2000-08-143917REPS1881702000-08-14—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees18817188171881712:30:0018817Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report entitled The Second Chamber: enhancing the Main Committee, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—The report I have just tabled may be seen as the third leg of a trilogy which started with the About time report of the Procedure Committee presented in October 1993. Dr Neal Blewett chaired the inquiry, on which I, too, served, which led to proposals for reform in handling legislation, parliamentary questions and the structure of the sitting program. That report recommended the establishment of the Main Committee to ease pressure on the legislative timetable by allowing largely uncontroversial and unopposed legislation to be debated elsewhere whilst this chamber dealt with the remainder. The House adopted the recommendation in early 1994, although it did not enjoy the support of all members. The Main Committee first met on 8 June of that year.The second leg of the trilogy was the Time for review report tabled in June 1995, a year after the Main Committee met for the first time. It had demonstrably eased the chamber's legislative burden and had expanded opportunities for debate on other matters, such as papers and committee and delegation reports. This report—The Second Chamber: enhancing the Main Committee—is the third leg of the trilogy. Members will not be surprised or shocked to learn that the Main Committee continues to be a success. This report focuses on areas for potential improvement and development. In general, the recommendations relate to recognition of the Main Committee, its operation and the range of business it deals with. The first recommendation is to change the name. The name was chosen to signify that it is a committee of the whole House and, further, in the expectation that it would meet in the place known as the Main Committee room on the first floor. However, the Senate was unusually less accommodating than anticipated, with the outcome that a House of Representatives committee room had to be utilised. There is now confusion between the room where the Main Committee meets and the original Main Committee room. During this inquiry members stated a preference for what has become the alternative name, and the committee accordingly recommends that the term `Second Chamber' be formally adopted. The existing location of the Main Committee presents two problems: firstly, public access is inhibited because it is an enclave, isolated from other areas open to the public; and, secondly, its remoteness from this chamber exacerbates the effect of divisions on Main Committee proceedings.The second recommendation is to examine the feasibility of relocating the Second Chamber to a position nearer the chamber and more accessible to the public on the ground floor adjacent to the House. One of the most striking features of the Main Committee is the way in which it has grown from modest beginnings. As a parallel legislative stream, it has successively and successfully taken on a bigger role in the work of the House and increasingly exhibits a character of its own. Many members who participate in the Main Committee approve of its different atmosphere and relative informality, which is no doubt facilitated by its smaller size.The Procedure Committee believes that the culture of the Second Chamber can be enhanced in a number of ways: firstly, by making debate in the Second Chamber more interactive; and, secondly, by increasing flexibility in the scheduling and conducting of Second Chamber proceedings. The whips should be allowed greater freedom to tailor the periods for statements and adjournment debate to meet varying demands on the time available. Thirdly, the culture can be enhanced to give private members a greater stake in the Second Chamber by allocating, unless the demands of government business are overriding at any one time, a set period each sitting week for the consideration of private members business. I have a vested interest in the new provision for debating time for private members' bills. A set speech seems rather stilted in the intimate confines of the Main Committee. This chamber is a good venue for members to develop the skill of speaking extempore. There is a strong case that can be made for greater interaction between members who are in the Main Committee. The practice followed in the British House of Commons allows members to intervene, if the member speaking is willing to give way, and ask brief questions seeking elucidation of points not adequately argued or fully understood. The result can be authentic debate—an outcome not always achieved in this place. The committee therefore recommends that interventions be allowed in the Second Chamber for a trial period. The success of the trial would depend on the goodwill of members and the procedure, if not abused, could be considered for wider adoption. I wish to thank our chairman, the member for Sturt, who is unable to be with us today, for his leadership and good humour. I wish to acknowledge the members of the committee for their ideas, participation, forbearance and tolerance. Last but not least, thanks go to the hardworking committee secretariat comprising Robyn Webber, John Craig and Anna Gadzinski. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Chifley and refer him to the magazine About the House and to the Speaker's statement in the centre spread of About the House.12:37:0018818Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—It is my pleasure to follow the member for Chifley and to endorse the totality of his remarks. The three significant recommendations of the report involve the change of name to the Second Chamber but also, more particularly—moving away from the cosmetic recommendations—the idea of the introduction of interventions in a spirit of experimentation. The report recommends that the Main Committee ought to be a centre of experimentation in procedure and that it provide us with an opportunity to trial, test and innovate with a degree of freedom which we may not feel here in this chamber.Certainly, a longstanding concern of mine and, I know, of many members is the extent to which Westminster can become a very heavily stage-managed series of fora. Coming into this place at times, it seems that the actual architecture, the geography of the chamber, is not necessarily conducive to really spirited debate and exchange of ideas. The word `parliament' itself comes from the French `parler', but the idea of speaking and of a discussion or dialogue taking place often does not materialise in practice—even down to the technology of the place and the fact that one of the recommendations of the report is that we ought to be able to sit wherever we like in the Second Chamber. One of my frustrations is that each time I walk in the door I am required by the technology, in order for you to be able to recognise me and for me to be heard on this microphone, to sit behind the nameplate `R. Cameron'—when it may be that on a particular measure or bill I would rather sit with the opposition but the assumption of the rigidities of the technology requires me to sit with the government on every occasion. I am, 99 times out of 100, delighted to sit with the government and almost invariably prefer to be here than on the other side but, as a matter of principle, I object to the idea that it is a rigid assumption of the place that I must sit in my place on every occasion. I think it adds to the rigidity and to the calcification of debate.It is interesting that this cavernous chamber, which is beautifully capacious and accommodating, is in contradistinction to Churchill's recommendation after the House of Commons was bombed during the Second World War. He gave a speech setting out the principles upon which the chamber should be rebuilt, and one of the things he recommended was that it ought to be too small for the number of members it had to accommodate. His point was that, for a sense of atmosphere, you wanted to cram the members in so that there would be this exchange of ideas and of argument—whereas more often than not we wander into this place and find just a vast empty cavern. One can give speech after speech after speech and wonder whether the words completely disappear into the ether without recognition by anyone. So it is pleasing that the little band of absolutely dedicated parliamentary news network listeners out there occasionally ring up and give one a response to a speech: it is quite encouraging. But we have to remember that the parliament is in competition with, in particular, the media on the question of who will set the public policy agenda in this country. There is competition which takes place, and we constantly have to demonstrate our relevance to ordinary Australians. They have to look at what we are doing and feel some identification with it. So, when it comes to this question of should we experiment or not, my view is that we do not have a choice: we have to rehabilitate politics, rehabilitate the parliament and inject it with freshness, vitality, spontaneity and genuine debate and dialogue. On that basis I heartily commend the report to the House.12:41:0018819Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—I am pleased to join with my colleagues in recommending our report to the House. It is a good report, named The Second Chamber: enhancing the Main Committee. As a relatively new member, I felt that it was great to find a place that is slightly less intimidating than this. As my colleague has just said, quite often this House is quite empty when you speak and you do get a feeling that perhaps you chat to yourself at times; and so in the Main Committee there is a better environment and a more friendly and encouraging one.The recommendations which we have made will increase the number of opportunities given to members to speak and also increase the status of the Main Committee, something which has been an issue for some members. On the whole I believe that, if the recommendations made by our committee are implemented by the government, they will enhance the level of debate in the Main Committee and will improve the efficiency of the whole House.With regard to the individual recommendations, I would like to endorse the first recommendation that the Main Committee be renamed the Second Chamber. I believe that this title would better reflect the nature and importance of the work of the Main Committee. I also support the second recommendation, which would place the Main Committee adjacent to this chamber and make it accessible to the public. I think that this move would further reinforce and confirm the significant role that the committee plays in the work of the parliament.I would like to strongly endorse the principles behind recommendation No. 3, which would give members the opportunity to ask a member who is speaking to give way, an initiative that has worked well in the House of Commons. There can be no doubt that the Standing Committee on Procedure is correct in its view that the tendency for members to give set-piece speeches inhibits interaction—it in fact stifles it. The implementation of this recommendation would not, of course, prevent members giving set-piece speeches if they wished to do so. However, the knowledge that their speech might be interrupted with a question would encourage members to ensure that their speeches were of the highest quality. Implementation of this recommendation would also encourage members to listen more carefully to the arguments being put forward by the member speaking, because they would be looking forward to an opportunity to question or challenge those views. I am not concerned that speakers will have the right to refuse to give way. I am sure that most members would not want the reputation of being someone who refused to give way, and so they would do so whenever it was appropriate. Overall, I believe that the implementation of recommendation No. 3 will provide an opportunity to greatly improve the quality of debate in the Main Committee.I endorse recommendation No. 4. This introduces the capacity for flexibility in the management of the work of the committee that would improve both the quality and efficiency of our work. We all know that we live in a world where change seems to be the only thing that is constant. Implementation of recommendation No. 4 would facilitate a move from the more formal, rigid structures currently in place to structures based on convention and agreement. It is essential that the structures that we develop to enable us to carry out our work are structures which enable us to respond quickly to the changes that take place both inside and outside parliament. In order to achieve this, these structures must be as simple as possible and as flexible