcasting and non-broadcasting technologies, high definition television standards, captioning standards and the regulatory arrangements that should apply to the allocation of spectrum in the broadcasting services bands for use for the provision of datacasting services.These reviews were announced by the government in the 21 December 1999 policy statement by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. These decisions are: free-to-air broadcasters will be required to provide a standard definition digital television, SDTV, signal at all times and provide at least 20 hours per week of high definition digital television, HDTV. Datacasting will be restricted to ensure that it is different from current television services. Datacasters will be able to provide information programs where the main purpose is to provide information on products, services and activities—interactive home shopping, banking and bill paying, web pages, email services, education services and interactive games. In certain circumstances they will be able to provide 10-minute headline bulletins in the areas of news, weather and business information. However, datacasters will be prevented from showing drama, current affairs programs, sporting programs and events, music programs, infotainment and lifestyle programs, comedy programs, documentaries, reality television programs, children's programs, light entertainment and va-riety programs, compilation programs, quiz programs and game shows. The government will allow the free-to-air broadcasters to provide digital enhancements to their main simulcast programs provided they are directly linked to, and contemporaneous with, the main program and do not amount to a separate multichannel program. The December policy statement also foreshadowed further decisions would be made in such areas as captioning requirements, assistance to regional broadcasters, the role of community television and the multichannelling requirements of the ABC and SBS. Some of these matters are covered in the current legislative package. The major decisions are: the ABC and SBS will be subject to the same limitations on multichannelling as the commercial broadcasters; free-to-air broadcasters will be required to caption all prime time programs and all news and current affairs programs, apart from non-English and music programs; commercial broadcasters in underserved regional markets—that is, those with only one or two commercial services—will be exempted from HDTV requirements and will be able to multichannel additional services; and the datacasting licensing regime will be introduced. This will be administered by the ABA with conditions similar to those for pay TV licences including industry codes of practice, a mechanism for complaints to the ABA and remedies for breaches of licensing provisions. The datacasting licence regime will also apply to the ABC and SBS. The minister will be required to review the regime before 1 January 2004 and to present the report to parliament.I turn to the major issues affecting this legislation—firstly, the mandatory HDTV provisions. The requirement for HDTV transmission was presented by the government and accepted by the industry as a quid pro quo for the allocation of free spectrum to the existing broadcasters. However, concerns have since been expressed that the mandatory 20-hour per week transmission of a high definition service `involves a substantial policy risk'. This was the view of the Productivity Commission when it recently released its final report on the inquiry into broadcasting. I note that in the history of reviewing our media laws in Australia `quid pro quo' also refers to the making of some concessions to the industry if something is given for something. However, we are left wondering what we, the public, are getting for these concessions. I note in the Productivity Commission's final report into broadcasting that the existing ban on entry until 2007 of other broadcasters is said to be required to protect the revenue base of the existing broadcasters. Existing broadcasters complain of high costs in producing their quotas of Australian drama, documentaries and children's programming. I find it odd that the broadcasting industry is marked for special treatment and compensated for meeting its obligations. As the report says, `Higher costs do not justify restrictions on entry.' Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Before Mr Deputy Speaker Quick politely interrupted me for the dinner adjournment, I was speaking about the HDTV provisions affecting the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 as well as the quid pro quo arrangements which have operated whenever our media laws have been amended. Since the interruption, my wife, Adriana, has seen that I had a hearty meal, and I will now finish this speech on a full stomach!I note that the Productivity Commission says that HDTV television sets will cost approximately $8,000 and that HDTV will be a premium service for a small number of viewers. However, HDTV production distribution and transmission costs will ultimately be borne by the community as a whole. In other words, a mandatory HDTV requirement is effectively a subsidy for the well-off—that is, those who can afford the service—by those who cannot afford the service. Furthermore, the commission states that the mandatory HDTV policy may constrain the emergence of new services, prolong the conversion process and may have effects at cross-purposes to the Australian content quotas. Australia is the only country to mandate HDTV, and it is also the only country currently planning to use the DVB system for this purpose. These unique requirements could have an impact on the cost and availability of equipment by crowding out those who cannot afford the HDTV standard. Moreover, the Productivity Commission recommended that a new regulatory framework would facilitate consumers' adoption of digital television. It recommended, in particular, that HDTV should not be mandated but should be left to the market, that datacasting services should be defined as digital broadcasting services and that multichannelling by the commercial and national broadcasters should be permitted. It is timely to review the opposition's current position on this matter. The shadow minister for communications, Stephen Smith, said in his press release of 21 December 1999:One path could have been to mandate the highest standard from the outset. On one view this would accelerate the ultimate transition to the HDTV standard as the norm for digital television.An alternative path was to require simultaneous broadcasts in SDTV when broadcasting in high definition for a certain period of time, on the basis that this will maximise national consumer accessibility to and affordability of digital television, until the costs associated with the HDTV decreased to an affordable level.It is now known that the government in 1998 determined to hold a moratorium on new free-to-air television broadcast licences until 2007. The opposition insisted that the period of the moratorium be reduced from the government's eight-year period to six years. I am dismayed at this reasoning. The Productivity Commission broadcasting inquiry report arose from the competition principles agreement. This prohibition on new television broadcasters into the Australian market until 2007 is a direct denial of new broadcasters into Australia.I now refer to the current financial starvation this government is subjecting the ABC and SBS television stations to. I again cite my parliamentary colleague the member for Perth, Stephen Smith, who has said that:... an acceptance by the Government that the ABC and SBS are adequately resourced in order to enable them to both acquire digital broadcasting technology and provide quality multi-channel programming in the new digital environment is essential.This has not been forthcoming. Instead, we see the current government legislation lock out potential broadband competitors on the one hand, while on the other starve existing government competitors who already own broadcasting licences. Therefore, who can possibly benefit from these legislative amendments if it is not the Packer and Murdoch duopoly? This legislative scheme is now very clear in our minds. Now we get the picture.The legislation is predetermined to ensure only one outcome, that is, that the final strokes of the pen ensure the decimation of competition against the two big players. Meanwhile, the moratorium ensures the completion of digital capitalisation by the two main media magnates, placing digital transmission completely out of the range of any other competitor from entry in six years time. But wait, there's more. There is also a viability test in the Broadcasting Services Act that makes it even harder for new players to enter the broadcasting industry—a position that can only favour the existing operators. It is noteworthy that this viability test does not exist in any other industry. Therefore, one can reasonably question what purpose this viability test serves. In the absence of any positive answer in support of this test, it is reasonable to say the test benefits the existing operators, particularly Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch. In the absence of any regard for the public interest, the viability test should be scrapped.It is my view that datacasting should be defined to mean all digital broadcasting. Also, datacasting licences should not be limited in their application to further protect the privileged. Internet, pay television and magazines are not subject to the existing cross-media rules. The Trade Practices Act 1974 should immediately be amended to include a public interest test over all media, similar to public interest tests which apply in the United States and England. Therefore, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the ABA would have to show that it is in the public interest for a merger to occur. In other words, the Trade Practices Act must be amended to cover mergers.The digital broadcasting environment that we now live in presents the perfect opportunity to review our media laws. However, the parliament must be concerned only with changing the laws so that more players—local and foreign—can enter the market and provide greater competition and hence greater diversity of public opinion through free-to-air television, pay television, Internet in all its manifestations, newspapers, magazines, radio stations and datacasting, as well as other new technologies. I also note in the Productivity Commission inquiry's final report into broadcasting that an important issue was the effect of investment by media proprietors into non-media business. Removing existing restrictions on broadcasting licences must improve the probability of attracting media proprietors who do not have significant non-media assets in Australia. One might reasonably expect that foreign media proprietors would have less reason to interfere in domestic affairs because they are less likely to have substantial other investments which may lead to conflict of interest. For example, Network Ten, which is operated partly by a Canadian company, CanWest Pacific, which has an economic interest of 57.5 per cent—including a 14.99 per cent shareholding—may have more unbiased editorial content in their news broadcasts.I now turn to the issue of enhanced programming and multi-channelling. The government rejected the ABC's submission for multi-channelling in part because it would provide unfair competition for pay television. However, the definition of enhanced programming contained in the bill permits both commercial and national free-to-air broadcasters to effectively multi-channel sporting events if it involves the same sport at the same venue with overlapping times. For example, it would be possible to broadcast more than one match at a time from a tennis tournament. Pay TV operators have expressed concern with these provisions. It should be noted that the commercial free-to-air television broadcasters are already protected from competition from the pay TV sector with regard to major sporting events, through the anti-siphoning provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act.I turn next to the issue of datacasting restrictions. Pay TV operators and other potential datacasters have argued that the restrictions on datacasting are too severe, in that they will prevent the introduction of new digital services. On the other hand, the commercial free-to-air television networks state that the provisions will allow datacasters to deliver a de facto television service by allowing Internet services to be linked to digital television. The Productivity Commission's report supports the former view. It states that the policy `places considerable and arbitrary limitations on the innovative, interactive and additional services made possible by the technology of digital transmission'. It points to a number of anomalies, such as that, while free-to-air broadcasters are required to show children's programs for social and cultural reasons, datacasters are prohibited from doing so; datacasters can show news and parliamentary proceedings but not current affairs; and datacasters will be prevented from showing documentaries but not educational programs, when the two categories are sometimes indistinguishable.I am dismayed at the proposed changes in this legislation. These proposals effectively deny the entry of foreign media operators into Australia. The Broadcasting Services Act has conflicting provisions which, on the one hand, restrict competition but, on the other hand, encourage diversity. That is, there is a lot of tension in the BSA. In December 1999, the opposition pledged that it would consider this legislation in the context of its strategic objectives in broadcasting, including equitable access to new technology; the public interest in a diverse range of information, services and entertainment; the continued development of a viable and vibrant industry; high quality Australian programming, contributing to the development and reflection of a sense of Australian identity and character.What we are ending up with in this bill is a statutory lock-out of new competitors and, even worse, the stifling, and slow suffocation, of what few competitors are left: namely, the public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. In its place, we have a financial and legislative environment that is perfect for `mopping up' by the two media magnates, Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch. They are the principal beneficiaries of this bill. The situation is a case of deja vu, much like what occurred within the telecommunication industry with regard to local calls. Purported market deregulation has not resulted in the betterment of services. Market discrimination against marginal profit areas, such as regional Australia, has continued to take its toll on service levels by Telstra—so, too, the financial discrimination against those who cannot afford the HDTV technology. Further, the industry costs of conversion to digital will place alternative competitors out of the reach of those who wish to participate. All this augurs for a future industry that is very different from the ones we expect in our objective statement. That is, instead of seeing a market with a greater diversity of services and products, we will be subject to the mind control of two dominant media influences in the market, namely, Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch. This is not dissimilar to the promises that were made about the banking industry. We were promised that deregulation would result in greater product availability, better services and more competition. Instead, we have been dominated by a banking oligopoly, with the four retail banks failing to do anything more than stifle outside competition, increase bank fees and manipulate our access to our market. I spoke about this in the House less than two hours ago.It is time we as Australians recognised the failure of so-called industry deregulation. This sort of deregulation can only lead to yet greater control by oligopolies, the demise of free markets and the denial of competition in the marketplace. The basis upon which cross-media ownership rules may be dispensed with was the notion that there would be so many media owners that it would be unnecessary to persist with cross-media ownership rules. This is very much the thinking contained in Alvin Toffler's book The Third Wave. However, it presumes that media will become so decentralised that the large corporate media entities will simply disappear. In fact, the opposite is true. What we see here is the further superconcentration of power in all media—television, Internet and so forth. Internet site access is still dominated by the Packer-Murdoch cartel, and this trend is unlikely to do anything but continue with the relentless pursuit for market share and power. (Time expired)20:13:0017027Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I would encourage the member for Lowe to acknowledge the work of the Bills Digest for much of the early part of his contribution. The bill we are discussing tonight is the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000. The policy framework that supports this legislation is something that has been widely discussed in the media. As you trawl through the media accounts of that policy debate, it is sometimes difficult to work out whether the analysis relates to an assessment of how the policy impacts on their respective positions, or how the policy actually supports quality product, quality television for consumers and the development of the digital industry in our country.There has been a lot of discussion about who is advantaged and who is disadvantaged and about whether one media proprietor has opportunities that another has been denied. I am pleased to stand here tonight and say that what guided my contribution to this debate was what was good for our national interest and what was good for consumers. Those opposite have been questioning some of the policy settings included in this legislation—restrictions on datacasting, the role of our national broadcasters, what `enhanced services' means and also the number of reviews—and you could be left with the sense that all this is perfectly clear right now. It simply is not. We are moving into an area of technological development in the media, entertainment and information industry which is evolving on a day-by-day basis. I have had the good fortune to be briefed over a period of time on some of those developments, and it is fair to make the point that the reviews not only are appropriate but also are entirely necessary because of the pace with which the technology is changing.We have heard some people talk about the triplecast obligations we have placed on the free-to-air broadcasters. Some are arguing it is unreasonable, it is excessive, it is an onus that they should not have to carry, whereas others are saying that the lending of spectrum to enable television viewers to take on board their product in whatever form their household televisions can provide is also an unreasonable requirement. What seems to have been lost in this debate at times is that there are consumers out there. The broadcasting industry policy that this government is overseeing has been designed to support the best quality product using the most advanced technology available, and that cannot be articulated in absolute terms right here and right now. We have heard some discussion about the cost of digital television. We have heard some commentators in the media musing about whether there is a market for digital television. The interesting thing is that when you talk about a market it usually involves a willing vendor offering a product or a service to a willing purchaser. The fact is that we do not have that product out there right now. When you think about the take-up of high definition television and some of the benefits that it represents, we do not quite know what pace that will occur at because the product is not there now and, unlike many other areas of our economy, the providers have a key role in guiding the development of the technology. Consumers do not come into my electorate office and say, `Look, member for Dunkley, we really think the policy should be this because that would enable us to do (a), (b) and (c) once it is introduced.' That does not happen. The reason that does not happen is that most consumers do not know what the technology will offer them. In many cases it will be a supplier driven arrangement where these new technological opportunities, combined with some of the terrific creative minds in the broadcasting and media industry, will offer new product. People will get a sense of what it means, and then you will start seeing consumers deciding whether or not they are in a position to take up that technology. The triplecasting arrangements are designed to ensure that the analog service currently enjoyed by viewers around this country continues to be available. So, from the consumers' point of view, we are making sure their televisions still are relevant, are functioning and are able to provide a good quality service—a good quality service not just in terms of the picture and sound quality but in terms of the content. It is widely recognised that our country has excellent television content, and anybody who travels around the world will know that our television leaves most of the offerings in similar countries for dead. There is a reason. Successive governments have made decisions about how many free-to-air broadcasting licences are made available. If someone wants to question the decision that is reflected in this legislation about not providing for the new free-to-air broadcast licences, then let us have a debate about whether we should have more free-to-air broadcasting licences. Let us talk about what that means for the revenues that are available to the industry. Let us talk about what impact that may have on the quality of the content. Let us talk about the impact that may have on the Australian content that viewers of television in this country can see. Let us have a discussion about how widely those new services could be made available in regional and rural Australia. That would be a sensible and worthwhile debate to have. But to come in here and argue that the policy settings under this digital television and datacasting legislation are somehow an affront to the idea of more television programs is coming at the argument in rather a slippery way.We have made a policy decision about the number of free-to-air broadcasting licences that are made available because we want to maintain the quality of the television content. We have placed obligations on the broadcasters to triplecast their service so that if you have a traditional analog television you can still enjoy it. If you want to access at entry level the new world of digital technology, you can do that too through a standard definition television set-top box or the like. But if you want to go the full hog and enjoy all that is available through high definition television, that is your right as well—that is an option that is available to the consumer. That choice and that consumer interest are what underwrite the legislation before the House tonight; not which media mogul has done over the other, whether this is television dominating the print media, and what about radio and the new entrants through pay television and online services. That is juicy stuff and you will find people talking about those things. But let us cut to the car chase: what is it about? It is about looking after the interests of consumers, and that is what underpins the provisions that are in this legislation tonight. We have also heard some discussion about the issue of enhanced service definitions and about some of the settings in this legislation that seek to ensure that some of the benefits that are made available through free-to-air broadcasting are consistent with free-to-air broadcasting. That is not an unreasonable thing to do, I believe, because at the end of the day that is what the licence is being provided for. Bearing in mind the obligations that are placed on the free-to-air broadcasters through the `must carry' of standard definition television, the 20 hours a week of high definition television and a continuation of the analog signal, there are also some opportunities for those broadcasters to take on board the new technology and offer some improvements to the service they offer. In my previous contribution in this place I talked about some of the differing sporting angles you could enjoy: watching the mighty Richmond Tigers having a terrific year—a team made up with character. But if you are fascinated with knowing how the forward line works, you could have the option of looking at that part of the broadcast. If you are thinking about how Nick Daffy gets his hair cut and you want to go the next step and click on Nick Daffy to make an appointment to get your hair cut just like he does, that is not really a broadcasting service. That is an example of some of the datacasting opportunities that are made available in this legislation.I am describing it in a way that hopefully the consumers will be able to follow. If you want to know what Nick Daffy's stats are for the year and how many games he has played and how he is going with goal kicking and those sorts of things, fine. That is a rather modest extension of the traditional broadcasting service. If you want to engage in some other commercial activity beyond that broadcasting service, then that is available under this bill, but there is an additional price to be paid because you are entering into a new area of enterprise. That is not an unreasonable thing, in my view. Those opportunities are there, and that is an example of the very direct benefits that can be gained by making use of this technology. That example about the haircut, or even joining the Richmond footy club as a member, or booking tickets for the next home and away match, or something of that kind, are services that are available under this regime for which an additional payment is to be provided.Those types of services are just a window into what can be done with this technology. What we do not know precisely is where the technology will end. That is why the minister has, quite wisely, introduced a number of review arrangements as part of this package. I particularly have been interested in the streaming of video and audio. Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, you would be aware that Bardot—that television creation, the music outfit that have been doing terrifically well, and who have, I think, launched their album at No. 1 on the popular charts—had their first concert made available through audio and video streaming over the Net. I know Microsoft was one of the organisations involved in that. So people who were interested in that concert could call up the site and actually see the concert.That is exciting technology. If they were doing that 24 hours a day it would sound a bit like MTV. If they were punctuating that performance with some news and a few other things you would find it very hard to differentiate it from a television channel. These are reasons why the minister is, quite rightly, looking for the advice of the ABA over the next 12 months, to review the role of the streaming of video and audio over the Net, given that that technology is here with us now. And there are some terrific Australian entrepreneurs and some gifted people right around the world looking at how to make best use of it. The question that the ABA will be providing advice to the minister on is that broadcasting. Certainly there is a requirement to lock into the site, but it is not a one-to-one supplier of that material, so under the traditional definitions you would think, `Gee, maybe it leans a bit towards broadcasting,' but that is something the ABA needs to work through.A point to multipoint service is traditionally what people accept as broadcasting—that is, television programs and radio programs—and that service may be delivered over a range of technologies, whether it be terrestrial, satellite, cable or microwave and the like. Some of those are available now on subscription; some of them are not. But, put simply, commercial broadcasting of services of that kind will be banned until the end of 2006, regardless of how they are delivered. So we are not getting bogged down on this technology specific regime; we are asking is it broadcasting, or is it not? Does that technology represent a new entrant into broadcasting? You could look at that same issue and think about point-to-point services, where an individual person can click into a video clip or a movie or something like that and download it entirely independently from the actions of any other person. That is a different use of the technology again. That already happens in downloading music files, even news clips from the ABC, and some other things like that. That material is being received separately, and it is being listened to and consumed at a different time by different users, so the sense is that it is not broadcasting. You can see how complicated that gets, as the new technology opens up new opportunities for people. Streamed audio and video services are already a fact of life with Triple J—and you could actually argue that the parliament does this as well—over the Net. The question is: is that broadcasting? That is an issue that the minister will be seeking advice on over the next few months.The other thing that I would like to briefly touch on tonight is the question of datacasting. The seven megahertz that are being made available for free-to-air broadcasting reflect current digital compression technology. My advice is that it will not be long before you will be able to transmit that same volume of data over a reduced span—not the seven megahertz, something less. Again, the policy needs to take account of that technological development, and it does that by leaving the option open for free-to-air broadcasters to make that spectrum available. If it does make that spectrum available for data services then, as I have mentioned earlier, that activates some costs.The point is trying to make sure that there are no free kicks in this policy setting. So if people want to make use of those datacasting services, there will be a fee attached to them. The thing that we will need to look at is the way those fees are struck. If you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, wanted to make available a datacasting service espousing the virtues of tourism on the coast of Victoria—from your area in the Western District, around to the Bellarine Peninsula and then over to nature's jewel on the Mornington Peninsula—we may choose to do that, and if we had the commercial relationships with the tourist operators, the visitor industry and those sorts of things we would be generating some revenue through that new use of this technology, and the ABA would be rightly saying there is a fee to be charged for that. Something we need to keep our eye on is if the free-to-air broadcasters were not making that spectrum available to us but were offering that service themselves, then all of that revenue would be contained within the free-to-air broadcaster. If they simply sublease the spectrum to you and me, then the revenue within the broadcaster is less and under the current regime would trigger a reduction in fees. That is a cuteness that we need to keep an eye on, because we have seen in the past how the media industry itself is very clever at working its way around these sorts of potential loopholes.Another point I would like to briefly talk on tonight is the concern that has been raised about the restrictions on datacasting. We can stand here and talk as technocrats about what the technology is and what it conceivably could do, in an absolute vacuum. But the fact is, as I have mentioned earlier, we have free-to-air broadcasters and we have made some decisions as a nation, through successive governments, to value quality product, and that is why we do not have as many free-to-air broadcasting licences as some other countries.The point about this is that, when you are looking at the freedom given to potential datacasters, a puritan look at it may well knock over something we already value quite highly. We could say, as those opposite would say, `You're far too restrictive with your definition of datacasting. Why can't people use the technology that is available? Why aren't some of the video streaming and the sorts of things that are very near broadcasting not able to be done?' and then raise arguments about it stifling the development of the product. We should not forget, though, that we are not operating in a vacuum. We do have free-to-air broadcasters, we do have pay television providers, we do have current service providers over the Net and we do have a number of current and emerging strategic alliances between broadcasting and media companies. The policy needs to take account of what we value about our broadcasting industry now and not junk that simply for a puritan argument about what the technology is capable of doing and how we should simply get out of the road of it. That is a naive and simplistic view that has already been offered by some of those opposite—just let it rip. There are things that this country has valued for decades that have been built into this policy setting. Some of them are about quality television, and we should not just give that away as if it did not matter anymore. Of course it matters, and that is why this policy setting does not offer any media proprietor or media baron all that they want. The comforting thing about reading the press clippings on this is that just about everybody with a barrow to push thinks we have not got it entirely right. It is about making some compromises between those very vigorous and outspoken vested interests and, at the same time, trying to make sure that our national interests and the concerns of the consumers are properly accommodated. As I mentioned earlier, consumers are just starting to get a taste of what is possible under this technology, and it is very difficult for consumers to rise up and advocate what policy should be when they are pretty much relying on the providers of the technology to let them know what it is capable of doing.I would like to touch briefly on another issue in the time available. Some concern has been raised about the services available in regional and rural Australia, where there may only be two existing broadcasters at the moment. The policy setting does provide the avenue for additional broadcasting capability for those two or to new entrants to expand the range of product that is available to the more isolated citizens in our very large country. There has also been some discussion about the separation of a content licence from a broadcaster's licence—for someone who actually transmits the signal. There you are looking at responsibilities that are not dissimilar from the current providers of content or the current providers of transmission capability. This is not something that is widely unfamiliar to people. The policy has sought to provide certainty on issues that we can be certain about. I would not stand here and say that we can be certain about all of these things, but it provides certainty for those things about which we can be certain and puts in place a series of mechanisms, mainly through reviews, to keep track of the way technology evolves. It delivers affordability to the consumers so that they can migrate from the current analog technology to standard or high definition television pretty much at a time of their choosing and make sure that their current investment in entertainment equipment in their homes is not junked by some plan to change the arrangements overnight, as has been advocated by some.I commend the bill to the House. I think we are on the verge of an exciting era. This is something that our nation will take up quickly because we have traditionally done that. I think the policy settings that Minister Alston has provided and that are articulated in this legislation give our country the best possible chance to take what is good out of this new technology without junking things that we value at present. (Time expired)20:33:0017031Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I am happy to agree with the member for Dunkley on one point that he raised and that is that, on looking through the media clippings on this issue, it is very difficult to find any commentators or, indeed, any industry players who are at all happy with this broadcasting services legislation. That sets them apart from ordinary people, who are probably not unhappy with the legislation only because they have paid no attention to it. It is legislation that has not been particularly widely debated, and I would say that the majority of people, if you asked them their opinion, would say, `Who cares?' Digital TV has not captured the public consciousness, first of all, because people feel that, in all likelihood, there will be a large barrier to accessing digital TV—a large price barrier for the majority of families in the foreseeable future—and, secondly, because this has not been particularly widely debated in that much of the debate is very technical and, therefore, people have not really addressed it in the way they perhaps should have. But it is a matter for careful public scrutiny because there has been such a huge giveaway of public resource—the spectrum—and very little discussion about the possible benefits that are likely to accrue from this. Commercial television in Australia is a massive industry with potential for further growth, so decisions affecting the future of the industry have to be made very carefully. It seems to me that this decision has been designed to protect various interests rather than to encourage competition in the free-to-air television area. Little regard is being shown for the consumer. In 1998, a decision was made to provide free-to-air broadcasters with a gift of about $5 billion worth of free spectrum to facilitate the transition from analog to digital TV. With that gift of free spectrum came a monopoly of digital TV until 2006—initially it was going to be 2008. This monopoly and the concessions that have been made to restrict datacasting mean that consumers will not actually have much more choice in what they can watch. If consumers do want to have more choice, they will have to pay for it through the nose.Datacasting may be what is called the `killer app' of digital TV. It may be the application that makes people want to invest in digital TV. This new technology has the potential to generate thousands of jobs and to provide timely information direct to the home. Alan Kohler, in his article in the Financial Review of 13 May entitled `Digital dogfight fuels telly wars', described it thus:In 1998 Richard Alston came up with the unique Australian invention called `datacasting' in an attempt to do the impossible—keep the Murdochs and the Packers happy at the same time. Between them and the tabling of the final legislation during the week, the Government decided there is just no pleasing the Murdochs at all, so it is now concentrating on the Packers ...He went on:The longer version of the story is more interesting: a tortuous, fascinating drama about power and fear, and about the use of technological change to entrench and protect cartels and to escape political risks ...He said that datacasting is:... simply a way of letting someone other than Kerry Packer, Kerry Stokes and Izzy Asper pay for some TV broadcasting spectrum without using it to broadcast TV.Why stop them broadcasting TV? To limit the number of commercial broadcasters to three until at least 2006. Why do that? Well, the conspiracy theory has it that Packer has Alston and Howard in his pocket.Alan Kohler goes on to say that he does not agree with the proposition that the minister and the Prime Minister are in Kerry Packer's pocket. He believes that the decision has more to do with the fear that some coalition members of parliament have relating to the quality of broadcasting signals in rural and isolated areas and the fear that the free-to-air signal in the bush would lose quality if the networks were faced with competition. He goes on to say:Having decided to preserve the TV cartel against the trend in every other industry, the Government was headed inexorably into bending over frontwards for the networks, and into the legislative brambles. The pace of digital conversion could not be left to the market because there isn't one. The networks had to be given the spectrum for nothing, because there could be no auction without other bidders, and the extra capacity of the spectrum could not be used by new licensees to provide competition.But News Corps and Fairfax also had to be appeased, so the fiendishly complicated idea of datacasting was set up. It was further decided that the networks could not be allowed to use their digital spectrum to go into pay TV against Rupert Murdoch's Foxtel, using what is called multichanneling.But the falling-out between News Corp and the Howard Government over the past couple of years has led to several changes to the rules: the networks will now have greater freedom to multichannel, they will get two digital channels each in Sydney, datacasting has been even more narrowly and exhaustively defined than expected, and it is clear that News can forget about getting a datacasting licence ... Later he says:Most in the industry believe there will be only two ways to make decent money from datacasting: a text/video news channel, which is what Fairfax wants to do, and downloading movies at $5 a pop, which is what News Corp and Ozemail want to do. This week's final rules allow the former business model (broadcasting 10-minute news videos that can be updated every 30 minutes) but prohibit movie downloads.Paul Budde wrote about datacasting in the Australian in very similar terms, and this is why it is particularly interesting that the member for Dunkley refers to what commentators are talking about in the newspapers. Paul Budde wrote on 16 May in the Australian:In view of the fact that it allows for full interactivity, it is perhaps the single most important element of the new technology.He was of course referring to datacasting. He went on:It is an internet-like service but it can deliver video-based entertainment service ... The Government had a unique opportunity to admit poor people into the new knowledge based society, but they chose not to do so. Nor does the Government's policy take into account users in regional and remote areas. Multicasting and datacasting could provide these people with more entertainment choices. The Government won't allow these services, even though they are offered in every other country in the Western world.While `datacasting' has been too tightly defined, thereby reducing the benefits of this new technology, `multichannelling' has been much more loosely defined than many in the industry had expected. This makes life much easier for the commercial free-to-air stations, increasing their potential advertising revenue, but it does not do very much for the ABC or SBS, which have been arguing for multichanneling. Regarding the legislation, Alan Kohler wrote:It now reads: closely related or linked content only, such as two simultaneous matches at the Australian Open—known in the industry as the Stokes victory. Lawyers say they can drive a truck through this, or at least stretch it, so that the networks can get a big increase in the volume of advertising inventory by having more air time to sell.The pay TV operators, who were told that there would be no multichanneling and who of course have made massive investments in their own industry without asking for government handouts, say that this is de facto multichannelling, allowing re-runs of old episodes, for example, or self-contained documentaries along with main broadcasts. The government, after initially suggesting that the ABC and SBS might be exempted from the legislation relating to multichannelling, has since withdrawn this chip from the bargaining table. I guess it may be the intention of the minister to come back at the last minute with this concession to Labor and the Democrats in the Senate to secure our support for the rest of this dog's breakfast of legislation. The loophole that may benefit the commercial stations is of no use to the ABC because they are unlikely to have the extra funding required to provide more programming in any case. Obviously, the ABC and SBS should be exempted from the multichannelling provisions. That would allow them to provide services such as state based programming. The ABC have also said that they could use digital spectrum to broadcast ABC radio into remote areas that do not currently receive the signal.Of course, legislative barriers are just one restriction on what people can watch. The real barrier many people will face is price. High definition television sets may cost anywhere between $5,000 and $15,000. The Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee inquiry into this legislation heard that nowhere in the world can a consumer buy a high definition television set for less than $5,000. The average price in the United States has been $US7,500 over the first year that they were available. Converted into Australian dollars by exchange rate and market size, that would be about $A20,000. The average price of a television in Australia now is $750, so it is difficult to see why people would go out and spend even $5,000 on a new television set unless the product was very much better than that which they are currently being offered. Standard definition sets may of course be cheaper than high definition television sets, though of course still much more expensive than analog television sets, but it is more likely that consumers will be buying or renting set-top boxes than going out and investing in new television sets, certainly in the short term. The set-top boxes pose problems of their own. The price may be as high as $1,000 for a high definition set-top box, and the networks are doing their best to ensure there is no compatibility between the digital free-to-air standard, the datacasting standard and pay television signals. The question of whether consumers will be faced with buying one set-top box or three has not yet been resolved. As I said, the networks are trying to make sure that the boxes are not compatible. Their most recent attempt to do this was to try to get Dolby sound as the standard audio output rather than MPEG-1. If they had been successful in this attempt it would have made the digital set-top boxes incompatible with pay TV boxes. Fortunately, Standards Australia rejected this suggestion.There is some possibility, according to some journalists, of Telstra subsidising set-top boxes if it wins a datacasting licence. Such a box may combine the digital free-to-air, pay TV and datacasting signals with a cable modem for Internet access on the television, which would increase Telstra's share of Internet connections as well. With the expense of digital televisions, there has inevitably been a low uptake of high definition TV overseas. Apparently, only 30,000 high definition sets have been sold worldwide in the last 15 years. Of course, that rate will increase as more programming is broadcast in that format. But that will very much depend on the quality of the programming and the programming of the extra services offered. People are not going to invest that sort of money unless the product is a different product from the one they are receiving today.Paul Budde, in the Australian, suggests that the reasoning behind the networks' push for digital TV had more to do with the fact that `high definition television would require all the spectrum available and would preclude competitors from delivering other services (including datacasting)'. He goes on:They weren't really concerned about controlling HDTV—they just wanted a monopoly.However, the broadcasters can't do much with all this extra spectrum—the pay TV operators saw to that.All they can offer is prettier pictures—no extra programming; and it has been established that users aren't interested in that if it's going to cost more.What the users want is more and better services and above all the right to make their own choices.Multichannelling ... would allow this. But to placate the Pay TV industry, the broadcasters are not allowed to provide multichannelling to viewers.Of course, that position has softened slightly. So will Australians get better TV at the end of the day? Probably. Probably it will be slightly better. But will it have been worth the $5 billion spectrum giveaway? Will access to the improved TV signals be affordable? Will we make the best use of these new technologies? Will the gap between the information rich and the information poor be widened or narrowed? Will there be an increase or a decrease of new Australian content? These are all questions that remain to be answered. The only things that are certain are that this government has taken an inordinate amount of time to introduce the bill and has left an unacceptably short time for parliamentary consideration of the measure; that the narrow approach taken to the definition of datacasting is much