as possible. The changes proposed in recommendation No. 4 would simplify the structures governing the work of the Main Committee and make them more flexible. This flexibility would improve the committee's capacity to respond effectively to the changes that affect our work both now and into the future. The move towards giving the chair more freedom to manage proceedings in the committee should ensure that the focus of the committee's work is determined by the importance of the issues to be debated and the needs of the committee rather than by standing orders. This move should therefore enhance both the speed at which the committee processes its work and the effectiveness resulting from it doing so.I believe that the acceptance and implementation of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Procedure will significantly improve the work and effectiveness of the Main Committee. It is inevitable that such an improvement will result in enhancing the efficiency with which this House conducts its business, and its good name. I would like to thank the secretariat staff and recognise the great work they do in assisting and progressing the work of the committee. I commend the report to the House.12:46:0018820Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I will try to add something a little different in speaking to the report entitled The Second Chamber: enhancing the Main Committee. When I was first elected to parliament, I found this thing called the Main Committee. On inquiring about its form and function, I was told, `Oh, that's where all the boring or non-controversial stuff goes.' When I first went to find it, I learned the difference between the Main Committee and the Main Committee room—and trying to find out the difference was a lot of fun. Hence, there is a very valid reason for the first recommendation—that is, that the Main Committee be known as the Second Chamber. Hopefully that will now eliminate the confusion that still exists in the minds of visitors and members like me.Having found the Main Committee's location, and as one who seems to speak regularly both there and in the chamber, I soon learned about the value of the Whip's staff in keeping things going while I sprinted from one chamber to the other—hence, the second recommendation that the two chambers be more closely located. The second function of the co-location would be to allow the public to also see that we are being quite efficient in the way we deal with the enormous loads of bills that pass through the House. This would also grant more places for the public to get in and actually see the workings of parliament—and I hope that we can encourage more school students to sit in the audience as well.There has been a culture in the Main Committee, perhaps because of its smaller size or its seeming invisibility, of interactivity in debate. Because of its special nature, it may be that intervention and spontaneity in debate could be encouraged as an experiment in the Main Committee prior to trialling it in the House. Whilst this would not be looked on as an opportunity to denigrate into public point scoring and disruption of the Main Committee's work, it might provide a good opportunity for obtaining clarification and resolution of issues far more quickly than appears to be the case now.Recommendation No. 4 of this report is designed to ensure flexibility of operation of the Main Committee and to provide that the Whips' staff continue to have the primary role in organising the business of the Main Committee—and so they should. Should any sudden disorder occur in the Main Committee, our report suggests that the chair should have the ability, with or without a motion or notice, to be able to suspend or adjourn sitting and report that fact back to the House. Having been privileged to be part of the Speaker's Panel in chairing that Main Committee, I do not think it will ever be necessary, but it would be nice to know that we can do it.The sixth recommendation looks at the convention of government members sitting to the right of the chair and others elsewhere. To ease the formality and to promote participation and interactivity, we recommend that members be encouraged to sit where and with whom they choose—something, Mr Speaker, you know that I have been very fond of trying to trial even in the main chamber here. I believe that we could have more dignity and perhaps a little bit more respect for each other if, before opening our mouths, we looked at who we were sitting next to and then perhaps we would think better of it. The seventh recommendation looks at improving the facilities of the Main Committee. Some are for the benefit of public viewing, such as improved camera angles, glass panelling and the like. The others are for the provision of better facilities for the ancillary staff. The final recommendation is to allow for more time to be given for private members business. Although the main work of the Main Committee is still to be government business, there could also be room for more consideration of reports by the Main Committee.I too would like to thank the chairman, the member for Sturt, and the secretariat and my fellow colleagues. We have had a lot of humour in the committee, but we have also had a lot of very serious discussion, and I think the recommendations prove that. Therefore, I commend the report to the House.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Chifley wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?12:50:0018821Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—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 adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.188211882112:51:0018821Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations, I present the committee's report on its inquiry into issues specific to mature age workers entitled Age Counts, together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—I will limit my remarks to a couple of minutes in order to allow other members to speak on this report. Australia is a country in which we define ourselves through our work. Within minutes of meeting one another, the question is asked, `What sort of work do you do?' Work puts us in a social context, it defines the framework of our lives and it gives each of us a sense of belonging and meaningful purpose.Being without a job not only devastates personal finances but also exacts a heavy social and human toll. As Albert Camus said, `Without work all life goes rotten.' That may certainly be said of the many mature age men and women whose lives touched this inquiry. Their often poignant stories underwrite what is emerging as a significant challenge for a nation whose population is ageing in the face of collapsing age dependency ratios.As this country moves from an agrarian, labour intensive economy to one that is dominated increasingly by burgeoning technology driven industries and information technology, many over the age of 45 are finding themselves for the first time in their entire lives without work. Not all are emotionally and technically prepared for what is a major transition. Losing your job after two or three decades of continuous work is a major life event. It can be, and is for many, as devastating as the loss of a limb or in some cases even losing a member of your family. Evidence presented to this inquiry included substantially higher illness and death rates for unemployed people in this age group. This should, if for no other reason, prompt governments to respond meaningfully to the recommendations in the report. Central to the report's recommendations is the need for us to challenge and change the attitudes of society and employers to ageing. Skill, enthusiasm and adaptation to change are not the exclusive domain of the young. To the workplace must also be brought wisdom acquired with the passing of years. Employers need to take most seriously the need to manage redundancy and dismissal processes in an orderly and humane way. This is one of the central recommendations of this report, as are early intervention, modifications to Jobsearch eligibility, refinements to NEIS and guidelines for redundancy and dismissal procedures. One critically important recommendation is the setting up of a national computer literacy program for the two generations of working age Australians currently over the age of 45 for whom basic computer training was not a part of their core education. They are overrepresented in industries that are a declining part of our economic and social base. I commend this report to the House. I thank the secretariat and all of those who came before the inquiry for the earnest and meaningful contributions that they made.12:54:0018822Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—In the last 50 years in most OECD countries, including Australia, capitalisation has quadrupled, productivity has trebled, energy consumption has trebled and employment has grown by one-third. The last bit is the bit we do not do too well in: employment has grown by a third. It results in an inefficient economy blowing out health, welfare and crime costs to such an extent we no longer tell the truth about unemployment. In fact, we do not know the whole truth about unemployment.Consider the following: 700,000 people in this country are unemployed, 700,000 are underemployed and 700,000 are hidden unemployed; and there are 70,000 advertised job vacancies. Tim Colebatch reported in the Age last week that 22 per cent of working age Australians are on benefits. Maybe that is why I can state that 700,000 Australians are underemployed and another 700,000 are hidden unemployed and no-one seriously challenges me. The simple truth is, though, that I do not know how many there are, but the more important point is nor does anyone else, and that is the nub of the problem. Accurate data, comparative data and longitudinal study references are not available to identify the whole problem of unemployment. If you cannot identify the problem, there is no way whatsoever you can come up with a set of appropriate solutions.As this report, Age Counts, indicates the mature age unemployed are not easily identified. Evidence given to the committee strongly suggested that concentrating on the recorded unemployment rates overlooks much of the mature age difficulties in the labour market because of the propensity of so many mature age unemployed not to be counted.However, what picture can be claimed about mature age unemployment is not encouraging. Consider the following. The mature age unemployed comprise a high share of discouraged workers, 63 per cent in 1998. They are underemployed. In January 2000, 40 per cent of men aged 45 to 55 wanted to work more hours. Two-thirds have low literacy levels. Just over 40 per cent live outside the state capitals. Long-term unemployment is greatest among the 45- to 54-year-old age group. The average duration of unemployment is nearly 150 weeks and increasing. All of this is highly accentuated and extremely difficult for indigenous Australians, those from non-English speaking backgrounds and those in certain non-metropolitan areas.Unemployment midlife has a severe effect on people's lives, affecting not only the unemployed person but also family members and the wider community. Unemployment makes people sick, kills people, breaks up relationships, destroys assets and induces negative mindsets in children. This report offers a range of solutions and possible directions to address mature age unemployment. The best solution is not a solution at all. It is the deliberate long-term gathering of data through longitudinal studies. The most agreed solution is early intervention. Employment assistance is best prior to retrenchment, with peer group support and with self-esteem still intact. An urgent solution is a public education campaign to address age discrimination, which is rife in this country and a disgraceful commentary upon all of us. A pie-in-the-sky solution is a voluntary code of conduct among employers when considering retrenchments. Although having no disagreement with the intention of the code of conduct, Labor members have no faith in it being voluntary. If the valued sentiments are to be taken seriously, then legislation is the only way. The most ignored solution is the deliberate engineering of employment dividends from government intervention. For example, for every $1 billion spent on road building about 10,000 to 12,000 jobs result. The same investment in rail yields almost double the employment—that is, 20,000 to 22,000. This never seems to be considered, and perhaps it is time it was. The most unimaginative solution is the complete rejection of wage subsidies. Notwithstanding the fact that 57 per cent of employers responded negatively to wage subsidies, it obviously follows that 43 per cent were not necessarily negative. Why not ask different questions, such as why not wage subsidies to reduce overtime; why not wage subsidies to pay on-costs of job creation; or why not some lateral thinking to create something new?The most ridiculed decision is the proper examination of working time reorganisation. With underemployment rising now at twice the rate of 1980 and 33 per cent of the work force now working very long hours, no employment debate will be complete if working time reorganisation is not seriously considered. The against-the-odds solution is setting up a small business. Success rates as low as three per cent were reported to the committee. The great cop-out solution is complaining about the immobility of labour whilst ignoring the immobility of capital.I express my thanks to the committee's chair, Brendan Nelson, the member for Bradfield; members of the committee; members of the secretariat; and, most important of all, the people who submitted their ideas in writing and in person in the hope that the problem of mature age unemployment would be seriously considered. (Time expired)12:59:0018823Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise today as well to speak on the report Age Counts: An inquiry into issues specific to mature-age workers. Work—that magical word by which life is measured—a life's work, work ethic, hardworking, work consciousness: just a small aspect of how we are defined by our work. In fact, 2,500 years ago Heraclitus reminded his listeners that you could never step into the same river twice; it was forever changing, as was life. This is what happens with work as well. Being a mature age worker in Australia today, particularly a male, means that you are one of the most disadvantaged groups for labour market assistance. In fact for people over the age of 45, 48.7 per cent of the mature age unemployed in December 1999 were long-term unemployed, compared with 23.8 for younger job seekers. And unemployment in the 45- to 64-year age bracket often resulted in periods of people being unemployed for two years or more. It was for this reason that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business identified his concern about mature age employment, and hence this inquiry.The inquiry has had a huge number of submissions from all sorts of groups, government departments, and social and peak work organisation bodies. The main areas of concern to emerge were that, due to globalisation and a changing world, long-term loyalty and employability no longer counted and that mature age people felt abandoned. Social and health reasons, as previous speakers have spoken about, have had a flow-on effect on unemployment, and many individuals have given me personal accounts resulting from having being unemployed or retrenched. The shock of job loss, working long hours in an industry and lack of computer skills and job search skills left many powerless in this new job market. The effects of mature age unemployment on families, personal relationships and children were all too often highlighted, and the loss of dignity and self-esteem, particularly among mature age men, left very long-term life scars. The loss of income, particularly for mature age people, can result in the drawing down of superannuation and the lessening of assets and living standards. When I worked for a large franchising association, mature age people who became unemployed or retrenched would often approach me to start a franchise. From my initial discussions with these people, it was clear to me that they had limited business experience or expertise and that there was a very high risk of business failure. There are many negative aspects resulting from the loss of mature age employment: loss of experience and maturity and skills shortages occur in the marketplace. Young workers or graduates may have academic skills, but they do not bring with them the sense of corporate history or work practicability. There are many difficulties in assessing employment, and labour market needs must be restructured to promote employment of mature age people. Employers quite often have negative perceptions or expectations about mature age people, and it is not uncommon for an employer to consider an applicant over the age of 35 to be old.Employer practices in retrenchment and early intervention need to be examined, as well as recruitment practices. The report in all made 38 recommendations. I would like to touch on a few of those, as the previous speaker, the member for Port Adelaide, did. Developing a national strategy and targeting maturity and age balance in the workplace is an absolute priority, as is developing a workplace Australian forum to promote an age diverse work force. In relation to redundancy, there should be developed a voluntary code of conduct or best practice principles for large and small business. This code should be reassessed after two years. I know that it is not to the satisfaction of all, but we do have to start some place. A Centrelink service number should be widely promoted to help employers and the government fund a professional career service without fees for young people at school and also for job seekers on benefits. To help Job Network get to people in providing mature age training courses, computer skills and literacy could be done through a number of government and non-government agencies that are already in existence. The government also needs to introduce a specific subsidy for mature age people undertaking traineeships and apprenticeships, and there are a large number of those who continue to do that. Phased retirement is something that we really need to focus on. As we are becoming older, we need to have partial access to superannuation, as well as to allow people to phase out of the work force and to work part-time.There were many positive recommendations, and I am pleased to have worked on this inquiry since March 1999. I look forward to the implementation of these recommendations. I would sincerely like to thank the chair, Dr Brendan Nelson, and other members. I would also like to thank Dr Nelson for his inclusiveness and leadership. I thank also the deputy chair and members of our conscientious committee secretariat, including Paul McMahon, inquiry secretary Maureen Chan, and Gaye and Jenny for all their assistance. I commend this report Age Counts to the House.13:04:0018824Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—This inquiry gave members of this House an opportunity to directly benefit the estimated 103,000 who are currently of mature age and who are out of work. Importantly, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations has made a series of recommendations which aim to assist this target group. The report and evidence clearly demonstrate that Job Network is failing this important group in our society.The recommendations cover a raft of areas—some practical and others not so. For example, in recommendation 3, which relates to a code of conduct, government members believe that it should be voluntary. I believe that the notion of a voluntary code of conduct is impractical. Good employers are already subscribing to good practice when it comes to redundancy and retrenchment; poor employers are not. I have seen little evidence that anything but a regulatory regime would work. This was reflected on by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which highlighted that frequently voluntary codes do not work in all circumstances.In relation to recommendations 6, 7 and 8 as they relate to training, it became clear that many of the mature age recipients now in the Job Network system are not receiving training that was supposed to have been allocated to them. In fact, we have heard evidence that in many instances no training has been provided. Disturbingly, in relation to Job Network providers' training programs—detailed in recommendation 6—many providers have highlighted that there is not enough money in the system for both managing and training. This was clearly demonstrated by Mr Richardson of Mission Australia in response to a question regarding their organisation's training provision. He stated that about $1 billion was taken out of the overall budget between one group of programs and the other. He went on to state, `We are limited in the level of training. If there is one area that got sacrificed in moving from one suite of labour programs to the next, it has been training. That is simply because of the relative costs involved, particularly where you are dealing with long-term training.' He further added, `That is what the Skillshares were providing before'. I found it ironic that many of these recommendations have taken us to again revisit the types of training that were supplied under the previous government's Working Nation system. Amongst the training was computer training. Recommendation 10 relates to employment subsidies. I believe that the recommendation clearly pointed to a policy that was abolished in the last term of the current government. Under the Jobsearch program, a subsidy was available to all who could get an employer to take them on and, as an incentive, a wage subsidy would be paid. It seems to me that the recommendations highlight that this measure was a success. I see the irony, but I do not think the unemployed would be amused.In recommendation 27 the government talks about mutual obligation as the catchcry for the future. But what of the obligation to provide real assistance and real training to clients by service providers? Unfortunately the accountability requirements have allowed providers to ignore their obligations to ensure clients are given proper training and referrals to job vacancies. In this day and age where the unemployed have to seek out and provide evidence that they have accessed 10 job vacancies a fortnight to obtain benefits, we received evidence that was repeated time and time again of instances where people had been seen once by their Job Network provider and had not been contacted since their first visits, let alone been referred to a job vacancy. In the words of one such client who had had their first interview: We'll phone you they said and yet they never phoned ... I figured that I was worth more than $200. I found out I was worth six grand and that $1,200 was paid the day they saw me. He was paid for what, 40 minutes to tell me I'll call you, and in the 12 months he never contacted me again. I do not believe in intensive assistance.I was stunned to discover in discussions with the department that many intensive assistance service providers had not been visited beyond their initial set-up visit and that training provision, for example, had not even been assessed. More must clearly be done to bring service providers to account and I welcome recommendation 27, which will go towards addressing this situation. In conclusion, I thank all members of the committee for their cooperationparticularly the Chairman, Dr Brendan Nelsonand all staff, whose diligent and efficient efforts were matched by their affable nature and the quality of their work. I also thank all those who participated in this notable inquiry and commend the report to the House. Ordered that the report be printed. 13:09:0018825Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I seek leave to continue my remarks later. 