too restrictive and certain to risk stifling a new industry before it emerges; that the government has failed to enhance the future potential in this area, as evidenced by its datacasting proposals; that the government should allow the national public broadcasters—the ABC and SBS—to multichannel; that the restrictions on datacasting and the prohibition on the ABC and SBS from multichannelling will have particularly adverse consequences for rural and regional Australia; that the enhanced services provisions in the bill go further than previously anticipated and will require careful scrutiny; and that there will need to be careful, appropriately timed and statutorily based scrutiny through the review provisions proposed in the bill. 20:45:0017035Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000. I have stayed very close to this right from its inception and I make no apology for the views I take on this, because I think I have tested it as it has gone along. I can remember sitting in the boardroom of Channel 10 some years ago with Gary Hardgrave, going through this new digital thing when it was barely spoken of around the nation. I have followed it ever since then.By the way, the member for Sydney is one of my favourite members of the opposition, but I really felt that she was ill informed today. It surprised me, because I have never heard her give a speech in which she was less well informed than she was tonight. There is a lot of mythology in this but, if those who want to get close to the subject want to think about it carefully, there is a lot of logic too. We have a spectrum. It is a space in the firmament, if you like, in which radio and television and other forms of broadcasting can be delivered. You need a block of seven megahertz to transmit the current analog signal.What we are saying now is that, beside each of those channels, we will allow another seven megahertz of spectrum for digital transmission. That is not giving the current players $5 billion worth of spectrum; that is clearly nonsense. What we are saying to those players is this: `We are going to require you'—initially we said over the first 10 years, but that has been modified by the Democrats to eight years—`to broadcast in high definition digital television and, at the same time, so that people's television sets will not become obsolete overnight, we will require you to broadcast in analog.'Conversion to digital television will cost the ABC, SBS, 7, 9 and 10 in the order of $900 million to $1 billion—a lot of money. There will be no government assistance, no tax breaks, nothing. We are saying, `We want you to do that as a service to the nation. Not only that, we want you to broadcast in analog for eight years so that people's old TV sets will still be useful.' That will cost somewhere between $30 million and $50 million per year. I say to the member for Sydney: that is no gift. They only have the use of those two blocks of seven megahertz of spectrum for that eight-year period. It is not in perpetuity. So to say that they have just been handed a $5 billion gift is rubbish.What will happen is this: as from 1 January next year, the capital cities and perhaps the conurbations like the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Newcastle, Wollongong and I imagine Geelong—but it is certainly mandated for the capital cities—will have to broadcast in digital format. The regionals will have another three years in which to introduce the format, so they will start on 1 January 2004. In both instances, they must broadcast simultaneously in analog for eight years. As I said, because those conurbations are so close to the capital cities, they will probably be required by the pressure of the new medium to come in somewhat earlier, although they will not be required by law to do so.It is true that this is new science. Normally Australia stays a bit behind the world in these sorts of technologies. We did with black and white TV because we wanted to have the best sort of television. We did it, and we readily embraced the technology. We were one of the world leaders in black and white television. When colour came, there were all sorts of options available and we adopted the PAL system—again, it was a great success. Australia probably more than any other nation in the world took up the medium. That was in 1956 for black and white and 1973 for colour. It was the same with VCRs. We are technology junkies. We have more readily embraced mobile telephony than most countries. We have embraced the personal computer more than most countries—perhaps not as much as North America but we have certainly had a very high level of uptake. With digital television, we are not sitting as far behind the pack. We are up there in front with this massive change in technology, not far behind the UK, Europe and the United States. That carries a lot of risks, but it also carries a lot of opportunities. As the member for Sydney said, datacasting really has not been defined. That is true; she is quite right. It is because no-one has really defined the medium yet. There are snippets of it in the States and in the UK. You can have lots of multichannelling and quasi datacasting in the UK if you want to have a set-top box and pay for it. We are going to be the first country to have the opportunity to provide most of this at a free-to-air level. Certainly, when we get datacasting with interactive services, there will be a payment regime available to those who want to teleshop and buy information off the screen in much the same way as you can buy it off your PC. But we have to understand that there are risks involved. The government mandated high definition television, and this is where the member for Sydney needed to inform herself. It is true that high definition has not taken off around the world. The world has set a standard that it cannot yet aspire to. It is called 1080i—1080 interlaced—which only means the number of lines on the screen. The government could see the difficulty that was going to emerge, where television sets might have cost around $15,000 to $20,000, and that would not have been acceptable. So we did not then opt for the next standard down, which was 720p or 576p—again, a measure of the number of lines on the television set—but we went for a standard definition, 576i, 576 lines. That will be affordable and it will be infinitely better than people currently see in their analog television. It will not be as good as 1080i, but it will on most normal sized television sets be a very fine picture. It will be cinema quality and have CD sound quality. It will be something quite unlike anything we have seen before in our homes. That is what the government has done.I said that there were risks. We did not take the risk of mandating 1080i. We shifted ground because the rest of the world has not taken up that standard. What we are going to do in Australia—and we will probably be the first to do this—is require those five free-to-airs that the member for Sydney criticised to broadcast for 20 hours a week in high definition. This will give us the chance to have the best of both worlds. If people want to buy the better and more expensive sets, they will be able to; but people who want to buy the standard definition digital—which, I repeat, will be better than anything we have ever seen before—will be able to do that at a price that is still being debated but will probably be in the range of $2,000 to $2,500. They will be bigger TV sets than we are used to. The format of the screen will be 16 by nine, not 12 by nine as we are used to now. It will be what is called, in cinema parlance, wide-screen.Standard definition and high definition allow us to have an enhancement channel. An enhancement channel should not be confused with multichannelling. An enhancement channel is taken within the spectrum of the existing seven megahertz, and the 576 will be taken within that spectrum. What that will allow is this: while you are watching the football or the cricket, if you want to turn to the referee or the umpire and see what he is doing, see the scoreboard, the crowd scenes—all that sort of thing—you will be able to do so. This is where the member for Sydney got it wrong: this is not multichannelling. If you are watching the main game on the principal channel—and let us say that it is the golf, the Australian Open—and you want to watch Greg Norman but you also get interested in what Tiger Woods is doing, the enhancement channel will carry Tiger Woods and you will be able to flick from one to the other. But it will be the one game, the one event. It will be the same with the Olympics. By using the enhancement channel, you will be able to watch perhaps the high jump while Cathy Freeman is running the 400.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—You won't be able to watch it on the ABC.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—No, they will have enhancement channels. You should inform yourself: the ABC will have enhancement channels as well. You are confusing enhancement with multichannelling. This enhancement channel will be a great boon, but the rule will be that it must be the one sporting event. For example, you will not be able to watch the Knights play the Melbourne Storm on one channel and watch the Broncos play someone else on the other, because they are two separate events on the same day. It must be within the one event. I think that probably, in time, what the member for Sydney proposes will happen, but it will not happen initially. In fact, if we had had 1080i, there would not have been the spectrum available to do it. Now we have reduced this to 576i, there will be more spectrum available. That is the first thing. There is another advantage with that enhancement channel. Let us say that two hours of the cricket are washed out—you have just lost two hours of the cricket because of rain—and the umpires decide that the game will be able to go into the evening. The government will allow the enhancement channel then to be used to finish that particular game. So, while the news and all the other things might be going on—say that it is on the ABC at 7 o'clock—if the cricket is extended by two hours into the evening, people will be able to watch it on the enhancement channel. Other things will be able to be used. For example, you will be able to use the program guide; you will be able to put up on the screen what is on particular channels and be able to click onto whichever one you want with a cursor and change the programming on your TV screen that way. Captioning will be mandated for people who require it because of deafness and so on.Then we come to datacasting. As I have said, the science there is somewhat ill-defined, and no-one denies that. The member for Sydney is quite right: it is ill-defined. What we have done with television in Australia, under governments of both colours, is move cautiously and professionally, and we should do that now. It is not a matter of the arguments of enhancing Packer or trying to get at Murdoch; it is none of those things at all. It is a matter of doing this in an orderly and sensible fashion so that the Australian public get the best possible use of it.Datacasting opens up a lot of fields, and there are some obvious ones. We can talk about the text form of datacasting as known about by those of you who have watched Austext—that style of thing; watching news in a text form. There will be the Stock Exchange. There will be commodity prices for the rural industry. There will be things like interest rates, banking—a whole range of those sorts of things, useful information. We will then allow news bulletins and like matters, current affairs, where 10 minutes of every half-hour will be able to be film or talking heads as part of a half-hour presentation. But what the government will not do is allow for de facto free-to-air broadcasting. We want to see the datacasting regime develop within itself, not just attempting to claw a bit back from free to air. That should not be necessary. There is a whole range of things available.The member for Sydney criticised the fact that the ABC would not be allowed multichannelling. It is true what she said—that a number of us felt that, because of the uniqueness of its charter, the ABC could, without offending the other free-to-airs, broadcast other programs like regional programs, opera, ballet, education and the like. I think in the 2005 review—and there will be a review of this whole regime in 2005—that is a distinct possibility. I for one would favour it. In the meantime, however, the member for Sydney may not be aware that the ABC will be allowed to deliver educational programs on its datacasting channel. I do not know whether she is aware of that. Parliament will be able to be broadcast on the datacasting channel. So some of the things that may have been denied to the ABC in not having a second channel will be available to it in the datacasting regime. I repeat that the ABC will also be able to have an enhancement channel, like the other free-to-airs, and use it appropriately with sporting events, opera, ballet and things like that. For example, if you want to go to the opera and the ballet, you can watch the opera and the ballet on the main channel; if you want to see what the orchestra is doing and you want to hear an interview with the stars behind stage, all those sorts of things will be delivered on the enhancement channel.So, as I say to the member for Sydney and all other honourable members, there is a lot of mythology about this. There are a lot of vested interests out there with axes to grind. I suppose even on the free-to-air side, there would be some axes to be ground. My personal view is that we should open up the datacasting spectrum to a lot of bright young players. We have some very highly intelligent people in the electronic media in this country. Still to be decided by the government, as I understand, by way of regulation, is how that part of the spectrum will be delivered. We understand that there are probably two blocks of seven megahertz. I for one would like to see that delivered to allow people two or three megahertz of spectrum. We then will be able to see all these bright, innovative young people, all these bright young companies, and some of the traditional ones like Ozemail, Telstra, Fairfax and Murdoch—all of those, plus all the new ones—building up a whole new genre of datacasting, from the very simplest form of text to the talking heads, through to all those interactive services that can be delivered, like home banking, teleshopping and all those sorts of things. It will mean too that datacasters will be able to give a news bulletin of a particular segment within another bulletin specifically on the datacasting channel if you click on to it. So it is not nearly as restrictive as the member for Sydney and some people have been saying. I am definitely not being partisan about this. We have done television and radio under both Labor and the coalition, and we probably have the best standards in the world. We should not sacrifice that for the spin doctors. This is the biggest quantum leap in broadcast communications since the introduction of black and white television. We are mad if we stuff it up—absolutely foolish. We should be thinking this through in an orderly and professional manner. I said at the beginning of my address that we are up with the front of the pack this time, not hanging back a little bit. That has great opportunities for us, but there are a few risks. I hope honourable members will embrace this new medium as I think it offers Australia, a country that is very switched on to new technology, an immense opportunity to be a well-informed nation, to be a well-entertained nation and to leave a whole new generation of communications for our kids and our grand-kids.21:09:0017038Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 refines arrangements for the introduction of digital television and establishes a system for the regulation of datacasting services. The word `refines' is a positive word, but the reality is that this legislation, more than anything, restricts the arrangements for the introduction of digital television, and that is a criticism that I have of the legislation.The broad legislative framework for the conversion from analog to digital television was contained in the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Act 1998. The legislation before the House tonight implements major policy decisions announced by the government on 21 December 1999. The main decisions were: first, free-to-air broadcasters will be required to continue their existing analog broadcast for at least eight years; second, free-to-air broadcasters will be required to provide a standard definition digital television signal at all times; third, free-to-air broadcasters must provide a high definition digital broadcast for at least 20 hours a week; fourth, datacasting will be subject to restrictions to ensure it is different from current television services; and, fifth, free-to-air broadcasters will be allowed to provide digital enhancements to their main simulcast programs, provided they do not amount to a separate multichannel program.The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Act 1998 prohibits the introduction of new free-to-air broadcasters before 31 December 2006. The datacasting regime provided for in the bill before the House now has been designed to ensure that datacasters cannot offer a de facto broadcasting service in competition with free-to-air providers. In other words, the datacasting provisions are meant to avoid the possibility of another broadcasting service coming in through the back door.Interestingly, datacasting is defined in the digital conversion act as a service other than a broadcasting service that delivers information to persons having equipment appropriate for receiving that information, where the delivery of the service uses the broadcasting services bands. This vague definition was used because the market for datacasting services has not yet developed and the precise nature and scope of the services are unknown. It is like asking, `What is datacasting?' and giving the answer, `We're not sure but, whatever it is, we want to restrict it.' Because of its concern to protect the position of free-to-air commercial broadcasters, the government has developed very restrictive boundaries for datacasting. Datacasting will include information programs where the sole or dominant purpose is to provide information on products, services or activities; interactive home shopping; banking and bill paying; web pages; email services; education services; and interactive games. Datacasters will not be able to provide traditional television programs in the areas of news, sports news, financial markets and business information and weather. However, datacasters will be able to provide a 10-minute headline bulletin provided items in these categories are in moving video form, and an updated version of those bulletins will be permitted every 30 minutes.In addition, datacasters will be able to provide a moving video program of any length on an individual news, financial market and business information or weather item, as long as the program is only available to a viewer selecting from a menu on the screen, that it is not hosted by a presenter and that it is not linked to another item. Datacasters will be prevented from showing most genres of television programs, including drama, current affairs, sporting programs and events, music programs, entertainment and lifestyle programs, comedy, documentaries, reality television programs, children's programs, light entertainment and variety programs, compilation programs, quiz programs and game shows. They will, however, be able to show short extracts from such programs—for example, extracts from movies as part of a `what's on in the city' type round-up.The difficulty with this legislation is that it is trying to keep up with and anticipate rapid technological change. It is highly prescriptive and it is designed to accommodate existing commercial interests while seeking to manage the transition to digital television services and datacasting. I have found that governments often get into trouble when they try to anticipate and regulate technological change. I would not be surprised if this legislation becomes a highly amended piece of legislation as the industry takes a different shape from the one predicted or hoped for by the government. In considering this legislation, Labor has been guided by its longstanding national objectives for broadcasting and media. These objectives include: equitable access to new technology; the public benefit in a diverse range of information services and entertainment; the continued development of a viable and vibrant industry; and high quality Australian program, contributing to the development and reflection of Australian identity and character. They are the key criteria by which we might judge this legislation and, judging the legislation against these criteria, the government's datacasting framework is overly restrictive. On this we are supported by the findings of a Productivity Commission report tabled in this House on 11 April 2000, which concludes, in part: The benefits of digital television can be enhanced if restrictions on datacasting content are relaxed ... The government's current policy proscribes certain services and restricts content ... This policy stifles competition and innovation ... Restrictions on datacasting, multichannelling and interactive services will be costly to Australian consumers and businesses alike. They will delay consumer adoption of digital technology and deprive business of opportunities to develop new products and services for the world ... They could have a particularly severe effect on regional consumers ...That is, the restrictions on datacasting could stifle aspiring datacasters, putting a new industry at risk in its infancy. The treatment of datacasting also contains policy contradictions. For example, the broadcasting of children's programs has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. Yet, while free-to-air broadcasters are required to show children's programs, datacasters are prohibited from showing children's programs. If we really want children's programs shown, you would think some consideration would be given to removing that policy contradiction. But I am also guided by the objectives I spelt out earlier in that we have supported the introduction of standard definition digital television and, in particular, the `must carry' regime for free-to-air broadcasters. Labor also proposed that the government's moratorium on new free-to-air entrants in broadcasting be reduced by two years so that it expires at the end of 2006. The government accepted this proposal and incorporated it in the 1998 legislation. While I personally would not want to restrict the availability of high definition digital television, the decision to require existing broadcasters to transmit at least 20 hours a week of high definition television means higher costs for all broadcasters, advertisers and ultimately consumers. The effect of this 20-hour requirement will be a cross-subsidy from low and middle income earners to those high income earners who can afford to and decide to buy a high definition digital television set. Australia is the only country to mandate high definition television. This requirement may constrain the emergence of new services—another example of the government seeking to predict and influence the introduction of new technology. Nevertheless, Labor are not opposing the government's legislation. What we are saying is that technology in the area of broadcasting and datacasting may emerge and be commercialised at such a rapid rate that this legislation could quickly become outdated. It certainly will need to be subject to periodic review.In the whole area of datacasting the issue of access to information technology is raised. By the criterion that I spelt out earlier—that is, equitable access to information technology—we are concerned about the restrictions on datacasting. We are concerned that they are overly restrictive. While there is an argument in relation to existing free-to-air television broadcasters, there is also an argument that this parliament ought to be seeking to promote the development and dissemination of new technology, particularly new technology that is so important to the future lifetime chances of people in rural and regional Australia and of people from disadvantaged backgrounds. This legislation is restrictive in that respect and therefore could not be seen to be totally fair. It provides a requirement that high definition digital