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. Private Members' Business188251882513:09:0018825Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I move:That this House acknowledges the dangers of the marketisation of education in Australia and its potential to normalise inequality for families in rural Australia, for families with disabled children, for families with children with behavioural difficulties and for families of children in depressed socio-economic areas.Despite personal experience, very few people—parents, politicians, professionals or academics—are particularly well informed about education and, in the context of the Australian education debate, it shows. Far too often in the last 25 years education in Australia has been diminished by the implementation of past well-intended but foolish recommendations as well as the current malevolence of the Howard government in its deliberate creation of a single market in education. Until the 1960s both public and private schools functioned very well alongside each other in this country. At that time private schools operated without government funds, although there was tax deductibility for private schools in the mid-1950s. A strong private school campaign in the 1960s resulted in the allocation of money to private and public schools for libraries and science blocks. This expenditure, which improved facilities in private schools, did not damage the public system; but, more importantly, the existing diversity within and between each system was preserved. Since the mid-1970s, Australia developed an education system where publicly funded private schools coexisted with public schools. However, central to that understanding was that public education was a public good and there existed a clear divide between public and private education. But the undervalued diversity of the public system was about to be broken down. During the mid-1970s, a watershed educational report called the Karmel report was published. In general terms it was very well accepted as making a positive contribution to the education debate. Although well intended, the report had two major failings which have yet to be rectified. One was the failure to recognise the importance of resources to primary schools—hence the current unsatisfactory debate on literacy and numeracy. However, the more relevant one as far as this debate is concerned was the elimination of diversity that existed in the structures of public secondary education and which was strongly supported by parents. The diversity of public secondary schools, which was a strength—for example, high schools, technical schools, girls schools, boys schools, area schools, agricultural high schools, specialist schools and so on—was essentially abolished in favour of the single comprehensive secondary school. Big mistake. Many parents rejected the sameness, the conformity and the weakness of having but one type of secondary school. Why would anyone be surprised? Diversity was replaced with sameness. The strength of several varieties of schools was replaced with the weakness of one kind of school. Innovation from diversity was replaced with the maintenance of the status quo of sameness. Far too many public secondary schools went to sleep, and parents made their choices accordingly. The creation of essentially a single market in public secondary education did not work. That this fact is still not recognised by government, academics and education bureaucrats beggars belief. But that elimination of diversity is expanding with the blurring now of the public-private divide. This government believes in blurring the distinction between public and private schools. Its central strategy has been the establishment of an education quasi-market, according to Associate Professor Alan Reid. This government believes that one of the impediments to the operation of an education market is the existence of both public and so-called private education systems. What is overlooked is that in the past there was very limited competition within the private school system and very little or no competition within the public system. That type of historical division—diversity, more accurately—has served this country very well indeed. But the current government policy is to create a single market, a single system where all schools, public or private, compete for custom. That means that any consolidated education system, public or private, is in danger. To help the move to a single market the government sought to facilitate movement away from the public system to the so-called private system with a strategy of enrolment benchmark adjustment. Kim Beazley will thankfully abolish that iniquitous scheme. Some people respond to the proposition of a single market by saying, `So what? Won't competition in the education market make for greater efficiency?' But schooling is not a simply described product that can be crudely measured. It is not a tube of toothpaste, a cake of soap, a loaf of bread, an automobile or the latest fashion accessory. If the logic of marketisation of this government was followed, all government schools would be abolished, as a dollar spent in a private school could be argued as being more cost-effective. The language of the single market is just plain wrong. Devolution may well help successful schools; it does absolutely nothing for unsuccessful schools. Choice in its raw form means segregation, not freedom. Choice means according to the ability of parents to pay. That is the only choice. It has nothing to do with freedom. Schools do not operate under similar circumstances. Private schools select students. Public schools cannot. Schools that cater for location, socioeconomic disadvantage and intellectual, physical and behavioural disabilities require affirmative action, not a single market. A single market in education means the abandonment of rural children, and people in the country know it. It means the abandonment of children in financial disadvantage, and the people know it. And it means the abandonment of non-mainstream disabled children, and their parents know it.A single market in education is anti-democratic. The supporters of a single market argue for the freedom of maximum choice. But what is meant by the freedom of maximum choice? It means setting citizens and their children into competition with each other so that there are winners and there are losers. That is what it means. And we know who the losers are meant to be: the poor, the rural and the disabled. Freedom of maximum choice means the normalisation of inequality. I would have thought that the dangerous ramifications of this policy to a democratic state like Australia would be obvious. But apparently not to this government. The marketisation of education values education only in financial terms. The intrinsic values of education—love of literature and the arts, love of mathematics and science, understanding of the environment, participation in the expressive arts for their own sake, respect for law and order and respect for the rights of others; things which enrich our lives—are simply ignored.This government does not appear to understand that encouraging competition between inadequately resourced schools will simply result in alienation, resentment and anger. While markets have an obvious important role in our economic system, the rules of the market are simply insufficient for the government of a society. This is a government which preaches that it is for Australians but practises something quite different. Education is supposedly being marketised to increase efficiency, management expertise and freedom of choice. What is actually happening is a deliberate reduction in education expenditure and the devolution of responsibility to the schools themselves, to reduce political fallout on politicians. That some narrow-minded and narrow-sighted professional people within the education departments and the schools themselves support marketisation and devolution certainly muddies the water, but it does not make it right. These are essentially the same people who support the dismantling of policies to rectify social and locational disadvantage as well. These are the very same people in educational administration who are not averse to refusing to make available information which might be used by political critics. These are the very same people who support the gagging of public comment from principals and teachers. Welcome to the modern Australian democracy!That private schools get assistance from the federal government is not argued. That exclusive private schools—those who charge twice the public cost of tuition—receive assistance is simply criminal. To argue that these parents pay taxes too is the height of financial arrogance. They pay taxes for lots of things, public transport to name one. Do they expect subsidies for private transport and chauffeur driven vehicles? If private single market purposes are allowed to be determinants of education, democratic purposes in this country will seriously be compromised and cannot be delivered. In an environment where marketisation dominates, the following questions should be asked. Who will undertake the full educational task? Who will accept the social commitment to ensure good quality education is available to all, regardless of capacity, status, ability or where they live? Who will refuse to accept the normalisation of inequality? Three questions, three answers: Labor, Labor, Labor. How this government could support the weakening of national cohesion and do it deliberately, is, quite frankly, beyond my comprehension. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:20:0018828Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—The comments from the member for Port Adelaide would not be out of place in a first-year political science essay assignment from a Young Labor member. In this debate here today we are talking about the future of the education system in Australia. We heard some sloganeering from the member opposite on the marketisation of education. He attacked those who support marketisation and devolution. They are two different things. As for marketisation, it is a slogan that he himself appears to have developed. He spoke about people who have a love of literature, a love of the arts, a love of mathematics and a love of science, and yet he is a member of a party which, when it was in government, managed to come up with a school system in which one-third of school students could not read or write properly. He should come back down from the planet Mars. He needs to speak about the provision of basic education, and he needs to be fair dinkum about that. It is pointless speaking in the rarefied atmosphere of some junior university debate, where your navel is about as far as you look, when there are real problems out there in the education system which need to be addressed.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—Address them, then! Why don't you address them?84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—I do not think that the member opposite addressed it at all when they had one-third of Australian school students unable to read and write properly. At the same time as we had that devastating statistic, what was the opposition doing? In fact, the Leader of the Opposition was, at that time, education minister. What was he doing with those Australian Council for Educational Research reports that were telling him about the serious state of literacy and numeracy in Australia at that time? He was sitting on them. He did not release them to the public. He did not let parents know about the serious state of the education system or the incredible degradation that he had brought about in the education system.The member for Port Adelaide is defending that ridiculous state of affairs. He is coming up with all of this hot air and saying, `Oh, if only we had some kind of reduction in marketisation—blah, blah—then the whole situation would be better.' Get a grip on yourself. There is a heck of a lot more that can be done—look at apprenticeships, look at university statistics, look at statistics in TAFE, look at statistics in education spending, look at the impact on the working class. Look at these things and you see a much better circumstance in education today than when the party of the member opposite was in power. As for what we have seen from the opposition lately in terms of an education policy, that only threatens to drag us back down to those horrible depths in literacy and all of those other sorts of problems.I have spoken about literacy many times. Let me flesh that out a little bit. When Labor was in government we had a difficult problem. Since the coalition came to power we have seen the introduction of a national literacy plan. It is an appropriate plan, and there is a commitment to literacy standards, which we did not see from Labor when they were in government.We have heard many times from the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs about how the Labor Party is shackled to the education unions—and they have an agenda, and we hear it again and again from them. It was the thinking that was back there in the eighties, when people in those education unions were really trying to convince people that if you actually tested people, if you actually assessed to see whether they were actually doing any good in schooling—whether they had literacy standards, whether they could add up, whether they could do the tasks that had been set of them—that would be a waste of time, we need not do that, what we could do is just put the money in and we could be assured that the standards would result. Well, parents and the community in general across Australia know now the fallacy of that argument. They strongly support the notion of testing, and the government remains strongly committed to the notion of testing, because it is the only way to be absolutely sure that standards do not fall apart. I have to say that just recently I attended a public forum in the town of Gatton, in the electorate of Blair. It was very well organised by the Blair women's council of the Liberal Party. They organised it, and they invited everyone from the local community to come and have a say about the future of education and various other related issues. One of the things—and this is another indictment of the Labor Party—is the number of teenagers out there who are suffering the consequences of that incredible literacy void that the Labor Party thrust upon them. Illiteracy, unfortunately, is the start of a very vicious cycle that can lead young people into disrupting school classes, into being expelled, into turning to drugs and into turning to crime. What you wind up with is not a productive member of society but basically a young thug, a criminal, whose only fault in the first place was that they fell short in literacy, probably way back in primary school. But they were carried on in the Labor Party conveyor belt, through the education system, until they got pushed off the end. This is a pathetic state of affairs, one that the education minister at the time—the now Leader of the Opposition—preferred to shut his eyes to, preferred to take the reports that were warning him of that disaster and stuff them somewhere in the bottom drawer of his desk.Let us look at a few other issues that are out there. Since this government got in we have addressed some of the basic and most difficult problems in literacy. Let us take the scaffolding program that was introduced. Anyone who has had any contact at all with indigenous communities would know the incredibly bad state of affairs when it comes to literacy and numeracy in those communities. The opposition did not do anything about it. In fact, they did not address one of the other basic problems—that of attendance—that you have in indigenous communities. You have got pathetic attendance figures. I visited a school in the Northern Territory that was set up to cater for 300 students, and there were 300 students of school age in that community. How many were attending school every day? Thirty. And it was a different 30 every day. That was back in the early nineties—an incredibly frustrating and unacceptable situation.The coalition introduced the scaffolding program. It has gone in. It is in one school. It may be extended into more, but I take the example of one class. This is a year 6-7 class. With the intensive work that is provided under that program this class was taken from a basic preschool level of reading to a year 4-5 reading level in one year. That is only one example, but that just shows you how much hard work has got to go into the problem of literacy in some of these communities; and this government is the one that is prepared to address that. Given the example of the member for Port Adelaide, who spoke just before me, what the opposition over there want to talk about is a whole lot of bumph, a whole lot of teenage wailing, about big long words that I really do not think they understand.I go to the question of universities. Under the Labor Party thousands were in effect locked out of universities, because the Labor Party would not fund above their set targets. Overseas students under the Labor Party were given access to places that were denied to Australians. The fact is that today university enrolments are now at the highest level ever. There are 42,000 more people in university thanks to this government. The same sorts of things were occurring in TAFE. Under the Labor Party 100,000 young people were basically locked out of TAFE. The fact is that 70 per cent of young people do not go on to university. They do not spend their time thinking about words like `marketisation' and `devolution'; they spend their time thinking about a vocational opportunity for them—a future, a career, a way of life.Under the Labor Party—in fact, in 1995—there were only 26,500 secondary students getting any vocational training in school. Today, under the coalition, 167,000 are involved in vocational training. That includes the introduction of school based apprenticeships, an innovation that came from this government. It is incredibly rich for the member for Port Adelaide to stand up and represent problems in education in the fallacious way that he did. There are tremendous difficulties in education, but it does not come down to some kind of sloganeering about whether or not there is marketisation. In my closing remarks I would like to address this business about spending on education. Labor has claimed that there is a drop in the proportion of GDP being spent on education. That is not true. Austudy was transferred out of the education portfolio in 1998-99, and as a result there is a constant funding of education by this government in terms of GDP and a real increase in real terms. That is what is important. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.1883013:30:0018830Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—It is with enormous pleasure that I move:That the House: (1) acknowledges the great need to help the Tibetan people cope with the devastating impact of Iodine Deficiency Disorders; and (2) applauds the AusAID program launched in Lhasa on 18 May 2000 which will transform the health profile of the Tibetan people.At the outset, I need to inform the house about the size of the problem that affects the Tibetan people. Iodine deficiency disorders result in a range of fairly severe medical shortcomings. These can be neurological impairment, deafness, psychomotor retardation, mental deficiency and retarded physical growth. It is the single most preventable mental defect in the world. The population of Tibet is 2.38 million people. Of those, 88 per cent live in the rural areas and 12 per cent in urban areas. Some 78 per cent of all Tibetan people live in iodine deficient areas. The impact of that is an endemic rate of goitre throughout the whole population of 78 per cent. When I was a boy, all around Australia one could see old ladies with huge growths in their necks from goitres, but the introduction of iodised salt cured that problem for us. There used to be a strip down through Queensland and central New South Wales which was called the `goitre belt' because of iodine deficiency. The endemic rate of goitre in Tibet is more than 30 per cent, and in children between the ages of seven and 14 years the average rate of goitre ranges between 50 and 66 per cent. It is an amazing number.As you travel around Tibet—as I have had the great good fortune to do—one of the most disastrous and very obvious things you see is the incidence of cretinism. Clinical cretinism is an unbelievable degree of mental defectiveness and impairment. In Australia and in parts of China other than Tibet, the rate of cretinism is one in every 10,000 live births. In Tibet, because of the iodine deficiency disorders, in some areas that ranges from 2.94 per cent up to 13 per cent. It is almost unbelievable that one could even contemplate a population where 13 out of every 100 live births resulted in cretinism. What causes cretinism is when the mother does not have sufficient iodine in her diet at a certain point during pregnancy. At that stage the baby's brain stops developing. This is the cause of the enormous number of cretins in Tibet and the average IQ level of less than 85 IQ points. That means pretty much mental defective. To put that in perspective, the average IQ level in Australia is 110 IQ points. In other parts of China, the average IQ level is also 110 points. In Tibet, a huge percentage of the population is suffering from serious intellectual impairment. That has an impact on the productivity and the whole rate of growth and development of the people. It has a devastating impact on their social development and their ability to be educated. If you have a population that cannot be educated because of mental impairment, it is a very sad case indeed.I was privileged to be present at the launch of an Australian aid project in Lhasa on 18 May, which is a good news story and a great story for Australia. The introduction of this Australian aid program will have an amazing impact on the health profile of the Tibetan people. It will completely transform the health profile of the Tibetan people. The praise must go to Professor Creswell Eastman, the director of the Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research at Westmead Hospital. He is an amazing man; I have impossibly high respect for Cres Eastman. I know we all venerate the late Fred Hollows and what he did. As far as I am concerned Eastman is right up there with Hollows, but unacknowledged. What he is doing is not in the hundreds or the tens; he is solving health problems for millions of people in one go and he has been doing this for a couple of decades. In 1985 he was involved in the fight against IDD in China, where Australia provided the first external assistance in the Australia-China technical cooperation program for the control of IDD from 1985 to 1992. Professor Eastman was totally involved in that and brought it to a conclusion. The situation in Tibet is different, because the average altitude is 4,000 metres and 88 per cent of the population live in rural areas. I see the member for Prospect nodding. She has been to Tibet and she knows the validity of what I am saying. The simple way, as we do it, is to have iodised salt. But the difficulty is that iodised salt production is limited in Tibet to one factory, and that has only been there for two or three years. It is there because the Chinese government has gone out of its way to support this program and has built this one factory. The whole thing is a cooperation between the World Health Organisation, which is sponsoring the project, UNICEF, the Chinese ministry of health in Beijing and the Tibetan health department—and I must mention the director of that, Dr Tu Deng, a fantastic man who is enthusiastically pushing this Australian project. Because of the difficulties of getting iodised salt throughout Tibet and also the price differential—iodised salt, which would be the simple answer, is more than twice the price of ordinary salt—Professor Eastman has come up with a simple and inexpensive program which will change the health of the Tibetan people. In May last year he undertook a three-week safari, for want of a better word, travelling by four-wheel drive throughout outback Tibet, carrying every litre of water, every litre of fuel and everything he needed—and at one stage getting so ill that he had to give himself a drip; but that is the sort of man he is. The program he has come up with is that every woman of child-bearing age and every infant in Tibet will be provided with capsules of iodised oil—one capsule per person per year for three years. By that time we will have the second iodised salt factory and we will hopefully conquer and master the distribution problems.This AusAID program, this Australian program, is one that every Australian can feel totally proud of because it is Australian expertise, it is Australian knowledge—through Professor Cres Eastman—and it is Australian money—only $2 million—provided by AusAID. I congratulate them and I congratulate our foreign affairs minister, Alexander Downer, for his support on this. As I say, every Australian can be totally proud of this because, with Australian knowledge, Australian enthusiasm and a little bit of Australian taxpayers' money, we are going to have this wonderful situation where, in a generation, the complete health profile of the Tibetan people—over two million people—is going to be changed. What price to give people a brain? At the present time there are plenty of Tibetan people who are very effective, but far too many—millions—are affected by the lack of iodine in their diet or their mother's diet during pregnancy. Australia can be absolutely proud of a wonderful project. I salute AusAID, and I really praise Professor Creswell Eastman, one of the great Australians. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?NV5Forrest, John, MPMr Forrest—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:40:0018831Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I join the member for Cowper in saluting this program of our overseas aid agency and the great effect it will have in improving the health of the Tibetan people. Iodine deficiency is a serious problem worldwide. Its most well-known clinical consequences—hyperthyroidism, endemic goitre and cretinism—reflect the severity of the effects of iodine deficiency. However, recent studies have indicated that a deficiency of selenium, which is also involved in thyroid hormone production, when combined with iodine deficiency, exacerbates the occurrence of serious, although less well known, disorders. The occurrence of selenium deficiency is linked geographically to the occurrence of iodine deficiency, most notably in Asia. It occurs in the region extending from north-eastern China and adjacent regions of Siberia and Korea to south-western China, including Tibet, although iodine deficiency occurs in other parts of the world and affects many more people. Medical research shows that, in areas where there is a deficiency of iodine and selenium—as the member for Cowper outlined—there can be an increase in hypothyroidism, endemic goitre and cretinism. There is also an alarming increase in the occurrence of Kashin-Beck disease which is, by the way, named after the two investigators who studied the effects on patients in Siberia in the 19th century. A recent study of iodine and selenium metabolism in children and adults in 11 villages in Tibet, in which many villagers have Kashin-Beck disease, found that there was a more severe iodine deficiency and more hyperthyroidism, with some cretinism among those with the disease, than among those unaffected, whereas the severity of the selenium deficiency was the same amongst both the affected and unaffected villagers. The outcomes of this and other medical research have shown that iodine supplementation should prevent not only endemic goitre but both hyperthyroid and neurological cretinism and also Kashin-Beck disease. Isn't it wonderful that, with the relatively simple procedure of providing iodine supplements to the entire people of Tibet, the Australian aid agency and, as the member for Cowper pointed out, Professor Cres Eastman—a great Australian scientist—are going to fundamentally improve and change the health of millions of Tibetan people. I applaud AusAID's program. They accepted the responsibility for providing the bulk of the funding to this program, committing $2 million of Australian taxpayers' funds over the next three years for a project which will effectively eliminate iodine deficiency disorders in Tibet. The project will begin with the distribution of iodised oil capsules to approximately 1.5 million women and children annually for three years. Iodised oil treatment is only a short-term measure until the establishment of facilities in Tibet that will manufacture, package and distribute sufficient quantities of iodised salt, which will regularly cover the needs of the Tibetan people.I understand that a Chinese human rights delegation is present in Canberra this week. The member for Cowper and others will understand that there are many in this House who think that bipartisan support for great programs like this one by AusAID should not indicate to that delegation that the Australian people or the Australian parliament necessarily support the deprivation of human rights that currently exists in Tibet. The member for Cowper has quite rightly pointed out this wonderful program that the Australian government is involved with. However, many of us will also think of the kinds of human rights violation that take place in Tibet and will think of the reasonable program advanced by the Dalai Lama which would allow Tibet to be an autonomous province, with China taking complete control of its international and defence policies while allowing the cultural and religious rights of the Tibetan people to be expressed more freely. We feel a great deal of goodwill towards China, and I am glad Australia is involved with this program. China have recently been admitted to the World Trade Organisation, and I hope that this will lead to their commitment to human rights.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed at a future date.Statements by Members188321883213:45:0018832Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I have received a letter from the General Manager of the Smithfield RSL, Mr Gordon Stevens, objecting on behalf of the club's 13,000 members to the increase in beer prices following the introduction of the GST. The Howard government has completely misled the community about the price impact of the new tax system on draught beer. We all remember the election campaign in 1998, when the Prime Minister promised that there would be only a small rise of around 1.9 per cent in the price of draught beer. The Prime Minister told only half the truth, because this was obviously another non-core promise. Why has a middy of beer increased in price between seven and nine per cent? Why is draught beer different to cans or stubbies? Why has this Prime Minister placed an extra tax burden on Australians who enjoy a glass of beer? This is the question that the 13,000 members of Smithfield RSL want answered by Prime Minister Howard. Once again the government has been found to be hypocritical in promising one thing and doing another. Smithfield RSL is one of many clubs in my electorate of Prospect and, believe me, the members of these clubs all feel indignant about the blatant increase in the price of draught beer. This government needs to remember that these people are all voters who will remember this broken promise at the next election. They will have their say on election day. 1883313:46:0018833Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—At last the Bracks government in Victoria has recognised the importance of the Scoresby Transport Corridor to Melbourne and to the south-eastern and eastern suburbs in particular. The Victorian ALP, having changed its mind, now needs to get real if we are to have any chance of getting this project moving. The Bracks government claims to be in favour of the project and is seeking Commonwealth government support, yet it backs up this claim by sending nothing more to the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services than a glossy brochure on a grab bag of road projects that includes just five paragraphs on page 12 about the Scoresby Freeway. The state Labor Government has put less effort into asking for half a billion dollars from the Commonwealth than a child would into trying to gain an okay from its parents for a sleepover. A genuine commitment to the project requires more from the Victorian government than simply policy by press release announcing its backflip.The biggest barrier faced by this project is that the state government has failed to give the Scoresby Transport Corridor, incorporating road, rail and personal transport modes, the priority and funding commitment it deserves as Victoria's number one infrastructure project. Minister Batchelor and the Bracks government, having recognised the error of their earlier opposition to the project, now need to get serious about the Scoresby Transport Corridor and make a meaningful contribution to the years of effort of federal Liberal MPs to get this project moving. The Scoresby Transport Corridor is a crucial infrastructure project for the community of Dunkley, and I will continue to work to move this project forward.1883313:48:0018833Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I notice today that the Olympic torch passes from Victoria into New South Wales on its home stretch towards the Olympic stadium, where it will light up the opening ceremony. Recently in Tasmania we had very large crowds turn out to join in the Olympic spirit. There was great excitement, especially from the torch bearers. Unfortunately, I was not one of them. However, the Olympic spirit in Tasmania was dulled when Tasmanians learnt that once again our state was left off the map being cast on the commemorative medal to celebrate the torch relay. What was the reason? There was none—just that SOCOG was ignorant that Tasmania was taking part in the torch relay. There was no apology, no how-do-you-do, no beg your pardon, no recasting of the medal; there was just another insult to Tasmanians. But of course our spirit is much greater than the ignorance of SOCOG. If you want to find out what is happening in SOCOG, tune into the ABC at 8 o'clock on Monday nights for The Games. If it were not so laughable, it would be an absolute and utter insult to Tasmanians. It was an oversight all right. There was no apology. It is truly an insult to Tasmanians, but we will join in, in the spirit of the Olympics, like everybody else, I hope. 1883413:49:0018834Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Last month I held a ceremony in my office to recognise students in the electorate of Boothby who were awarded the Australian Students Prize for their achievements in year 12 in 1999. There were 500 Australian Students Prizes awarded across Australia, 35 in South Australia. Nine of the students were resident in the electorate of Boothby. That means that almost two per cent of the national winners live in Boothby—three times greater than the national average. I believe this reflects a positive learning environment encouraged by a variety of local schools and their teachers, the support of families, and the students themselves. The students were: Andrew Budimir of Marion and Eynesbury College; Anita Coultas of Seacliff and Brighton Secondary School; Belinda Evans of Westbourne Park and Unley High School; Lincoln Fleetwood of Clapham and Eynesbury College; Scott Llewelyn of Belair and Blackwood High School; Anastasia MacRae of Belair and Walford; Catherine Shanks of Urrbrae and Walford; Grant Schuster of Panorama and Pulteney Grammar, who was a medal winner in the 1999 Physics Olympiad; and Rosie Wagner of Sturt and Westminster School. I congratulate the students and wish them the best for the future.1883413:50:0018834Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—On 5 August, I was delighted to attend a performance of True Colours at Cecil Andrews Senior High School in Armadale. I would like to point out how wonderful it was to see a huge number of students participating—over 55 participated in this performance. It is always wonderful to see young people doing something positive. I would like to also thank the staff and parents who worked so hard to make the performance a success. I would now like to acknowledge each of the students who participated and say thank you on behalf of Canning. They are: Alyce Martins, Amanda McNamara, Bill Hansen, Brendan Kist, Brooke Janze, Candice Edwards, Cara Carver, Carl Hughes, Carla Francis, Chantelle Hansen, Chloe Baker, Chris Schryver, Christine Dixon, Clint Read, Clinton Turner, Corinne Hands, Elizabeth Crowe, Emma Holter, Gemma Kingston, Hayley Jones, Hayley Williams, Heather Cargill, Jason Chong, Jessica Fogg, Jessica Macpherson, Juanita Johnstone, Kah Poh Chong, Kaylee Stevenson, Kim Sa Chong, Linda Neilson, Lisa Bassanelli, Loren Raj, Macaela Jefferies, Marilyn Neamtu, Matthew Urbas, Michael Wilson, Michelle Breckon, Nikki Wilson, Norman Cooper, Rachel Schryver, Rebecca Hovarth, Rebecca Skelton, Renee Baker, Russell Pusey, Sam McMeekin, Sarah Archibald, Sarah Dee, Sarina Johnstone, Scott Baverstock, Shane Leahy, Symone Fazey, Tamsyn Humphries and Toni Edwards. Each and every one should be extremely proud of the contribution they made. (Time expired)1883413:52:0018834St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I took the opportunity during the winter recess to go out into my electorate of New England to visit some 41 towns and villages. I have to say how refreshing and indeed rejuvenating a visit around the whole electorate can be when I am able to spend the time listening and discussing the issues and concerns of my constituents at the back of a ute tray, over a picnic table at the side of a river, at a truck stop or at many of the country halls of which we are so proud. This was the second winter recess tour that I have undertaken since being elected in 1998. It is absolutely essential that this time be set aside each year so that I can stay on top of the issues that are of concern to my electorate and so that I can bring those concerns to this place for action. This year it was also exciting to visit many of the businesses in my electorate that are providing much needed employment growth and opportunities throughout New England. This year I was able to visit the following towns and villages: Somerton, Tamworth, Uralla, Kentucky, Walcha, Yarrowitch, Nowendoc, Tenterfield, Glen Innes, Duri, Werris Creek, Ebor, Wollomombi, Barraba, Bingara, Kingstown, Bundarra, Manilla, Attunga, Georges Junction, Armidale, Tingha, Guyra, Bonshaw, Yetman, Bendemeer, Moonbi, Kootingal, Deepwater, Emmaville, Ashford, Graman, Wallangra, Liston, Legume, Inverell, Delungra, Gilgai, Drake, Urbenville and Nundle. After 9,000 kilometres, we finished. 