television be broadcast for 20 hours a week. That means that people with those very expensive television sets can access that service—good on them. I think one could argue that the broadcasting of those services should be allowed to occur under normal market forces so that people who can afford those sorts of television sets can say, `Yes, we want them,' and the broadcasters provide for that demand and then the broadcasters voluntarily provide the service without it needing to be mandated. So we have a mandate in that area, yet in the other area of datacasting we have restrictions. As the member for Hinkler said, we need to encourage and reward our brightest, our most innovative people. We need to make sure that people from all backgrounds and in all locations can access the sort of information technology that will be so crucial to them gaining necessary skills and gaining access to information that is provided in the marketplace. Increasingly, that information will come through datacasting, but the government has chosen to restrict that access. I contend that the burden of those restrictions will be borne disproportionately by those people I mentioned—that is, people in rural and regional Australia and people on lower incomes in urban Australia.It surprises me that the member for Hinkler would come into this place and say, `That's okay.' He is in fact a representative of people in places like Gladstone and Bundaberg. I would think and hope that those people would expect to get equitable access to these services as we surge into the 21st century with this high technology that is now becoming available. But, no, the member for Hinkler thinks it is fair that that access be restricted.Also of particular relevance to people living in rural and regional Australia is Labor's belief that the legislation should allow the ABC to have multichannels to avoid the potential range of ABC services being curtailed once digital broadcasting begins. Labor feared that the government would move to prevent multichannelling by the national broadcasters—the ABC and the SBS. In this legislation our worst fears have been confirmed. Moreover, the government decided not to provide any significant additional funding in the 2000-01 budget for the ABC and the SBS to prepare for digital broadcasting. Again I would have thought that members of parliament, such as the member for Hinkler and the member for Herbert, who I see will be speaking next, would be very keen to see the ABC given access to broadcasting these sorts of services and to multichannelling. I will be very interested to hear what the member for Herbert has to say about that. I will also be interested to hear the opinions of the member for Dawson, who is from my home state of Queensland, and of all those coalition members in rural and regional seats. I would like to see them stand up for those people and defend the ABC because the ABC gets a pretty rough time under this government both in terms of funding and now in terms of the decision that they have made to deny the ABC multichannelling.The government have obviously taken the attitude that if they cannot restrain the ABC one way then they will restrain it another way, but restrain it they will. To summarise: access to information is critical to equality of opportunity in the information age. Labor has always been a strong advocate of equality of opportunity and that in the information age will be so crucially dependent on the availability of information, the sort of information that would be broadcast through these mediums. So we would like to be assured that that sort of access will be provided. But access to a range of datacasting services is being restricted in this legislation and therefore will be available through other vehicles preferentially to those who can afford these services. The residents of rural and regional Australia who rely more heavily on national broadcasters will be especially disadvantaged by the government's decisions. I conclude by saying that, notwithstanding those misgivings, we are not opposing this legislation. The legislation is the subject of a Senate inquiry which has not yet reported and yet here we are in the House debating that very legislation. Labor's final position on the legislation will be informed by the outcome of that Senate inquiry process. There are some shortcomings in the legislation, but obviously it is a step forward in technology in the provision of information, but personally I would have liked to have seen a fairer treatment for people from disadvantaged backgrounds and for people in rural and regional Australia so that all Australians can enjoy fairer access to information technology in the future. 21:26:0017041Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I appreciate the opportunity the member for Rankin has given me to respond in relation to ABC services in Townsville and Thuringowa. The member for Rankin quite rightly makes some valid points in that regard. I am extraordinarily disappointed with the position of ABC services in Townsville. We have a purpose-built studio complex for both television and radio. The television complex sits there and does nothing. There is every opportunity now for ABC television to broadcast directly to the viewers of North Queensland and it does not. To that end, I report to the House that the former managing director of the ABC never came to Townsville in his term. So I have invited the new MD, Mr Shier, to come to Townsville, to make his visit to Townsville his first as the new MD and to have a look at the opportunities that are there and the cost-effective way in which the ABC could bring back some localism to their local operations.That introduces the question: what has happened to television broadcasting over the last couple of decades? Those of us who have been around for a long time in the television industry will know that, as every year goes by, more and more we are the captives of a control room in Sydney or Melbourne, and more and more local programming goes out of the industry. This has happened to the extent that, when aggregation came along, many of the local programs that were broadcast by the soloist broadcaster in the market were axed and at this stage we are left with only a couple of new services and that is it. It is very sad that local communities cannot be served by local programming. I think there is an increasing move to make sure that this local programming does return to our television screens and to our radio speakers.I am certainly in favour of these broadcasting and datacasting bills tonight. I was speaking earlier this evening to a high commissioner from another country. That country is watching Australia to see how effective this legislation is and how well digital television is introduced into this country. Then that country will likely follow Australia's lead. It is really an exciting time and Australia is taking every advantage of the digital revolution—and that is what it is. There are three groups which benefit: consumers, broadcasters and advertisers. Consumers are the undisputed winners in the kinds of information, material and new genres that can be presented. The broadcasters are winners because they enter the online world much quicker than they would have otherwise. The group that makes it all possible, the advertisers, will have many new possibilities, with spectacular sound effects, for example. It will be true surround sound, not the surround sound that is currently touted as surround sound. And there will be new possibilities in visual effects and ghost-free pictures. I think the advertisers will use the medium to its best advantage and, golly, what advantages there will be in the coming years.This legislation builds on and extends the digital conversion framework agreed to by this parliament in 1998. It will allow a smooth transition to digital television for both industry and consumers. It is the way of the future. It is a new way of broadcasting information. Under today's analog system, of course, the signal is in the form of an amplitude modulated carrier wave—in fact, it is a vestigial side band, so only the upper side band is broadcast and a part of the lower side band is cut off—and the sound system is frequency modulated. With digital it will be broadcast as a digital data stream, and that opens up all sorts of extra possibilities. It makes digital television exciting. It is going to provide clear, sharp pictures with no interference or ghosting. Those are issues which currently frustrate people today, especially people who live in built-up areas or in hilly terrains.It offers a new format. Currently we run in the four by three format, but the new screen format—which we will be able to have—is the world standard 16 by nine. I see that many of the television stations are already moving to the use of this format in their news broadcasts, for example, and it really is more like a cinema screen. Earlier tonight I heard US Vice-President, Al Gore, describe digital television as:... the greatest transformation in television's history ... one that is truly bigger than the shift from black-and-white to colour ... it's like the difference between a one-man band and a symphony ...I think that is pretty accurate. Many of us will remember the introduction of colour television into the United States. Australia, fortunately, got a better system. We decided to introduce the PAL—which stands for phase alternating line—system but the Americans introduced the NTSC system, which a person in the industry would describe as `never twice the same colour'! That is not actually the technical description, but that is effectively what happens with their system. They will be very pleased, as well, to move to digital because there is absolutely no problem with the proper colour rendition in the digital system.Digital TV will offer everything that analog does, and more. Communications minister Richard Alston believes it will be capable of delivering a myriad new and improved services, including HDTV format, enhanced programming, access to the Net, datacasting services, e-commerce, interactive games, video on demand, multichannelling, interactivity, digital storage and processing and so on. Interactive TV will allow functions such as an electronic program guide—no more fumbling through last week's papers to find out what is on TV. You will be able to search by name, genre, time, artist and do on. Enhanced programming may mean additional camera angles for sporting events or additional information linked to core programs. Datacasting will allow all sorts of information and interactivity to be accessed through your television.It is pleasing to see that the ABC and SBS will also benefit greatly from these changes, and particularly in relation to their move to convergence with their television and radio programs and online material. I am a member of the Public Works Committee, and I was privileged to take part in the hearing into approving $109 million for the redevelopment of the ABC's Ultimo studios in Sydney. The ABC will move its television production studios to Ultimo, so that everything can be co-located and it can take advantage of the convergence going on within the industry. When I saw Gore Hill, I remarked to the chief engineer of the ABC that it was like walking back into 1975—and it really was. The conditions are just terrible. I do not know how employees work in them. I am sure they will be very pleased when the new facilities at Ultimo are built, and of course the facilities will be compatible with the digital era. They will be able to use those facilities to produce outstanding programming in the modern age. The government has made many decisions regarding digital television to benefit the community. It is good to see Australia leading many countries in the world in moving to digital. Television broadcasters, both commercial and non-commercial, will be providing a standard definition television signal at all times, together with specific hours of HDTV and other digital services. I would like to put on the record that this is something that I disagree with in this legislation, and I disagree with the government's thrust on this. In my view, it is not necessary to require broadcasters to broadcast SDTV simultaneously with HDTV.Before anyone gets too excited about that seeming conflict with the government, the reason is that, at the time the decisions were made about how things might go, it was just a bit early for the government to be convinced that in fact the required decoders would be available. The digital industry moves so fast these days that now set-top boxes are available virtually at the same price as an SDTV decoder that would allow you to have one decoder that decodes anything. If you have one decoder that decodes anything, you only need one standard of signal. There is an advantage in just broadcasting HDTV, and that is that you are not using up part of the channel for the SDTV information, and so you can broadcast an even better quality signal by broadcasting HDTV alone, or that format. The decision has been made. The networks are gearing up, and the reality is there. I am just a tad disappointed, as a technical person, that that is what has happened. But the decisions were made at that time for the right reasons. It is just that technology goes forward at such a rapid pace that there are now other opportunities.The government has several objectives within its digital television policy. They include the conversion from analog to digital television to involve minimum disruption to viewers—and that is very sensible indeed; to make the introduction of digital television as fast as possible—which allows the analog system to be closed down as soon as possible. I note that the Productivity Commission is very strong in its recommendation to the government that at least by the year 2009 all analog services should be closed. I agree with that. I believe that we do need to move to digital as soon as we can. In fact, this legislation achieves that goal. Of course, once this occurs, the spectrum that is being used by analog broadcasting will be freed up for other opportunities.Another objective is to give people an exciting range of options: when it comes to purchasing receiving equipment, you can either buy the best of the best or you will still be able to buy low-cost basic equipment, and so people in suburbia will be able to have their choice. It is a good thing that that range of choice is still available. I note that some in the industry say, `Look, at reasonable viewing distance on an SDTV picture on a normal size television set, you will not be able to pick the difference between SDTV and HDTV,' and that is probably true. It certainly stands out to me, as a bit of a technical purist, that you do pick up the difference when you put up a high quality picture—for example, something that might come off a web page—you certainly can see the degradation in quality if you are on SDTV. So my own recommendation is that consumers should, if they can, move to HDTV as soon as possible. Another advantage is that this legislation will allow broadcasters to give improved services and enhanced programming—all of those sorts of things that you have heard of—new hard-of-hearing aids, new information services and so on. Currently the law does not allow any new commercial television broadcasting licences to be issued, and that will not change till 31 December 2006. That is code for protecting the current free-to-air broadcasters. I strongly support that part of this particular bill tonight. The free-to-airs have been giving a wonderful service to this country. They have to remain profitable to be able to continue to give that service but, moreover, they have to have certainty that they can recover the capital cost that they are going to have to expend to move to this new genre. There is no doubt that there was some quite major concern among the television networks about how this capital cost might be funded to make such a major change to the studio equipment, some of the transmitting equipment and certainly the links that connect the studios to the transmitters, wherever they might be around the country. I saw a press release on 10 May from Stephen Smith, the shadow minister for communications. In it he talked about the restrictive nature of the government's datacasting plans. I am somewhat concerned about that. I am somewhat concerned after a public hearing that was held here in the parliament earlier today by the Communications, Transport and the Arts Committee on the public record. It was a hearing with the Productivity Commission, and my colleague the member for Lowe made some very good and very genuine points, and I know that he was concerned, as I was. I repeat those points to the parliament tonight, because they are on the public record.The member for Lowe made the point that certain media owners were indicating that they would use whatever power of their media empires that they had at their disposal to attempt to influence the government to introduce a system that best suited their own interests. The member for Lowe made the point, quite correctly, that we should be very concerned: what if we got to the stage in this country where some media empire attempted to use its influence regarding the way that this parliament might decide what is good public policy? The member for Lowe indicated that in this instance a particular media empire was going to support the Australian Labor Party at the next election but that he was just as concerned that these sorts of people tend to do what is good for them and if that means that a year later they turn on the Australian Labor Party, they will turn on the Australian Labor Party. We all should be mindful of that, and we all should be very concerned. It is to the credit of the government that the government has said, `We will decide what is good public policy for Australia and we will proceed in that way without fear or favour.' We were always going to offend somebody, and I just ask those somebodies to understand that the government must first and foremost look after the interests of Australia and not the bottom lines of media empires.Datacasting—and this follows those previous comments—will be introduced and it will be distinguished from broadcasting. The new arrangements will help provide certainty to the industry and ensure that datacasting services are different from television broadcasting services. There is no point in the government saying, `Look, we are not going to allow any competition to the free-to-airs until 2006,' and then allow pseudo-datacasting services that are quasi-television broadcasting. The government has moved to ensure that that does not happen. Datacasters will not be able to provide content in genre commonly regarded as free-to-air television—for example, drama and lifestyle programs—but they will be able to provide extracts of up to 10 minutes of such programs.I see that my time has almost expired—I was going to talk about satellite information, and so on. But I certainly would like to see this legislation passed by the House of Representatives and then the Senate because I think it is in the interests of the people of Australia.NaN:00:0017044McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I am pleased to be able to join in this debate tonight. As we all know, this legislation will amend the Broadcasting Services Act and the Radio Communications Act to make arrangements for the introduction of digital television in Australia and to implement a new regulatory regime for the provision of datacasting services. Obviously this is something that has caused the government some angst, and they have taken a lot of time to make up their minds about what to do with this legislation. The first item in the second reading amendment which the opposition has moved, and which I support, says the House: condemns the Government for the inordinate amount of time it has taken to introduce the bill, and the unacceptably short time now available for parliamentary consideration of the measure;The government has not allocated much time tonight or later on this week to deal with this legislation; they just want to get it through the place and out in a hurry. One wonders if that is because they have some trouble in their own ranks about it; because they are not quite sure about what they are doing; because they are trying to reconcile all the competing interests that have been brought to bear on this legislation or because they just have not been able to come up with the right decisions.The transition to digital television broadcasting is not a straightforward process. There are a number of issues that complicate it. They include the competing interests of the TV providers—`iniquitous network owners', as the member for Herbert just said. I think he was quoting my colleague the member for Lowe quite out of context. The people who seem to be driven by the media empires at present are the government rather than the opposition, and I suspect that the reason that the government have taken so long to make up their minds about the way they were going to introduce this bill is the competing pressures of the TV providers. There are also questions of the relative affordability of digital television and the accessibility of digital television—in other words, the needs of the consumers—and the related question of datacasting and how it is to be handled. The government has had to juggle with a whole host of those possibilities and come up with an appropriate blueprint for future television broadcasting. I do not think that they have come up with that blueprint in this legislation. In relation to achieving that blueprint, I would like to quote from the longstanding strategic objectives for broadcasting. In those objectives, it says there should be:. equitable access to new technology. public benefit in a diverse range of information services and entertainment. continued development of a viable and vibrant industry. high quality Australian programming, contributing to the development and reflection of a sense of Australian identity and character.How does this legislation shape up? I do not think it does. A lot of us on this side of the chamber have a number of concerns. Some of those have been raised in the recent Senate hearings. I will not canvass them here, but members are aware that there are significant flaws in this legislation. Those flaws can either be addressed now, which the government has not been willing to do, or they can be addressed some time down the track. If we are going to address those things some time down the track, there needs to be a review of the digital broadcasting regime within two years of the start of the regime in January next year.While the government has promised that certain reviews will take place, I think there needs to be a stronger commitment and a firm timetable to establish those reviews up front. I also believe that those reviews should be statutory reviews. The results should be considered by parliament, thus there will be an opportunity for public scrutiny and debate. It is no good if this government has some sort of quiet review of their own, as is happening with this iniquitous Telstra review that they are doing at present.VU5Griffin, Alan, MP4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—I think there is something wrong with the Deputy Opposition Whip, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think he needs a doctor, given the noises that are coming from my left. I thought his colleague told me that he was unwell and that that was why he was leaving the chamber before, but obviously he is not. Just as the government needs to review this legislation, I am going to review these people's situation after this speech here tonight.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—It is about television services.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—I think it is pretty good because their actions seem to have awoken you to the situation, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the Minister for Sport and Tourism noted earlier, you and she both were becoming a little bit bored and were dropping off, as I think they are just about to. 10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is not for the member for Watson to reflect on what other matters are going on in the House. I ask him to come back to his comments.