1883513:53:0018835Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On 5 June 2000, I spoke during the grievance debate in this House about banking industry deregulation and the recent closure of Westpac's branches in my electorate of Lowe at Croydon Park, Homebush and Concord. Since that time Westpac has closed another branch at Haberfield, throwing sand in the eyes of their customers and demonstrating again that Westpac is only interested in their shareholders.Today I am pleased to report to the parliament that, with the support of their local federal member, the residents of Lowe are fighting back. Last Wednesday evening the Haberfield community centre was packed with angry and frustrated residents who intend to take on the big banks and campaign for the first community bank in Sydney. I wish to pay tribute to the hard work of Ashfield councillor Emma Brooks-Maher, who is leading the campaign with tremendous support from many, including Marlene Doran, President of the Homebush Main Street Committee. I know first-hand that the will of my constituency is so strong that they will achieve this goal.The banks should be flogged, and there will be no tears shed for Westpac or the other three big banks when more community banks are established in Sydney and throughout Australia. I will keep the parliament informed of the progress of my constituents' campaign for more community banks.1883513:55:0018835Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Happy birthday to Rose O'Brien, immediate past president of Mount Gravatt Meals on Wheels, who will be turning 90 tomorrow. Many people turned out yesterday to wish her all the best and to thank her for her tireless community service. Rose is someone that we all could aspire to try and keep up with as she is a very energetic lady. Last year she was rightly awarded a Moreton seniors award.At the party was Mrs Edna Hoskin, a neighbour of Mrs O'Brien in Longridge Street, MacGregor. There must be something magical about Longridge Street: Mrs Hoskin yesterday turned 103. She was a 30-year strong volunteer for Meals on Wheels until she retired just before her 100th birthday to make way for a few more youngies.Also, last week three other members of Queensland's 100-Plus Club met in my office. This is the only such social club in the world. It was formed by Lyal Muller of Yeronga back in 1993 and now boasts over 320 members across Queensland. Mrs Millicent Pearce, aged 100, and Mrs Elsie Carlin, 101, both residents of the Beth Eden Aged Care Home at Graceville, and 103-year-old Mrs Lily McDonald, formerly of Robertson, came to morning tea at my office in honour of the club's newest and youngest member, Her Majesty the Queen Mother. Mrs Muller wrote to the Queen Mother inviting her to become a member and, within days, Her Majesty accepted the invitation. Now the Queensland 100-Plus Club boasts royal patronage.1883513:56:0018835Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I rise today to pay tribute to a great local football team in my electorate, the Port Melbourne Colts. Over the weekend, the Port Melbourne Colts did not have their greatest victory but they have again made the finals in the Western District League that they are in. The Port Melbourne Colts, led by Mr Peter Ilsley, their very active and vociferous president, is one of the many sporting clubs in my electorate that has that wonderful spirit of volunteerism and the ability to attract young people to it that I think are manifest throughout the rest of Australia. The role of football clubs, particularly those that are not fully professional, is something that I think we should all support in our electorates.The Port Melbourne Colts, like many other sporting teams in Melbourne Ports, have great access to local facilities. I was pleased, together with them, the Port Melbourne Bowling Club and local baseball clubs, to be part of a recent delegation to the Port Phillip Council. The council has agreed to not introduce the Kennett organised kind of compulsory competitive tendering with charges to sporting clubs. I am very pleased to see that those sporting clubs recently had their prospective charges reduced. 1883613:58:0018836Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I would like to say a few words in welcoming a project announced last week, a $850 million fibre optic cable project extending from Brisbane right across to Perth. It will really increase Australia's broadband capabilities quite significantly with new high speed, high capacity telecommunications. The project, which is called Nextgen, is made up of a consortium of businesses: Leighton Contractors, Lucent Technologies, Macquarie Bank, Deutsche Bank, ABN-AMRO and the National Australia Bank.I particularly welcome the project because it will be providing an interconnection point near the town of Braidwood within my electorate. Braidwood is a small town only about an hour from Canberra, but it has certainly suffered from some of the changes that have taken place in rural Australia over the last couple of decades. Having an interconnection point in Braidwood will really add something to the region and will give an opportunity for a whole lot of new aspects of telecommunications to be developed, with high speed access for businesses—and potentially new businesses—in that particular region. These sorts of projects have only come about because of policies that we have put in place to increase the amount of competition in telecommunications. It really should be welcomed by all, particularly people in rural and regional Australia, because it will add so much to their capabilities. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A the time for members' statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice188361883614:00:0018836Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that, in the Cubillo-Gunner decision delivered in the Federal Court last Friday, Justice O'Loughlin found:At common law anything said or done in the House of Representatives is protected by absolute privilege ... and that prohibits the raising in a court of anything done or said in the Commonwealth Parliament. In light of this reaffirmation that there has never been a credible legal impediment to a proper apology from this parliament to the stolen generations for the hurt and trauma they have suffered, will the Prime Minister now allow this parliament to join the state parliaments in discharging its duty to offer such an apology? 18836Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. It is true that the judgment of the Federal Court delivered by Justice O'Loughlin last Friday was a very important judgment and it is one that repays very careful study. I do not dispute that contained in that judgment was the excerpt read by the Leader of the Opposition. I accept on this occasion that he has quoted it accurately. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the principal basis on which I have argued a formal national apology in the terms constantly sought by the Leader of the Opposition is not appropriate is that it is not appropriate in my view and it is a view shared throughout the government that current generations should apologise for the deeds of earlier generations over which they had no control and which were in fact sanctioned by the law prevailing at the time.It is important as we try to analyse in a sensitive fashion the judgment made by the court. I followed the case carefully. Although it was clearly the verdict of the court that in the case of Mr Gunner he was removed with the consent of his mother and in the case of Mrs Cubillo there was no evidence that she had been removed in circumstances that breached the statutory duty of the relevant government official, I think there is a clear acceptance by everybody that they are practices that current generations would never embrace and current generations would be critical of. It remains the view of the government that the most appropriate thing now to do is to focus on the future and to focus on bringing those members of the indigenous community of Australia who were subject to these practices back in contact with their families. That is why the government has strongly supported the $63 million program, recommended by the Wilson committee, that is designed to provide a link between the affected people and their families and is designed to do a number of other things. While we are on the subject of what was contained in the court judgment, I might remind the Leader of the Opposition—I think it is relevant to the debate that has gone on—of an excerpt from His Honour's judgment that has not been covered in any of the media reports thus far. Amongst the other things that His Honour found was this statement:The court found that the applicants failed to produce evidence that would substantiate a finding that there was a sweeping general policy of removal and detention. He goes on to say:There was no widespread practice of forcibly removing part Aboriginal children from their mothers. The court was satisfied that the number of part Aboriginal children living in the Territory far exceeded the capacity of the institutions to receive them and the patrol officers to remove them.It remains the case that the government is sensitive to the ongoing trauma felt. That ongoing trauma was specifically acknowledged in the resolution of regret which passed through this parliament last year. It is my view and the government's view that that resolution of regret, fully supported by the Labor Party, was an appropriate expression of the current generation and the current parliament's views about those past practices. It is overwhelmingly the government's view that we should help these people get on with their lives in the future. The most effective way of doing that is to implement the recommendations that are embraced in that $63 million program. 1883714:05:0018837Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House how the government's private health insurance reforms have increased the number of Australians taking personal responsibility for their own health care?18837Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Well may the member for Hughes ask me that question, because I have very good news for not only the people of Hughes but also middle Australia all around the country. As a result of the policies of this government, I can inform the House that, on 30 June in the year 2000, the number of Australians covered by private health insurance had risen to 41.2 per cent of the entire population. If you take veterans out of the base, which it is appropriate to do, that figure is 41.8 per cent. This represents a thumping endorsement of the policies of the federal government. It represents an emphatic embrace by middle Australia of the tax rebate offered by the government at the last election. It vindicates the policies of the health minister. I am not surprised—I was with a group of people over the weekend and a number of them said to me, `Michael Wooldridge is the best health minister Australia has had for 20 years.' Let me say that I very warmly endorse that. He is an outstanding health minister. On this particular issue, my friend and colleague the health minister has a colleague—4T4Melham, Daryl, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—He has a colleague you know a lot about—Graham Richardson. Graham Richardson had a lot to say about private health insurance. He was the one who said that once the number of people covered by private health insurance fell below 40 per cent you had a problem and the system would start to bleed to death. That is exactly what the Labor Party deliberately set out to do. When the member for Fremantle was the health minister in the former government, she wanted to destroy private health insurance. The good news that I have announced today—and it does not end with what I have announced today—and the advice we have indicates that, as a result of the extension of the deadline for Lifetime Health Cover for another two weeks, it is expected that the number of people covered by private health insurance will grow significantly above 41.2 per cent in the current quarter.This is a spectacularly successful policy. This represents the re-enfranchising of middle Australia so far as private health insurance is concerned. Private health insurance has always been something that middle Australia has wanted. Middle Australia resented the whittling away of the incentives and middle Australia is apprehensive about the threat to their new-found capacity to be in private health insurance. There is one threat, and that threat is the election of a possible Labor government here in Canberra.; I really CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Oh, no! They wouldn't do that, would they?ZD4Mr HOWARD—They wouldn't do it? They would indeed!CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Would they?ZD4Mr HOWARD—They would indeed. I exhort the Treasurer not to imagine for a moment that the Labor Party would not attempt to get rid of private health insurance or, at the very least, to introduce a savage means test. When the member for Jagajaga was asked on two occasions on the weekend before last whether she would rule out a means test, she refused to do so. At the very best, the Leader of the Opposition is a very, very reluctant supporter of the policies that have put over 41 per cent of Australians in private health insurance. The Leader of the Opposition has effectively said, `I think it is a bad policy, but my polling tells me I ought to keep it.' That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done. But of course you always have to rely on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, you always have to rely on somebody