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—Mr Deputy Speaker, far be it from me to reflect on other things happening in the House. I would have thought you would be reflecting on those things. The important thing which we have mentioned in our second reading amendment in item (6) is that we believe:... that the enhanced services provisions in the bill go further than previously anticipated—when the government was talking about this legislation—and will require careful scrutiny ...Further, we believe:... that there will need to be careful, appropriately timed and statutorily based scrutiny through the review provisions proposed in the bill”.It is not good enough if the government decides that these reviews are going to be done like the current review that the government is conducting of Telstra, where we have got the chairman of the review having a few field trips and not being willing to listen to what people have to say about the government's plan. Given the importance of the issue of broadcasting for potentially every Australian, it is essential that we have as open and full discussion as possible on this review in two years time. There are quite a few vested interests involved, as we all know: there are the providers, both the free-to-air and the pay operators; there are consumers; and there is the government. The challenge for us as members of parliament—and especially for the government—is to sift through all of the different views and to come up with a blueprint for the future.It has been said by other speakers in this debate that the free-to-air television in Australia is probably the best in the world—and I tend to agree with that—but that is not a reason why we should corral the current free-to-air providers and give them no competition at all. We heard the member for Herbert say how terrible, disgusting and shocking it would be if media magnates had any say in government policy. I find it interesting that all we hear from the government, day in, day out, in this House is the need for competition, competition, competition, but in this legislation we are not going to provide too much competition to the free-to-air providers. Indeed, we are not going to even allow the national broadcasters to compete with them too much, because this legislation specifically provides that the two national broadcasters—the ABC and the SBS—are not allowed to multichannel. I do not know where the government's ideas of competition have gone in this.We need to ensure that when this review is done it is pre-eminent in the minds of the parliament that the best interests of Australian consumers are taken into account. It needs to be good enough to allow enough experience to be obtained by the beginning of 2003 to allow proper review. We believe that there will be a considerable number of changes, because we think that the government has gone for the path of least resistance in this legislation. So we think that that review should be an open and proper review. We do not need, in our view, unnecessary restrictions—for example, in the area of datacasting. We need to give everybody—no matter where they are geographically located in Australia—the chance to experience datacasting, and we do not want to stifle the industry before it is even started.If we are going to have datacasting we should give it every chance to succeed, and we should not place artificial and unnecessary restrictions on datacasters, and I note that there are restrictions in this legislation which are placed on datacasters. There is one aspect of that that I think the government should take some very serious consideration of, and that is that it is not enough to say, `We have got to protect the free-to-air operators, and we have to protect the pay TV operators, and we should not allow this and we should not allow that.' If we are going to see this legislation work, if we are going to see the brand new world of what digital television can offer, I think we should be seeing all of the things it can offer, not just some of them.But there is one issue that I would like to talk about which can have a very significant effect on a number of Australians, which is not taken up in this legislation. It is an area I have had an interest in for some time—some success along the lines; not as much success as I would have liked—and that is the area of captioning. The last time I talked in this House about captioning was in 1998. It was around that time that we were debating the previous legislation to do with television broadcasting. For the benefit of the House and for those who are listening, I will reiterate some of the background about that. It is estimated that 1.7 million Australians are deaf or have a hearing impairment and, thus, have limited access to the free-to-air television services and will have limited access to this new type of television service. As we know, free-to-air television plays a major role in providing entertainment, education and information to audiences throughout Australia and in developing and reflecting a sense of Australian identity, character and cultural diversity. Indeed, the government says in its guidelines for broadcasting that one of its objectives is high-quality Australian programming, contributing to the development and reflection of a sense of Australian identity and character. One of the problems, of course, is that Australian content gets very little showing to people who are deaf. Deafness advocacy groups have emphasised the importance of providing access to news and current affairs programs which provide reports on important local, national and international issues. Unfortunately, in the absence of direct regulation, access to television services for deaf and hearing-impaired viewers has been limited by the amount of captioned programming provided by broadcasters under the various broadcast codes of practice.Figures provided by the Australian Caption Centre for 1997, 1998 and 1999 have shown a varying commitment to the provision of captioning by the broadcasters, with the ABC and the Seven Network providing substantially more captioned material for the deaf and hearing impaired than the Nine Network and Network Ten. Of particular concern is that, in 1999, there seems to have been a decrease, if not an actual stalling, in captioning on the part of some broadcasters. This is particularly surprising and disappointing given the advances there have been in captioning technology and the increased availability of captioned programs from overseas. So, while the government, in its guidelines and strategic objectives for broadcasting, says that we should have high quality Australian programming that contributes to the development and reflection of a sense of Australian identity and character, the irony is that the programs that you are more likely to see captioned in Australia are produced overseas. Australian based programs, other than news and current affairs, on at least two of the networks, have a dismally low amount of captioning.As I said at the beginning, 1.7 million Australians have a hearing impairment. Deafness is the widest spread disability in this country—I think the only thing the Prime Minister and I share is that we are both deaf—so I think this legislation should have taken account of that. We often pride ourselves on how good Australians are in the take-up of technology. Ordinary Australians are very interested in taking up new technology, the television operators and the producers of equipment certainly hope we will be keen on taking up this new digital television technology, but the broadcasters themselves are not doing that. Australia is certainly not `out front' when it comes to captioning. We are not a world leader—in fact we are lagging far behind—but we have an opportunity here to try to improve the service and assist those who are hearing impaired to have access to television broadcasting.The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 requires standards to be determined that, as far as practicable, require broadcasters to caption programs transmitted during prime viewing hours and to caption all news and current affairs transmitted at any time. We are told that the government has carefully considered advice on this requirement to see if it needs amending, and the government has decided to limit exemptions only to programs in a language other than English and programs or parts of programs providing music without English words and incidental or background music. It is alleged that these requirements will bring Australia more in line with developments in countries such as the USA, Canada and the UK. In the UK, of course, 50 per cent of programs are captioned, in the USA 100 per cent of programs are captioned and in Australia it is approximately 19 per cent. So the government wants to bring us more `in line'—that is the wording that was used—but it is just not true. It is not misleading; it is untrue. If 19 per cent of programs in Australia are captioned, nearly 100 per cent in the US and 50 per cent in the UK, then to bring us more in line we would have to at least quadruple the amount of captioning we are doing. But, as I said earlier, at least two of the big networks have started to fall behind rather than go ahead. In regard to the exemptions, I cannot see why programs in a language other than English are exempt. This seems, on face value, to be rather discriminatory. In my electorate there are many people for whom English is not the first language and who may not understand it very well. It is highly likely that there are deaf or hearing impaired people amongst them, distributed to the same degree as they are across the rest of the Australian community. Surely they need captioning just as much as those who speak and understand English do. In fact, they may need it more as they do not have the option of reading newspapers in English. Depriving them of captioning isolates them even further from the rest of society.While I am pleased to see that captioning is not being ignored as an issue in this legislation, I would like to see it more actively progressed. I will finish my contribution tonight by repeating what I said in 1998:I think captioning should be provided not just for news, current affairs and prime time broadcasting but for all programs so that both the deaf and the hard of hearing can participate in the things that shape the life of our country.This legislation fails people with that disability, the government has failed people with that disability and the broadcasters have failed people with that disability. It is not good enough and, when the review of this legislation occurs in two years time, I will most certainly be pursuing how this issue has been affected by the introduction of this new technology.22:05:0017048Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—I would like to thank the member for Watson for his contribution and would also like to thank the members for Bruce and Maribyrnong, well-known exponents of digital technology, particularly the member for Bruce in the south-east. I rise to talk about the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Amendment Bill 2000. This legislation comes at a very interesting time for us as a community—particularly when we are trying to develop ourselves economically. The introduction of this legislation at this time is somewhat fraught with difficulty because it is trying to anticipate something which history has shown us to be very difficult to anticipate and to legislate to anticipate, which is the development of information technology. An example would be the video recorder debate. Had we had a debate about this, would we have been legislating for Beta video recorders? We are not. But this legislation comes and channels spectrum, resources, energy, commitment and economic development that is not going to be the engine room of economic growth in our society. The engine room of economic growth for us in the next five to 10 years will come from datacasting, not from HDTV or SDTV.What concerns me in particular about this piece of legislation is that it is throttling the main engine room of economic growth in this area. As I understand it, America is embracing datacasting fairly vigorously, but in comparison this legislation is choking it. The member for Hinkler—and I would endorse his sentiments—is saying that this particular area provides opportunity for our young, our best and our brightest. Yes, this area can attract our best and our brightest and we can develop ourselves economically, but the problem is that this legislation will not do it. This bill will actually throttle growth in this area, in my view. That is a particularly bad thing for the economic development of this country at this time.What concerns me in the context of this debate is that not enough attention has been paid to that and not enough attention has been paid to the fact that HDTV, in America in particular, has a very limited uptake. We are talking about the great benefits of this particular piece of technology, but when we look at experience overseas we see that the uptake of this technology is fairly limited. We hear about the fact that we are going to be world leaders with respect to this technology. That is one hell of a risk. That is a $5 billion to $10 billion risk. My questions to this parliament and to people considering this debate are: do we want to take this risk with this technology at this time? Do we want to impose this impost potentially on consumers at this time? Why are we trying to legislate to anticipate something that, as I said before, historically cannot be anticipated? I have a concern about that, and I particularly wanted to articulate that at this point. I will refer to some specifics with respect to the bill itself. Obviously, it was introduced into parliament on 10 May. It was referred to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, which is due to report to the Senate on 8 June. I guess another incongruity with respect to this component of the debate is: why are we debating this legislation in this manner at this time when the jury is not in? We have a committee examining the bill, receiving submissions and taking oral submissions from interested parties, but we are debating the legislation. That seems to me to be something of an incongruity. I think we would have been better off conducting this debate after the Senate had produced its report and we could be debating the particular recommendations that arose out of the report. Even at this time, having had a quick look at the bill, I think there are obviously some issues that concern the Labor Party. One obviously concerns the datacasting definition. The government's proposed datacasting framework is, in our view, overly restrictive and could stifle aspirant datacasters, putting a new industry at risk before it commences. This is in line with the position I have talked to previously. The government proposes a restrictive definition of datacasting based on genres. These restrictions arguably could have had an adverse impact on regional and remote areas. We have the restrictions on national broadcasters, we have the free-to-air enhancement and we have the review process. Also, one note that I want to interject is the role of the ABA. I will touch on that a bit later.As I said at the start of my speech, one of the interesting things is the comparison that we have in the way in which we are embarking upon this technological adventure and then comparing it with that of the United States. I would like to quote from a speech that was given by the chairman of the FCC in America, William F. Kennard. He was addressing the National Association of Broadcasters and talking about digital television. It is interesting to note that he quoted the example of the first television broadcast. I would like to read an excerpt of the speech he gave. He said:A few weeks ago, the Washington Post had an article about the very first television transmission. It was 72 years ago. And this transmission wasn't a baseball game or a play. It was a phone call, a conversation between Herbert Hoover, who was then the Secretary of Commerce, and Walter Gifford, the president of AT&T. AT&T actually developed and arranged the transmission. The call was between Washington, D.C. and Bell Labs in New Jersey. And after the call, Hoover told reporters, “I am glad to welcome television as the latest product of scientific discovery. It promises that where the voice has led the way over the telephone wires, the eye will ultimately follow.”Two things struck me about this debut of television in America. First, it was not a passive show; it was interactive. And second, it happened over telephone wires. Call it early convergence.So here we are, on the eve of the next century, and we find ourselves back where we started. The “eye” is again following the voice. Millions of Americans are going on-line and using copper wire technology to download images and to listen to music from radio stations around the country.It is particularly interesting how he talked about the growth in digital television and digital technology coming from something interactive, which is in effect datacasting. He talked about the concerns that some of the free-to-air TV networks over there basically had about the digital technology and the fact that it might affect them. He cited an example:In 1961, FCC Chairman Newt Minow proclaimed that television was a “vast wasteland.” Today, almost four decades later, I survey the television landscape and see the limitless potential of broadband. Television is making the journey from the vast wasteland to the vast broadband. It is entering the most exciting era in the history of television, an era that will empower television audiences like never before. TV will empower viewers to reach into their television sets and paint their own landscapes: landscapes of entertainment, information, education and discovery. Now some people are saying that the broadband future will be the deathknell of television.He goes on to basically provide examples of why that is not the case. Regarding television stations in America—and it could equally apply here—he said:In fact, sometimes you counted yourselves out—telling the FCC to put the brakes on cable television and direct broadcast satellites and satellite radio—because you believed that all of these technologies would do you in. That they would kill free over-the-air broadcasting. It didn't happen. And the broadband Internet companies won't kill broadcasting either.He used the example of broadband Internet companies. As I said, I think a major driver with respect to this debate is the concern of free-to-air broadcasters about the impact of datacasting. Effectively, I believe that this legislation has been crafted to try to ameliorate these concerns. Having said that, it is instructive and interesting to point out—and I will touch on this slightly later—that when the first discussion about datacasting arose out of the 1998 legislation there did not seem to be the restrictions that have been brought into the House this time.So I would just like to touch again on the advantages of free-to-air television. The speech continued:No, your advantage isn't just content, it's distribution. Broadcasters have a big pipe that—He is talking about the banded distribution technology—everyone needs—and unlike cable companies and phone companies, you don't have to invest in physical connections onto every home. Eventually you'll need to develop backchannel so your viewers can have a truly interactive experience, but you'll have many options to do that. What's most important is that you already have a 20 megabit-per-second digital pipe into almost every home in America.If there's one thing that's clear from everything I've seen at this terrific show, it's that DTV is not just about TV as we know it. It's also about data. Data is the `killer application' of digital TV. Just as the jet airplane revolutionised travel in the sky, when the broadcast airwaves go digital, it will revolutionize television in this country. I am convinced of that. So, in a sense, what is actually happening in America is that they can see which way the wind is blowing with respect to this issue. Unlike our free-to-air TV stations here, what the FCC chairman is basically saying is that it is not actually going to kill anybody and that in America they are not actually trying to limit the provision of datacasting services, unlike what we are trying to do here. With respect to the role of the ABA , Chairman Kennard says the following with respect to the role of the FCC, which is a comparable body in America:And I also hope to see continued progress on compatibility standards. I believe that in this area the role of the FCC is to facilitate, not regulate. That is why as a first step, the FCC staff will host a Technical Roundtable on May 20 to discuss the progress of industry efforts.Effectively, unlike the ABA here, the FCC, rather than being overly prescriptive with respect to datacasting, is facilitating the development of this technology. As I said, I think that is a very important thing that should be considered within the context of this debate and that seems not to have been really touched on—that this area of technology is something we should be concentrating on and facilitating. But this particular piece of legislation does not do this; this legislation basically is like what they used to do in the late-1800s in some American cities, which is walk in front of trains with a red flag, imposing speed limits on trains. The reason that was done was because horse-and-buggy owners were basically concerned it might put them out of business. There was an artificial limitation. You can see how absurd that is in this context. Are we going to look back on this piece of legislation in five or 10 years time and say, `Why in God's name did we try and put these sorts of brakes on this technology?' I think this is a great gamble we are embarking on here. It is a great gamble we are asking the community to accept, I think, without appropriate debate. The problem with the community at this period of time is that it does not fully understand the exact nature of the debate. It is concentrating on digital television, the great wonders of how many angles you can watch the cricket from and that sort of thing. But the debate is not really focused on the fact that we are about to take the next step in information technology in the 21st century and this is part of it. The fact that that has not become part of the debate and we are debating this piece of legislation—which, as I said, I believe will throttle growth in this area—is of great concern. I am hoping that, whatever happens in this process—when the Senate produces its report and it comes back here—we actually have this debate properly, because what we should be debating is taking this information technology forward, not backwards. The fact is that we should be putting up pieces of legislation that develop, not throttle. Coming back to this point, when you are talking about the concerns of free-to-air television stations and you tally up the assets needed in the broadband world, broadcasters win hands down. You have plenty of spectrum, tremendous reach with established brands, the ability to produce great local content, established networks and relations with local and national advertisers. In effect, what Kennard was basically talking about to further augment and develop that technology was the development and implementation of a competitive environment. The fact is that I believe the free-to-air television stations have actually been given an enormous amount of protection. When we are costing that protection, particularly when we compare it to digital radio, we see that they have auctioned the spectrum in digital radio and sold it for $150 million. In digital television, the estimations are between $5 billion and $10 billion. So in a sense we have offered the sort of protection that has not been offered to the manufacturing industries, the TCF industry, the car industry or to a whole range of other industries. What I believe is that there has been sufficient protection for these people. I do not understand why we need to go down the path of implementing further prescriptive solutions in this area.In his speech, Kennard also talked about the issue of potential economic benefits in America. He said:And we must ensure that there will always be opportunities for employment. Opportunities for a young college student to get an internship on a local TV station and a foot in the door into your industry.He went on to say that, basically, he got an opportunity like that. So, in effect, what is happening in America is that they are aggressively pursuing what I categorise as unfettered datacasting to the benefit of the community, to the benefit of the consumer, to the benefit of the economy. As I said, contrast that with our approach to this matter and what we are doing, particularly with respect to HDTV. It was interesting to look at the evidence at the Senate hearing. I was particularly interested in the submission made by Mr Alex Encel and some of his oral testimony, particularly with respect to digital television. It is appropriate to reflect on some of his testimony in the context of this argument, because it illuminates the futility, in a sense, of what we are doing with respect to chasing down rabbit warrens, trying to protect the development of a technology and a particular sort of TV and TV service that, as I said, in America is not being taken up much at all. When he is talking about this particular debate, he says:In attempting to put this debate into perspective, I am reminded of two expressions: having lost sight of our objectives, we have doubled our efforts and it was a triumph of hope over experience. I want to see the transition to digital TV succeed. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person with hands-on experience of TV selling to consumers involved in this debate. I believe I can speak from the consumer perspective with some insight, and the evidence overwhelmingly shows the triplecast system will fail to meet reasonable objectives from the outset.It was interesting listening to the debate with respect to the contributions made by the member for Dunkley when he was talking about the fact that they are mandating to ensure the best quality product with the best technology available. That is quite simply not the case. How can he possibly say that? I heard a lot with respect to the anticipation of technology, but there is no way that we can say with any level of certainty that this particular piece of legislation is mandating for the best quality product with the best technology available, or that the market is a willing vendor. The market does not understand the technology. The market does not understand what sort of benefits we will supposedly get. The market has not been efficiently involved in this process. So we have legislation that is basically trying to anticipate what a market will do with respect to the implementation of technology where there is no precedent. For the member for Dunkley to come in and say that proves he is somewhat misguided, particularly when he is talking about the suppliers driving the process. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the market is supposed to drive the process. Unless the member for Dunkley has become a socialist in recent days, I have never heard of the prospect of the suppliers driving demand. I was somewhat taken aback by that contribution by the member for Dunkley. I am running short of time, but I will say that the Senate committee went on to talk about the actual cost of HDTVs. Looking at the cost in America, Mr Encel said:HDTVs will be available in the normal sizes that they can purchase. There are no TVs made worldwide in the six-times resolution specification often quoted.That is what we are trying to bring in here, as I understand it. He continued:There are no such TVs existing in the world nor, to my knowledge, are there any even proposed to go on the market. So that is one misconception. It has got a bit more confused lately. Originally, they thought the cost was going to be about $4,000. That is what was in the media; that was on quite a few TV shows. Some $4,000 to $45,000 for HDTV sets was often quoted. That is about a quarter or a fifth of the average comparative price of an HDTV set in America, and I have the figures with me. Mr Encel spoke about the effect of this HDTV technology and its perceived benefits. It was quite fascinating to read what the benefits of this HDTV technology in particular should be. We are looking at something that is about six times the resolution and a HDTV set of roughly a metre. He said:The usual estimate is that HDTV should be watched at twice the height of the screen to get the full benefit. In that position it would be about one metre. In one of the publications of FACTS it said that you can comfortably watch the TV one metre from the screen, and I would agree. I actually brought a piece to show what would happen.What he was saying was that, effectively, to get the ultimate benefit out of this particular high resolution TV screen, you need to be sitting a metre away from the screen. But there is a bit of a problem with this: try to sit your family around it, try to squeeze your family a metre's distance from the television. He continued:As your distance gets further, the difference becomes less. You could debate whether it is at two times or three times. TVs are not viewed on the basis of just picture quality. They are viewed on the basis of how to fit a family in, where to eat the pizzas—all those different factors. From a normal consumer point of view, it has not got anything to offer. For a dedicated HDTV person with a big screen—and we sell to them: we have people who buy that type of equipment, but it is a tiny market— So the issue is, again, that we are talking about legislation for an unproven technology and a device that has not been taken up very much in America. Out of 25 million sets sold last year, 5,000 were HDTVs. In effect we are, as I said, legislating to go down this path, but we are also legislating to throttle a key area of growth, a key area that we should be concentrating on to develop this country economically. (Time expired)22:25:0017052Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to be able to make a contribution in this debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000, although I am not certain when we are going to have this debate again. I am advised that it is not listed for tomorrow, so goodness knows what the government is assuming. Given that the Senate committee report is due on 8 June, one would have thought this debate would have been held after we had received that report. But the government, for whatever reason, has decided to bring this bill on before we have received the report of the Senate inquiry. The opposition has moved a second reading amendment. Apart from condemning the government for the inordinate amount of time it has taken to introduce the bill, given that it has had this inquiry, I think the amendment speaks for itself. The part of the opposition's amendment that I want to briefly speak to is where it says that the opposition:...calls on the Government to allow the national public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, to multichannel— I note that the member for Perth's press release of Wednesday, 10 May talked about this, because effectively what this is doing is denying regional Australia access to a range of services that it would otherwise get if the ABC and the SBS were able to multichannel. That is a feature of this legislation. In my view, the bush is being held to ransom for spectrum allocations in the city. I do not believe that proper regard has been given to the needs of regional Australia in drafting this legislation. One other aspect of the legislation that I particularly want to refer to is indigenous Australians and the fact that there is no provision in this legislation for indigenous broadcasting. That is a particular interest of mine as I live in Alice Springs, which is seen by some as the home of indigenous broadcasting with the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association and Imparja Television, which covers probably a third of Australia's land mass.I want to refer very briefly to the report on broadcasting which was brought down in November of last year by the Productivity Commission. It referred to the indigenous broadcasting sector and pointed out that it has a distinctive range of cultural and social tasks and that the national broadcasters to some degree share these responsibilities but their ability to provide for them has proved very limited. It made reference to the ABC's indigenous broadcasting unit, but again it made it very clear that they are inadequate in terms of being able to provide these services. There is no provision in this legislation for indigenous broadcasters, and something ought be done to ensure that indigenous broadcasters can actually develop their services for their audience. Whilst the government has refused to provide for multichannelling for either the ABC or the SBS, as this Productivity Commission report outlines, if the ABC were able to multichannel, they would be an appropriate source for the provision of these services. I do not believe that, when framing this legislation, the government was adequately cognisant of the issues involved in regional Australia, particularly those involved with indigenous broadcasting. I note that a review is being put in place through the National Indigenous Media Association and that Malcolm Long and Owen Cole, I think, recently have been put on to do some work in this area. But, as seems to be always the case, the bottom line is that, when this government introduces legislation, it denies the people of the bush, and particularly indigenous Australians, a real opportunity.Debate interrupted. Adjournment1705310000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1705322:30:0017053Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Yesterday was World Environment day, and today in question time the Prime Minister emphasised and acknowledged the importance of the environment. If as a nation we do not protect and care for our environment, then many of the issues government focuses on become irrelevant. Yesterday I attended the Lake Macquarie Coast and Wetland Fair, an event that was organised to coincide with World Environment Day and act as a rallying point to save the Belmont Wetlands. The Belmont Wetlands are one of the few remaining areas of coastal wetlands in the region, and BHP is seeking to have the land rezoned to allow for residential development.The Belmont Wetlands contain a diverse ecosystem, including species that are endangered. They extend from the coast to Lake Macquarie, and they act as a filtration system for the lake. Already the health of the lake has been compromised by residential development, and now BHP wants Lake Macquarie City Council to rezone the very area that protects the lake from residential development for residential development. The Belmont Wetlands have the potential to become an important regional coastal reserve that could be used for ecotourism, educational and research purposes, passive recreational activities and to preserve the culture and heritage of the area. Unfortunately BHP does not agree. Rather, it argues that, because the company has degraded and exploited the land with its mining activities, it should now be able to rehabilitate the land with residential development—a development that will destroy the wetlands once and for all.The residents of the area turned out yesterday to pledge their support for the wetlands and to call for the land to be brought under public control. The support from the community to save the wetlands is growing. The Coastal Wetland Alliance has gained the support of the University of Newcastle, leading ecologists, the Belmont Lagoon Committee, the majority of Lake Macquarie City Council—and I must acknowledge the work of Mathew Morris and John Jenkins, councillors on that council, who have helped achieve this—and the Minister Assisting the Premier in the Hunter, the Hon. Richard Face. This minister pledged his commitment to save the wetlands both yesterday and in the parliament in New South Wales.It is generous to describe BHP as being avaricious and greedy. It is quite obvious that BHP has no commitment to the Hunter, an area that has been its loyal servant over the years, an area that it abandoned just as quickly as it exploited its natural resources and workers. I find it hard to reconcile the actions of BHP in relation to this unique area in my electorate—an area that has been pillaged over the years by the BHP company. The hypocrisy of BHP is unbelievable. On the one hand, it promotes itself as a responsible green corporate citizen whilst, on the other hand, it is ruthlessly pursuing the rezoning of this precious land for residential development. It makes the address by Don Argus, the Chairman of BHP, at the recent Coast to Coast Conference, where he advocated the need for responsible coastal developments, seem hypocritical.BHP plans to have the land rezoned and then sell it to the highest bidder. Already there have been a number of developers sniffing around in the hope that they can make a killing. This corporate giant is now poised to squeeze the last dollar out of the land that it has ripped all the saleable resources from. This land has a zero dollar value on the company's books and a rateable value of $1.25 million, yet BHP has offered the site to Lake Macquarie City Council for $30 million to $40 million. That seems rather strange.The people of Lake Macquarie believe it reasonable that BHP should donate the land to the community—land that has a value equivalent to the salary paid to a BHP executive for six months, land that is an integral part of the region's coastal ecology. It is imperative that this land be brought under public control immediately. All levels of government need to join together and secure the land for future generations. I commit myself to working to bring this land under public control. (Time expired)1705422:35:0017054Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Tonight I am going to read a speech prepared by Melanie Burns of Hunter Valley Grammar School, who came to do her work experience in my Parliament House office recently—from the Hunter, I might remind the member for Shortland. It is important to encourage young people to have a go at new opportunities and to have their say. Hence these words are Melanie's:Mr Speaker, it is with great appreciation that I am able to inform you about my fabulous week of work experience in your great Parliament House.I come from a town called Maitland located in the Hunter Valley. I am in year 10 at Hunter Valley Grammar School and it's through school that I was given the chance to do the work experience program. This program is designed to start year 10 students initiating ideas on what career paths they may wish to follow, and to present the opportunity of being able to work in that career environment. It also helps clearly define what path students may wish to take and allows a hands-on approach to their chosen profession.Personally I am someone that has held strong feelings on what I've wanted to do, although the details have changed at times. At this phase of my life it has been the political arena, in particular the Foreign Affairs Department that draws me the most. I feel that it's in this area that I will inevitably end up working. And thanks for the opportunity of working in Parliament House. I can now narrow my broad interest into an area I wholeheartedly wish to pursue. Firstly though, I cannot go on without mentioning— and here she names me—and her wonderful staff, for it was through Joanna that I gained this opportunity.I met Joanna on holidays last year in Robertson in her Gilmore electorate and during our conversation mentioned to her my interest in politics. She informed me of her own political position and offered me the opportunity to join her in Parliament House for a week as part of my work experience.My first encounter with the political world was on Monday morning when I was picked up in the Gashmobile and whisked off to a week filled with interviews, photocopying and more coffee than I've ever consumed in my life. I learnt and grew a lot over the week, meeting new people and seeing new places. Everyone I came into contact with was so friendly and helpful, it made Parliament House and Canberra feel like a second home.One of the most memorable experiences I had during my week was the drive down to Nowra with Joanna. That evening we were off to a dinner in which Jo was the guest speaker. On our travels through the back route—main road 92, which this government has funded and the state government will not—a herd of kangaroos jumped out in front of us and I naively asked, `So, Jo, have you ever hit a kangaroo?' Minutes later my question was updated when one of skippy's relatives came out of nowhere and smacked straight into the front of Jo's car. Lucky neither of us was hurt, but later we drove back to Canberra on the other road.Well, Australia's wildlife was not the only thing that I came into close contact with that week, for I had the opportunity to sit in on question time. My first thought about question time when I entered the House of Representatives was that it reminded me of those ancient gladiatorial arenas where in the centre men partook in some Neanderthal slaughtering activity, whilst the crowd sat enthralled on the outskirts waiting for a victory of some kind. By the end of question time, my opinion hadn't changed and, as I contemplated my future career in this field, I came to the conclusion that `the arena' was not for me. I am quite a sensitive person and the notion of party competitiveness doesn't quite sit right. I do, however, greatly respect all politicians and the good work they aim to do but must be honest in saying that I wouldn't enjoy that career path, although I must mention that I now have a better insight into political views and found that I took quite an interest in the issues of mandatory sentencing and aged and disability care.The thing I loved most about Parliament House was not only its beautiful, interesting structure but also the diverse range of interesting people in it. I remember one night taking a wrong turn in one of the corridors and ending up at Wendy McCarthy's new book launch. This was just one example of the interesting people I met in the House during my week. In the quest to try to find a new path still within the range of the political scene, I went and interviewed Ian McPhedran, a journalist dealing mainly with issues in the foreign affairs league. Talking with him really sparked my interest in dealing with overseas affairs, so I pursued more information with Jonathon Brown, who works in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He explained to me about the department and told me the roles of diplomats and about the role of the United Nations. The information about the United Nations really intrigued me and I discovered the many different fields it contains, including peacekeeping operations—something I have always been interested in.The old saying of `as one door closes, so another opens' describes my week in Canberra perfectly and, although my original ideas for my future have changed, they were replaced with other aspirations, ones that I feel I will strongly pursue. I was so fortunate with the events that presented themselves to me during the week, and I'd like to thank everyone that contributed. I am so lucky to have been given the opportunity through my school's work experience and strongly encourage schools and students everywhere to invest in the work experience program. Even though I have now decided not to go into politics, this decision came about from being able to view this career at a hands-on level. At the same time, I was also given the opportunity to view other people's careers, one of which will now be the focus of my future. It's an absolutely fantastic experience to see the `the real world' and I feel I am now more focussed. Overall, I am very grateful for the amount of knowledge and insight I have gained. Thank you, Joanna.1705622:40:0017056Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—I am being contacted regularly by increasing numbers of community members in Canning who are confused and angry about the way they are being treated by commercial banks. They are being seriously disadvantaged by the closure of their local branches and by the endless increases in fees and charges, and they want someone to do something about it. The closure of branches is, of course, a major burden to the elderly and others who cannot travel far and who do not adapt quickly to technological change. The increases in fees and charges are affecting all customers, but their impact is felt most heavily by the poorer members of the community who cannot afford the new fees and charges and cannot understand why they are increasing so rapidly.I was approached by one man in my electorate who has some documents lodged with his local bank branch for safekeeping. The fee which he pays the bank to look after these documents has increased by 900 per cent in the last four years. According to the Reserve Bank, Australian bank fees in general increased by 13 per cent last year. It is not practical to suggest people just swap their banks, because we all know that the fees it takes to establish bank loans make it a far too expensive option. My electorate is very angry about these increases and feels helpless to do anything about them.The core issue here is that these fees are being increased at a time when banks are making massive profits. The money made by the banks in increasing charges for routine bank transactions is going to the shareholders. As someone who used to run a business, I am astonished that corporations operating in a competitive environment can get away with practices like these. How can they get away with taking more and more money from their regular customers and putting it into the pockets of their shareholders? It is Robin Hood in reverse: the banks are taking money from ordinary Australians and giving it to the rich.If that was not bad enough, the banks seem to be increasing fees as part of a deliberate strategy to discourage ordinary customers. I spent time looking at the information that banks provide to investors or potential investors. I found some common themes and some interesting buzz phrases. The importance of `low cost distribution channels' was emphasised. This refers to Internet and electronic banking, which is, of course, restricted to the young and to those who own and understand computers. Those who are too old, infirm or poor to participate in this brave new world are not wanted, and they know it. There was also an emphasis on `building offshore value'. One bank stated that `projections for low to moderate growth in the domestic market mean that it is critical to create offshore value'. In other words, regular Australian families are not providing enough profit to the shareholders, so the banks will reduce services for them because they can make more money offshore.We all want major Australian corporations to compete successfully overseas, and we all understand that corporations have to make profits. But tens of thousands of needy Australians are suffering because of the banks' focus on profits rather than service. It is the elderly and infirm who are suffering. It is those who find it difficult to cope with change who are disadvantaged. Yet again it is the poor who are the victims. The gap between those who already have wealth and power and those who do not just gets wider and wider. Is that okay with this government? Is the government going to do anything to help those members of the Australian community who are confused and angry about the reduction in services and the increases in fees and charges? Is it going to provide home computers to all the aged and infirm in Australia and train them how to bank on the Internet? Is it going to provide security guards outside automatic teller machines so that our seniors can withdraw cash without having to worry who may be watching them?No-one is doing anything to stop the banks from reducing services while raising fees and charges, and no-one is doing anything to police the banks who are now a law unto themselves in this area. When is the Prime Minister going to meet the commitment he has made to take action on this issue? On 2 March this year in a radio interview on 5DN the Prime Minister spoke with feeling on the subject. He said: The banks have privileges and just as a citizen has responsibilities as well as privileges, the same thing applies with banks—and they must understand that if the community thinks they are being let down the community will react and the government speaking on behalf of the community will react. The government does not need me to tell it that the community is reacting—and the community wants to know when the government is going to react and what it is going to do.1705722:45:0017057Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—In this adjournment debate in this House I am frequently struck by the diversity of electorates that people represent. Listening earlier to the member for the Northern Territory, I was struck by the sort of territory he represents as tonight I am going to particularly speak about the alpine region of my electorate. So we have moved from the dry, red earth of the centre of Australia to the heights of the alpine region in my electorate and, in particular, the winter delights of Mount Buller. Mr Speaker, as you know, I have a very diverse electorate—almost 15,000 square kilometres—ranging from the outer metropolitan regions of Melbourne to the alpine region. With the early onset of winter and the amount of snow that has been dumped on the alpine regions of Australia, I wanted to take an opportunity in this debate this evening to tell members of this House about what I think is one of the most prestigious alpine regions in Australia, and I refer to Mount Buller, which rises above the town of Mansfield in my electorate. Mount Buller is roughly a couple of hundred kilometres from Melbourne. It is quite an easy drive for tourists to get from Melbourne to Mount Buller, which has built a reputation now as an all-year alpine resort region, not just a winter resort region. In particular, I wanted to talk about Mount Buller this evening in terms of its representation as a winter alpine village. It is the home of the Australian Institute of Winter Sport and it is an official Olympic training centre. I am not really doing the village justice by simply describing it as an alpine wonderland, nestled high in the ski fields with beautiful lodges, hotels and private accommodation. But the great thing about Mount Buller is that the accommodation is positioned in a way that you can ski from the slopes right to your front door. There are not many ski fields in Australia where you can do that. The ski fields are vast, but varied. So you can start with the gentle beginner slopes—and I have never quite graduated from the beginner slopes—to the spectacular double black diamond chutes covering all four faces of the mountain. There are approximately 25 lifts on the mountain—13 are chairlifts—so it is very easy to get access to the slopes. As well as receiving this wonderful snow for an early start to the season, Mount Buller has its own snow making system which has the highest capacity of any alpine region in Australia. That snow making also covers a whole range of slopes from the beginner to the more advanced. It also offers a whole range of activities from the new craze of snow tubing, which is a lot of fun, to whitewater rafting. It has a village cinema, indoor tennis, abseiling and all sorts of different events. But the great thing about it is this early dumping of snow. So, even though the official opening of the ski season in Victoria is not until 9 June, Mount Buller is open and operating now. There will be six major lifts operating all weekend, and the temperature is minus four degrees. I also want to pay tribute to the Mount Buller Ski Patrol—13 full-time patrollers and 34 volunteer patrollers. Their efforts are simply magnificent. They are outstanding. So anyone going to Mount Buller is reassured that they have all of that sort of assistance at their fingertips, and these people are the most experienced of skiers. (Time expired)1705722:50:0017057Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments just expressed. Last Wednesday during question time the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation had some very uncharitable remarks to make about some media I had done in relation to a funding program for the arts in Bendigo recently. The House will realise just why I have such a cynical view about that. I would like to outline the whole funding program from the start. It started in 1996 when the then Prime Minister, Mr Paul Keating, committed $2 million for a very important redevelopment program at the Bendigo Art Gallery. He reaffirmed that in the 1996 election campaign when he came to Bendigo. The then shadow Treasurer, the member for Higgins, indicated to the press during that campaign that the coalition would certainly progress the project. We all know the result of that 1996 election campaign—the Liberals won the election. As a result, the then Liberal member for Bendigo denied that any commitment had been given to fund that particular program. In 1998 the next election came round and the on again, off again, on again funding commitment was made by Senator Alston. He said in the Bendigo Advertiser on 19 August, `The cheque is as good as in the mail.' There it is. So the Liberals had clearly made a commitment to fund that program. Since then, the program has been completed without that funding. It was funded by the ratepayers of the City of Bendigo. Almost 18 months later, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation indicated in this place last week that the funding had been completed and that a deed of agreement had been signed. Well, forgive me for being cynical, but nobody in Bendigo has seen that deed of agreement and nobody in Bendigo has seen that funding, and that has been the problem.With the project being completed, there is a new project now. Right next door to the art gallery there is a major performing arts centre. It is a $7 million project—$3 million has been committed by the Bracks government, the missing $2 million has been committed by the Commonwealth government and the rest is to be funded by the City of Greater Bendigo. The interesting thing is that I am informed that $1.5 million, the first instalment of the $3 million commitment by the Bracks government, has arrived today at the City of Greater Bendigo. So we have a situation where the Bracks government has committed $3 million and delivered the first $1.5 million, the first instalment, and we are still waiting for the $4 million committed by the coalition.The Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation made some uncharitable remarks in question time last week about my role in all this. I can understand why he would do that—he is a member of the National Party. That is called back-foot politics. I have never seen a party on the back foot to the extent that they are at the moment. In Bendigo in the last federal election the National Party managed to get a meagre 3.2 per cent of the vote. If it was not for the preferential system, they would not have got their deposit back. They are not a national party; they are actually a national joke. They got an absolute hiding in Bendigo in the last federal election and in the Benalla by-election they got a complete flogging. A seat they held for some 90 years has now gone to Labor, and is it any wonder? They are not a national party; they are an absolute joke. In fact, the joke around my traps in Bendigo indicates that they are not a national party; they are really just sissy Liberals in gumboots. That is what people say about them around the traps.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MP83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—They come into this chamber and try to pretend that they are the voice of country Australia when they are really not. I notice the honourable member for Corangamite interjects. He is a great friend of mine. If I ever leave politics and need a job, I am going to get a job as the groundkeeper of the country estate of the squatter from Corangamite. It will not pay very much, knowing him, but I reckon I could make a living out of recycling his empties. It will not pay a lot, but the work will be constant.I sit in this chamber every day and watch some courageous speeches by the National Party extolling the virtues of the full privatisation of Telstra. We know very well that that policy will mean the demise of that party, and so it should. If we all sit very quietly, we will feel a very slight vibration through this whole building, and that is the National Party quivering with fear in their gumboots. They know what is going to happen. They know that, if they pursue this policy of privatisation of Telstra, it will mean their complete demise—and, what is more, they deserve it. 1705922:55:0017059Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Tomorrow in Brisbane members of the Eritrean community with some members of the Ethiopian community who have left those two countries to live and find their way in Australia will be holding a rally to peacefully draw attention to the dreadful conflict which has flared again in those two countries in the Horn of Africa. In fact, over the past two years hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, injured or dislocated as a result of the flaring of conflict, and all-out war in recent weeks. Yet, to the great shame of this national parliament, there has been little or no focus on this particular conflict. And, in fact, it is basically the same in every other country around the world. I guess the world has been focused on other trouble spots. The media spotlight has been on places such as Kosovo, more recently Fiji and today the Solomon Islands. The world has not looked on in horror and seen what has been occurring between the armies of Ethiopia and Eritrea. As I said, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or hurt and so many more have been dislocated. This dreadful tragedy has been unfolding in the Horn of Africa and it needs to be known to all in the world. Whilst in recent days the United States State Department and some other agencies have made some comments about the ongoing efforts of nations within the Organisation of African Unity to solve this conflict and bring about a peaceful and just resolution, there still needs to be much more done by the world to stop the fighting and the dying. Six months ago, on 20 October last year, I moved a motion in this parliament which expressed my concern for what was occurring. It was co-signed by the member for Hughes, Danna Vale. That motion stated a number of things. To sum it all up, it drew attention to the conflict that was already killing so many and robbing both nations of some chance to make headway economically. War is, as all honourable members would agree, such a dreadful waste of human life and national resources. And I understand that some far more rich and powerful nations such as Russia are using the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia to virtually road test weapons and weapon systems and are wiping out the people of both these countries in the process. That sort of action certainly disgusts me.Asmara, a major centre in Eritrea, had its airstrip bombed last week. The obvious communications and transport difficulties which could come from that are enormous. Australians who have been great supporters of the Fred Hollows Foundation, which was set up by Australia's direct interest in the people of that country so many years ago to help them and to help them see, would be horrified to think that their investment in the people of this small nation of Eritrea and equally the people in the nation of Ethiopia is perhaps being wasted at the moment.I am in debt to the Chief Government Whip who has just advised me that the particular motion I moved in October last year has been selected by the Selection Committee to be debated fully in this place next week. I welcome the opportunity to debate this further. I know the member for Farrer, the former Deputy Prime Minister, shares my grave concern and has an incredible intimate knowledge of this and would seek to make some comments on this. I represent people who have come to Australia from both Eritrea and Ethiopia. They live in suburbs like Moorooka, Yeronga and Fairfield in my electorate. They live here and find peace. They have left behind dead relatives and lost opportunities in their old countries. I have come to know those people over the last few years. I understand that, no matter which side of the border those people may have come from, they are now essentially living here in Australia as brothers and sisters with very few real differences. Here in Australia the differences they had in their old home countries do not keep them apart from each other. They now lament the fact that the principles under which they live here cannot be offered and applied back in their own homeland.I look forward to the parliament discussing this matter further. I raise it here in this adjournment debate out of a sense of frustration as a human worried about the fact that so many people have been killed, maimed, injured and dislocated—with very little comment at all made about it. It is important that we as Australians care about our own backyard first and care about our region. There is plenty to be worried about today with Fiji, the Solomon Islands and other potential problems. But it is also important that we as a nation that hold our heads high, carries ourselves high and punches above our weight in international affairs do not turn our back on far-flung nations such as Eritrea and Ethiopia. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0017060House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing17061The following answers to questions were circulated:17061(Question No. 1121)112117061O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:(1) What process is the Government planning to implement to address the increasing number of litigants appearing in court unrepresented.(2) How is the Government addressing the rise in litigants in person, appearing unrepresented in the Family Court of Australia.(3) How many legal aid duty solicitors are employed in each State, and of them, how many are employed to cover out of hours magistrates hearings in each State.(4) How many legal aid duty solicitors are employed to cover out of hours magistrates hearings in the electoral division of Bass.17061Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth has responded to the issue of unrepresented litigants as part of its reforms to increase access to justice. First,on 14 December 1999, Cabinet approved a funding boost for Legal Aid Commissions of $63 million over 4 years. This initiative will enable Legal Aid Commissions to make more grants of legal aid. The Government has also made considerable efforts to improve accessibility for unrepresented litigants by establishing the Federal Magistrates Service. The federal magistrates will provide a lower cost alternative for the determination of less complex federal disputes, including many family law disputes. The Federal Magistrates Service is expected to commence operations in the middle of this year. Some federal magistrates will be appointed to regional centres and all will be expected to undertake extensive circuit work. The Federal Magistrates Service will also make use of technology to assist those in rural and remote areas to take full advantage of its services. The procedures of the Federal Magistrates Service will be as streamlined and informal as practicable and will therefore be accessible to litigants who appear in court unrepresented. The Government considers there is a lack of empirical evidence to make conclusive judgments about trends in the number of unrepresented litigants appearing in court. There are a number of reasons why people may not be represented in court. People may choose to represent themselves, or they may fail to meet legal aid commission means and merit tests.The data available from legal aid commissions does not provide any conclusive information regarding levels of self-representation. However, two reports have recently been published which offer comments on the issue.The first of these reports titled -Litigants in person in the Family Court of Australia - highlights the fact that the Family Court has taken up a number of initiatives to assist people who, for one reason or another, are unrepresented in court proceedings. The Court's intiatives include a number of reforms to procedure and practice, as well as the publication of `The Family Court Book' which is a plain English guide to the law and the Court, together with the creation of a website.Although the report provides some useful information, it relies on a small data sample and is unable to conclusively identify connections between the number of unrepresented litigants and the availability of legal aid. The report also states that the legal aid `cap' does not appear to have been a significant factor in determining levels of self-representation. In the report Review of the Federal Justice System the ALRC provided figures that showed the number of cases involving unrepresented litigants represents about 18% of Federal Court cases, 41% of Family Court cases and 33% of AAT cases. The courts and tribunals are able to provide figures on the number of unrepresented litigants but due to privacy considerations they are unable to provide information about the reasons why a person is unrepresented in individual cases. This lack of information makes it difficult to establish any relationship between legal aid and the number of unrepresented litigants.The ALRC also notes that the environment in which legal assistance is provided is changing, and that this has brought about the development of new approaches to providing assistance such as the expansion of public access to legal information resources through electronic media as well as through the traditional journals and newsletters and seminars. Research is being conducted by the Justice Research Centre on Legal Aid and Family Law, which is expected later in the year. In addition the Family Law Council is undertaking a project on litigants in person and has formed a committee for that purpose. The Government believes that merely looking at the number of people who are unrepresented in the Family Court tells us little about the community's fair access to the legal system. Legal aid has never been, and will never be, available to everyone. It is a means of providing legal representation for the most needy members of the community, not of generally funding people's private disputes. The Commonwealth is committed to helping people who do not meet the criteria for legal aid representation. We have made considerable efforts to ensure that all Australians have cheaper and faster alternatives to the courts for resolving or avoiding disputes. This is the best way to deal with the demand for traditional forms of legal assistance in the future. (2) In terms of the number of unrepresented litigants appearing before the Family Court, the Government is undertaking a number of initiatives. These are described in the answer to question (1). The Commonwealth is attempting to assist families in dispute by providing alternatives to litigation in the Family Court where possible by:• placing greater emphasis on funding early intervention, advice and primary dispute resolution services which help people to resolve disputes early before they reach the stage where they need to go to court;• the establishment of a national telecommunication advice and information line in the areas of family law and child support matters;• establishing the Federal Magistrates Service. The Federal Magistrates Service will provide a cheaper, faster, more informal method of dealing with less complex family law matters. It will provide a more accessible option for litigants appearing unrepresented in family law matters; and• funding both generalist and specialist community legal services to provide community legal education, advice and minor assistance.(3) This information is not available from the national legal aid statistics collection. As Legal Aid Commissions are state or territory statutory authorities it would be necessary to ask that question of the Legal Aid Commissions in each State or Territory.(4) This information is not available from the national legal aid statistics collection. As the Legal Aid Commission in Tasmania is a Tasmanian Government statutory authority it would be necessary to ask that question of the Tasmanian Legal Aid Commission.17062(Question No. 1127)112717062Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 February 2000: (1) Further to his question No. 957 (Hansard, 8 December 1999, page 9801), (a) at which plenary session at the Pentagon in Washington did he meet with General Shelton on 5 May, (b) was it at a plenary session of a conference; if so, (i) what was the name of the conference and (ii) how many persons attended and (c) did he at any time raise the issue of Australian concerns about Indonesian military activities in East Timor with General Shelton. (2) Did he meet with the US Secretary of Defense, William Cohen at a private meeting or at the same plenary session at the Pentagon; if it was a private meeting, what other officials from the US and Australia were present. (3) Did he raise the issue of Australian concerns about Indonesian military activities in East Timor with Mr Cohen.17062Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) and (b) The plenary session at which I met General Shelton's representative, Lieutenant General Anderson, (Joint Chiefs of Staff - Plans), was an element of my official visit program to Washington and the Pentagon. (i) See response to (1) (a) and (b). (ii) The Australian delegation consisted of 6 personnel and the United States delegation, 8 personnel. (c) East Timor and Indonesia were discussed at the plenary session. (2) I met privately with Secretary Cohen immediately prior to the plenary session. During this meeting I was accompanied by the Australian Ambassador to the United States. (3) Issues relating to Indonesia and East Timor were discussed during this meeting. The content of these discussions is classified and will, therefore, not be disclosed.17063(Question No. 1195)119517063Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 17 February 2000:(1) Did the Minister write an article in the Australian Financial Review on 14 January 2000 in which he referred to electronic democracy.(2) Is the Minister able to say whether the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is studying new overseas voting technology, with the aim of providing Australians with the option of using such technology to vote in Federal and other elections run by the AEC.(3) Is the Minister able to say whether the AEC plans to trial the use of the Internet to allow people to vote in smaller fora, including votes by federal employees for agency agreements.(4) Does the Minister support the AEC work to develop electronic democracy.(5) Is the Minister able to say whether voters in Alaskan primaries had the option to vote for US Presidential candidates via the Internet.(6) Is the Minister able to say whether voters in the May 2000 British council elections will have the option of voting through their home computers, as well as through mobile phones offering Internet access, and if such electronic democracy is successful, it will be used in the next general election.(7) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the report by the California Internet Voting Task Force, A Report on the Feasibility of Internet Voting, January 2000, which was established by the Californian Secretary of State to study the feasibility of using the Internet to conduct elections in California.(8) What support is the Minister giving to the development of electronic democracy in Australia, particularly through the Government's policy on datacasting.17063Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has supplied the following answers to the honourable member's question:(1) I have been advised that the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts did write the article referred to.(2) The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has advised me that it closely monitors the development of new technologies that may allow for the introduction of internet voting, electronic voting or automated voting into Australian federal elections, and other elections run by the AEC. However, the use of compulsory full preferential voting in Australian federal elections, which enjoys wide public support, places additional obstacles to the introduction of electronic voting for federal elections. In addition, the high level of public confidence Australians have in their elections and election results must not be jeopardised, and therefore no new technology will be introduced unless the Government believes that the highest standards of security and secrecy can be met. (3) The AEC has advised me that it has considered the use of internet voting in smaller elections and ballots, such as certified agreement ballots, but has no immediate plans for such an undertaking. (4) As the Minister responsible for electoral matters I fully support the AEC in its research and development programme. (5) In January 2000 the Alaska Republican Party allowed registered Republicans to vote by internet in a non-binding `straw poll'. Despite the remoteness that made such an option appear attractive, only 35 out of 4000 votes were cast via the internet. Alaska uses caucuses to select delegates to the national party conventions.(6) The Representation of the People Act 2000 (UK) allows local authorities to trial alternative methods for the casting and counting of ballots, as well as the use or extension of postal and prepoll voting facilities, following ministerial approval. Current information is that 35 local authorities will trial a variety of innovations at the 4 May 2000 local elections. Three councils have been identified as offering a form of electronic voting. The Representation of the People Act 2000 (UK) requires that such local authorities must report back to the Minister on the efficacy of the trial, particularly commenting on any increase in voter turnout, ease of use as reported by voters, any increase in electoral offences, including personation, and any additional costs or savings. The Minister is then to consider the implementation or prohibition of such alternatives for other United Kingdom elections. (7) The January 2000 report of the California Internet Voting Task Force, which examined the feasibility of using the internet to conduct elections in California, has been examined by staff of the Australian Electoral Commission.This report, which is available at www.ss.ca.gov, concluded that an incremental approach to the introduction of internet voting was appropriate. Whilst it was agreed that it was technically possible to launch a secure internet voting service now, the report canvassed legal, practical and financial considerations that mitigated against entirely replacing the current paper ballot.It should, however, be noted that the US Federal Election Commission recently described internet voting as “a novelty” that was “too expensive, insecure and corruptible”.(8) I fully support the AEC in its examination of new and improved methods for Australians to vote easily and conveniently, whilst maintaining appropriate access to polling facilities for all Australians. While internet access in Australia is not yet universal, the possible use of datacasting to deliver voting services will be studied at the time the Government considers any proposal to introduce internet voting at Federal elections.17064(Question No. 1274)127417064McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 2000:Will veterans over the age of 70 years from conflicts other than World War II be eligible for a Gold Card; if so, (a) what will be the eligibility criteria and (b) when will they become eligible.17064Scott, 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:Any extension of the current eligibility for the Gold Card would need to be considered in a budget context, noting that any further expansion in the numbers of veterans receiving this Card would have substantial financial implications.However, it should be noted that, in a range of circumstances, Australian veterans from conflicts other than WW11 are already eligible for a Gold Card.For example, veterans with high levels of war-caused Disability pensions (100% & over); ex prisoners of war; veterans who receive a Service pension and satisfy the treatment benefits eligibility income and assets tests; veterans who receive both a part-rate Service pension and a Disability pension at a lower rate (50% - 90%), are all eligible for a Gold Card.17064(Question No. 1299)129917064Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 April 2000:Further to the answer to question No. 1147 concerning bridges that cross the Murray river between NSW and Victoria, with respect to the $44 million of Federation funds allocated for the replacement of the bridges at Echuca/Moama, Robinvale/Euston and Corowa/Wahgunyah, (a) what sum has been allocated to each bridge, (b) what is the estimated cost of replacing each bridge, (c) what criteria were used to select the three bridges for replacement instead of other bridges along the river and (d) were the NSW and Victorian Governments consulted on the priority in allocating Federation funds for the replacement of the three bridges instead of other bridges crossing the river.17064Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Corowa $12 million; Echuca $15 million; Robinvale $17 million(b) Current strategic cost estimate for Corowa Bridge is $14 million. Cost estimates for Echuca and Robinvale bridges are unknown at this stage. However, original broad concept estimates were $18 million for Echuca and $21 million for Robinvale (c) Victoria submitted a series of proposals for funding under the Federation Fund. Victoria's submission included a priority list of 5 bridges, including Corowa, Echuca and Robinvale.(d) The bridges were selected on the basis of Victoria's submission for funding under the Federation Fund.17065(Question No. 1303)130317065Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 April 2000:(1) Has the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security commenced investigating the suicide in Washington of Defence Intelligence Organisation officer Mr Mervyn Jenkins; if so, (a) when did he commence his investigations and (b) when is he expected to report.(2) Will the report be made public; if not, why not.17065Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Mr Tony Blunn, former Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, has, on behalf of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, commenced an inquiry into the propriety and proper conduct of the security investigation into Mr Jenkins which was being undertaken at the time of his death.(a) He commenced his investigations on 3 April 2000.(b) He is expected to report in June 2000.(2) As I said in my press release of 18 February 2000, although the Inspector-General's report will be classified, it is intended to provide Mrs Jenkins with as much access as possible to the inquiry's findings.17065(Question No. 1304)130417065O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 April 2000:(1) In (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97, (c) 1997-98 and (d) 1998-99 how many applications for (i) single or (ii) voyage permits were (A) granted and (B) rejected.(2) On what grounds were permits rejected.17065Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The table provided below indicates the number of single and continuing voyage permit applications granted and rejected for each of the years 1995-96 to 1998-99. 1995-961996-971997-981998-99Single Voyage Permits Issued421572779704Rejected2010Continuing Voyage Permits Issued00041Rejected0000The low number of rejections is reflective of the fact that when an applicant is advised of the availability of a suitable licensed vessel, the application would, in the normal course of events, be withdrawn. A permit would only need to be formally rejected where the applicant wished to pursue the issue of a permit notwithstanding the availability of a suitable licensed ship.Permit applications were rejected because the Department ascertained to the satisfaction of the Minister's delegate that a suitable licensed vessel was available to carry the intended cargo on or about the proposed sailing date.17066(Question No. 1363)136317066Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 April 2000:(1) How many Army personnel are currently based at Puckapunyal in Victoria.(2) What medical services does Serco-Gardner Merchant Pty Ltd currently provide at the Puckapunyal Medical Centre.(3) How many staff are currently employed at the Centre.(4) Will the Government ensure that an in-patient medical facility continues to operate at Puckapunyal after the completion of the current market testing process; if not, why not.17066Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows:(1) The number of Army personnel posted to the Puckapunyal Military Area as at 10 April 2000 was 1,049.(2) The base support contract with Serco Gardner Merchant requires the provision of the following medical services:. In-patient services for minor sick and injured.. General and specialist out-patient services.. Accident and emergency services.. Health care and military health administration advice to Military Commanders.(3) Defence staff employed in the provision of medical services comprise an Army Warrant Officer Grade 2 and an Administrative Service Officer 2. Payments made under the contract with Serco Gardner Merchant are based on the employment of 27 full-time and 6 part-time personnel. Actual numbers employed are determined by Serco Gardner Merchant, based upon commercial considerations.(4) The Statement of Requirement for the market testing of ADF Health Services in Victoria is still being drafted.17066(Question No. 1365)136517066Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 April 2000: (1) Is he able to say whether the Islamic Republic of Iran has offered to provide long range artillery to its surrogates in the Hezbollah. (2) Is he able to say whether the representatives of the regime in Tehran have stated that, after an Israeli withdrawal from the security zone in South Lebanon, that they will be able to hit major population centres, such as the city of Haifa. (3) Is he also able to say whether Iran is to commence the espionage trial of 13 of its Jewish citizens on 13 April 2000; if so, is he able to say whether Iranian authorities have charged a 16 year old, a rabbi, a butcher and a gravedigger as part of this 13 member espionage ring. (4) Did the Iranian Minister for Agriculture, together with a seven member delegation, arrive in Canberra on 3 April 2000 and was he welcomed by the former Australian Trade Minister Tim Fischer, and the Prime Minister; if so (a) who were the seven members of the delegation and (b) did the Prime Minister, as the Iranian National Newsagency reported on 3 April, say that developments in Iran were positive and that Australia was determined to expand bilateral relations in the future. (5) Did he or the Prime Minister raise with the Iranian Minister the matters of (a) the Iranian threats in South Lebanon referred to in part (1) and (b) the imminent trial of the espionage ring referred in part (3); if not, why not.17066Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am not aware of any public comment to this effect by Iranian officials. However, I am aware that Jane's Defence Weekly carried a report in February 2000 saying that Israeli Defence Force sources claimed that 'Syria has allowed an increased number of arms shipments - including mortars, explosives, anti-tank missiles and what was described as 'advanced systems' - from Tehran to arrive at Damascus airport and from there be transported to Lebanon'. I am unable to comment on the accuracy of the Jane's Defence Weekly article. (2) I am not aware of such a statement. (3) The trial of the 13 Iranian Jews charged with espionage began in the Iranian city of Shiraz on 13 April, but was adjourned after a short hearing until 1 May 2000. The accused include senior members of the Jewish community who were active in the cultural and religious life of the community, as well as a 16-year old youth. In occupational terms, the accused are reported to include teachers, a ritual butcher and a rabbi; one of the accused is also believed to be a participant in funeral ceremonies. I have instructed the Australian Embassy in Tehran to send an officer to monitor conditions surrounding the trial, which is being held in closed session.(4) (a) The Iranian Minister of Agriculture, Dr Issa Kalantari, arrived in Canberra on 3 April 2000 to attend the Eight Australia-Iran Joint Ministerial Commission, held on 4 April. Dr Kalantari was met at the airport by Mr Tim Fischer and subsequently made a brief courtesy call on the Prime Minister. He later met with a number of senior Government Ministers (Mr Vaile, who co-chaired the JMC, Mr Downer, Senator Minchin, Mr Ruddock and Mr Truss). Dr Kalantari was accompanied by the following Tehran-based officials:Mr Mohammad Karim Naser SarafActing Deputy Minister of International AffairsMinistry of Post, Telegraph and TelephoneMr Ali Yazdani VarzanehActing Deputy Minister of Parliamentary AffairsMinistry of Mines and MetalsDr Seyed Ahmad AlaviAdviser to the Minister and Director of International AffairsMinistry of AgricultureMr Majid Kiani BajestaniDirector General of International Commerce, Asia-OceaniaMinistry of CommerceDr Seyed Mohsen EmamiMember of Board of DirectorsIran Touring and Tourism OrganisationMrs Bahereh Mirzaie TehraniDirector, Foreign DebtCentral Bank of IranMr Ebrahim Shafiei Rezvani-NejadAustralia Desk OfficerMinistry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran (b) Dr Kalantari was told that although there were some important differences between Australia and Iran, there were other areas in which the two countries could work together productively. He was also told that Australia recognised that Iran was in a period of transition. The bilateral trading relationship was positive and one on which Australia was keen to build, to the mutual benefit of both parties. (5) (a) As noted in the answer to question (1), the Government is not aware of any public comment to this effect by Iranian officials and consequently the issue was not raised with Dr Kalantari. (b) Yes.17067(Question No. 1367)136717067Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MacklinPG6JagajagaALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 April 2000:(1) What are the current practices about the provision of free or subsidised cigarettes to Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel in Australia, at sea or on overseas postings. (2) Does the ADF have a policy on smoking.(3) What sum is spent on providing cigarettes to ADF personnel.(4) Are cigarettes sold at ADF establishment canteens and other facilities run by Frontline Defence Services..(5) Does the ADF have a policy in relation to its workplaces being or becoming, smoke free.(6) Does the ADF provide assistance to personnel to participate in Quit programs and other cessation activities.17068Scott, 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) Cigarettes are sold to ADF personnel in Australia through messes and canteens. Cigarettes are purchased on normal commercial terms and sold with a sufficient markup to ensure that the relevant entity trades profitably. The Commonwealth does not provide any explicit subsidy. Cigarettes are sold in East Timor and Bougainville through Frontline Defence Services canteens and unit canteens. Again no explicit subsidy is provided by the ADF. Such sales are of course free of Australian excise tax. Cigarettes are sold to Navy personnel ashore through messes, clubs and canteens. Cigarettes are purchased at commercial cost prices and sold to members at a price that returns revenue to the outlet. At sea, cigarettes are generally only sold through the ship's canteen. Cigarettes are purchased excise free thus cheaper than ashore. Ships on deployment to a foreign port are entitled to duty free prices in the same way as the general public. No explicit subsidy is provided by the ADF.(2) Defence, through Defence Safety Management Agency (DSMA)) does have a policy on smoke-free Workplaces' [Defence Occupational Health and Safety Manual (DOHSMAN) Ch 7 Annex C]. It cross-references the Surgeon General's `Health Policy Directive 225 - Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy'which actively discourages smoking and gives financial support to ADF members undertaking 'Quit' programs. Navy policy is limited to specifying designated smoking areas and to the quantity that may be purchased for landing ashore. A copy of both these documents have been forwarded separately to your office. (3) Commonwealth funds are not specifically spent providing cigarettes to ADF personnel. In commonwealth all canteen stores, in-direct subsidies are provided through the provision of facilities on a rent free basis. In East Timor and Bougainville, free labour has also been provided for the operation of the canteen. All canteen supplies are shipped free of charge on a space available basis. No commonwealth funds are spent on providing cigarettes to Navy personnel.(4) Yes.(5) Defence has a comprehensive policy on smoke-free workplaces. [DOHSMAN Ch 7 annex C] - Smoke-free workplaces in Australian Defence Force and Department of Defence.(i) Smoking in all Defence establishments has been banned for several years. The current policy extends this ban and provides guidance to Commanders/Managers on how to implement the policy. The smoking restrictions also apply to contractors and visitors.(ii) Commanders/Managers are to discourage smoking and actively promote the aim of achieving a smoke-free environment. This includes assistance and encouragement to employees in their efforts to cease smoking.(iii) Frontline canteens and ADF messes implement the Government policy on smoke free workplaces.(6) The ADF does provide assistance to personnel to participate in smoking cessation activities. Health Policy Directive No. 225 - Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy details the use of nicotine replacement therapy in the management of cessation of smoking. Paragraph of the directive states that the success of nicotine replacement therapy is greatly enhanced when combined with advice and support from specialist cessation clinics or the treating physician.17068(Question No. 1418)141817068Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 April 2000: (1) When was the last meeting of the Marine Council held. (2) Are there current members of the Marine Council. (3) When is it proposed to convene the next meeting of the Marine Council. (4) If it is not proposed to convene further meetings, how will the suitability of seafarers be assessed.17069Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Marine Council last met in Melbourne on 16 July 1998. (2) Yes (3) No further meetings of the Marine Council are proposed. (4) The Marine Council mainly dealt with assessing the suitability of seafarers for employment in the Australian shipping industry. Under company-based employment arrangements, which were extended to all seafarers in the Australian shipping industry in 1998, employers assumed responsibility for dealing with these matters. A government appointed body is no longer required to perform these tasks. Employers assess the suitability of seafarers for employment in the shipping industry, as is the case in other industries in Australia.17069(Question No. 1442)144217069Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 April 2000:(1) Has the Government conducted cost benefit studies on the proposed Very High Speed Train link between Sydney and Canberra; if so, will it make the studies public.(2) How many jobs will the project create (a) in the construction phase and (b) on an ongoing basis.(3) What estimates does the Government have for the potential of the project to improve Australia's export opportunities.17069Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, the Commonwealth, New South Wales and ACT governments have completed a joint financial cost benefit analysis of the Speedrail proposal. The studies are part of a broader project evaluation and will not be made public. (2) At this stage the economic analysis of the project is confidential.(3) See 2.17069(Question No. 1443)144317069Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 April 2000:(1) Has the Government conducted cost benefit studies on the proposed Very High Speed Train link between Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane; if so, will it make the studies public.(2) How many jobs will the project create (a) in the construction phase and (b) on an ongoing basis.(3) What estimates does the Government have for the potential of the project to improve Australia's export opportunities.17069Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. The Commonwealth, New South Wales and ACT Governments are in the process of assessing a Sydney - Canberra Very High Speed Train project proposal. (2) See 1.(3) See 1.17070(Question No. 1453)145317070O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 13 April 2000.(1) Does the Minister administer legislation which relates to domestic violence.(2) If so, what is the definition applied by the Minister's Department to the term “domestic violence”.(3) Is the definition sourced from a policy document or statute.(4) Is there discretionary flexibility available to be exercised by the Department when applying the definition to individual circumstances; if so, are there internal departmental manuals outlining discretionary options.17070Truss, 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) No. (2) to (4) Not applicable.17070(Question No. 1454)145417070O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 13 April 2000:(1) Does the Minister administer legislation which relates to domestic violence.(2) If so, what is the definition applied by the Minister's Department to the term “domestic violence”.(3) Is the definition sourced from a policy document or statute.(3) Is there discretionary flexibility available to be exercised by the Department when applying the definition to individual circumstances; if so, are there internal departmental manuals outlining discretionary options.17070McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Minister does not administer legislation relating to domestic violence.17070(Question No. 1467)146717070McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May, 2000: (1) What is the level of public access to Australia House in London. (2) Apart from the reception area, is the building closed to Australian citizens. (3) Are newspapers from various States to be displayed in an adjoining building.17070Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following response to the member's question: (1) Access to many areas of Australia House is restricted during normal operations as a result of security considerations applying to all Australian overseas diplomatic missions. (2) Unrestricted public entry is, however, permitted to a general reception area, the visa and passport section reception areas and to a newspaper reading room. All visitors to other areas are required to be escorted by a member of staff. (3) Newspapers from various States are currently on display in the Australia Centre, a building adjoining Australia House, in a public reading room.17071(Question No. 1468)146817071McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 2000:(1) What was the cost of detaining illegal immigrants in West Australian detention centres in (a) 1994-95, (b) 1995-96, (c) 1996-97, and (d) 1998-99.(2) What have been the detention costs during the period 1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000.(3) What is the average daily detention cost per person.17071Ruddock, 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) The cost of detaining unlawful non citizens in Western Australian detention facilities for the specified periods was: $6,637,786* in 1994-95, $19,848,906* in 1995-96, $14,937,501** in 1996-97, $11,104,255 in 1997-98 and $10,836,491** in 1998-99.(2) The detention costs incurred for all six detention facilities operational during the period 1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000 was approximately $55 million. The Western Australian proportion of this overall cost was $32.6 million.(3) The average daily detention cost per person, across all six immigration detention facilities, was $90 per day.**** Total figure includes three detention centres being Curtin IRPC, Port Hedland IRPC and Perth IDC.** Total figure includes two detention centres being Port Hedland IRPC and Perth IDC.*** This figure is calculated on the basis of figures available to end of March 2000.17071(Question No. 1523)152317071Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 10 May 2000:Did he, his advisers or his Department discuss with the Minister for Finance and Administration, the Minister's advisers or the Minister's Department the Minister's decision to direct Employment National on 22 December 1999, to hand back their Job Network 1 contracts before that decision was made; if so, what view was expressed by him, his advisers or his Department as to whether the contracts should be handed back.17071Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:My Department believed that it would be in the best interests of those disadvantaged jobseekers undertaking a program of Intensive Assistance within organisations who were not successful in winning Intensive Assistance contracts in the second tender, to move as quickly as possible to providers with responsibility for ongoing caseloads of such clients. Its preference was, therefore, that all organisations not successful in gaining Intensive Assistance business in the second contract period, release existing Intensive Assistance clients. The Department of Finance and Administration was advised in these terms. Ultimately the decision to accept or decline the contract variation which allowed organisations to hand back clients, was for each organisation to make. Employment National chose to accept.