else, to drag a bit of political truth into this issue. Just as Della Bosca brought home a few truths in relation to roll-back, just as Della brought you back to reality, today in the Financial Review Simon Crean, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has brought the Labor Party back to reality in relation to its promises.You now have the intriguing situation where the Leader of the Opposition says, `I'm going to roll back the GST but I won't tell you how much and where, but I'm going to guarantee to the states that if I roll it back they won't be worse off; therefore I have got to find the money from somewhere else; I'm going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars extra on health and education,' and then along comes the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and do you know what he says? Unbelievably he says, `I'm going to have bigger surpluses than the coalition.' Yes, that would have made `Mr $10 ½ billion deficit' blush with embarrassment. In the words of that famous AFL commercial, with regard to the Labor Party having bigger surpluses than the coalition, `I'd like to see that.' I would like to see that would.The reality is that, as every economically literate person in this country knows, if you are going to have roll-back, protect the states, spend hundreds of millions of dollars extra on health and education and have bigger surpluses than we have now, there is only one way to do it and that is to increase income tax. That has always been the secret agenda of the Leader of the Opposition. I warmly thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for doing another Della Bosca and reminding us of a few of the economic and political realities of the Australian Labor Party.Honourable members interjecting—1883814:11:0018838Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—It was an excellent interview; I am glad he liked it. My question goes to some points made by the Prime Minister in answer to the previous question I asked him. Is he aware that Justice O'Loughlin stated in the Cubillo and Gunner case that:Neither the evidence in this trial, nor the reasons for judgment, deny the existence of `the Stolen Generation'. Numerous writings tell tragically of a distressing past.Given this, will the Prime Minister now repudiate the shameful assertion of his government to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee inquiry that there never was a stolen generation?18838Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can say in reply to the Leader of the Opposition's question that I have read sections of the 700-page judgment. I do not pretend to have read it all. It is true that that particular statement was contained in the summary. It is also true that the judgment contains the statement that I made. I do not think the assertion made by the Leader of the Opposition is a proper basis for the request he makes.1883914:13:0018839Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, could you inform the House of any recent economic data that would give us a guide as to how the new tax system has been received?18839Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It has taken somebody from this side to ask a question about tax reform. You can always rely on the coalition to be interested in tax reform and you can always rely on the members of the Labor Party to oppose it. This is of course the first day back after the world was meant to come to an end. In the last week we were here we were told that the equivalent of political Armageddon was about to arrive. We were told that the world was going to come to an end on 1 July, and they faced on 1 July an `absolute nightmare'. The Leader of the Opposition said:What the take-up now means in relation to business numbers is a disaster on 1 July. Let us not put too fine a point on all of this.Well, he certainly did not when he said it was going to be a `disaster'As an example of economic management you could not imagine a more disastrous policy both in its strategy and execution. The horror picture is it is a complete mess. This is hell, this is hell in a small place, and I think there will be an awful lot of people experiencing terrible troubles with that as the year unfolds.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—Gee, if it was as bad as that, why didn't you mention it in your speech to the national convention? The reality of this is that the Leader of the Opposition was down on bended knees for months before 1 July, hoping and praying that the Australian people would be unhappy when the new tax system was introduced. He was not interested in something that was good for the country. He was not interested in trying to constructively change things for the better. He was merely hoping to `surf into victory'. That was the expression he used at that December caucus meeting, when he stood up and said, `Don't worry, colleagues, we're going to surf into victory on the back of public hostility to tax reform.' I know that for the six months leading up to 1 July they had the wind behind them; they could exploit a fear campaign in relation to every minute element of the introduction of the goods and services tax. All the while the government was trying to do the right thing by the Australian people: the government was trying to introduce a tax system that would give this country the largest personal income tax cuts in history.I am very proud to report that so far the new taxation system has been introduced far more smoothly than the Labor Party predicted—and, I have to say, even more smoothly than on occasions I thought might be the case. That, may I say, is a great credit to the business community of Australia. I want to particularly thank small businesses for the tremendous amount of work that they have done. I also thank the Treasurer for the absolutely first-class job he has done as the minister largely responsible for the detailed introduction of the new tax system. I want to thank the Australian Taxation Office. It is easy to condemn the tax commissioner, as the Labor Party has done, under the privilege of parliament and quite disgracefully—absolutely shamefully. I think all of those have done an extremely good job. So far the economic indicators back up the proposition that the introduction of the new system has gone very smoothly. The Westpac Melbourne Institute indicates consumer sentiment rose by more than 10 per cent in July. Also the Westpac Melbourne Institute's survey of inflation recorded a big fall in July from 7.1 per cent to 4.6 per cent. The economic consultancy firm Econotech has also been surveying the impact on consumer prices. Its latest survey conducted on 1 August provides an estimate of the CPI effect from the changeover of 3.2 per cent, whereas the Commonwealth budget forecast was 3¾ per cent.The best figures of all and the ones that must have choked the Leader of the Opposition most were those magnificent employment figures last Thursday. They are the best employment figures that this country has seen for a decade. They show a dramatic fall in youth unemployment. They show a dramatic rise to almost 810,000 in the number of jobs created by this government since March 1996. And be it remembered that they are a product of the economic conditions that we have created with our policies—policies that the Labor Party opposed every inch of the way. One of the great criticisms of the many that can be made of the Leader of the Opposition is that not only did they leave us with a $10½ billion deficit but they had the nerve, having left us with that $10½ billion deficit, to try to stop us cleaning it up. That will remain forever to their great discredit. 1884014:19:0018840Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that in the Cubillo and Gunner cases, Justice O'Loughlin specifically—Government members interjecting—PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I know you do not treat it terribly seriously. That is one of your problems. But I will proceed nevertheless.Government members interjecting—PE4Mr BEAZLEY—We do. We actually do. Justice O'Loughlin specifically found that `the applicants in these proceedings have suffered the psychiatric illnesses which they alleged.' Then he `accepted Mrs Cubillo's evidence that she was viciously assaulted', and further that Mr Gunner was `the victim of a sexual assault by one of the missionaries'. Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth has now outlaid more than $12 million on this case alone, without in any way redressing the hurt and trauma acknowledged by the court, and that the only sure beneficiaries of this government's determination to confront every case in the courts will be the legal profession? Will the Prime Minister now consider a more just, equitable and humane response to the plight of the stolen generations?18840Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of the findings or the statements in the judgment of Mr Justice O'Loughlin just referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. I dispute the Leader of the Opposition's claim that the trauma to which he refers has never been acknowledged by the government; it has on numerous occasions. There was a very clear and explicit acknowledgment of that in the resolution that was passed last year. There was a very clear acknowledgment of that in the acceptance of the recommendations of the recent report in relation to linking people affected by these practices up with their families.The Leader of the Opposition raises the question of some kind of alternative method of legally handling these cases. I notice in the wake of the Federal Court decision that has been taken up not only by the opposition but also by the Australian Democrats and by a number of others in the Australian community. One of them, Senator Ridgeway, speaking on behalf of the Australian Democrats, has argued for some kind of reparations tribunal. For a number of reasons, including the statements made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and minister assisting me on reconciliation matters in a Sunday interview yesterday, there is a strange notion abroad that if you have a reparations or compensation tribunal, you eliminate the lawyers, you eliminate any argument and you save all of the money. The unfortunate thing—and I say this very directly and with great good will to the member for Barton—is that that is just not the experience of other tribunals in this country. Nobody knows that better than the minister for immigration. The minister for immigration quoted a figure of about 900 cases that had been decided by immigration tribunals that had been appealed.The reality is that the rule of law under which we live and to which the Leader of the Opposition referred very positively in an earlier question allows people to appeal the decisions of tribunals, and there is no guarantee at all that you would save money by going down that path. I think it is very interesting to recall some words that were uttered by Senator Ridgeway. He has been critical of the government on this issue and I note that, but that is his right in the vigorous debate that naturally goes on. On 24 August last year, when being interviewed on Radio National's breakfast program, he had this to say:I think the question of reparation for suffering is something that needs to be dealt with by the courts. It's always been clear that even if that were acknowledged by a resolution in the parliament that that is something that would always have to be dealt with by the courts... It's an issue of saying that the compensation matter is something that should be set aside and dealt with in the courts where it's currently being dealt with and tested in the Northern Territory... I think that we should leave that to the courts to decide. There are certainly things that we could acknowledge in terms of historical fact, but I don't think that we should be so clear and that we should leave that to the courts, in the end, to make a decision on it. The point I simply make is not to dispute for a moment the trauma to which these people were subjected or the ongoing trauma they suffer. That has been acknowledged. Whilst I accept there are differences of approach between the government and the opposition on this issue, I do not accept for a moment that this government, this side of politics and those who disagree in relation to a formal apology are insensitive to the suffering of people in the past. It was because of that suffering that the resolution of regret was in fact brought down by me and supported, I gratefully acknowledge, by the Australian Democrats through Senator Ridgeway and also by the opposition.The debate is really about whether you have a formal apology. I have stated the government's reasons in relation to that and they remain on foot. In relation to the legal liability, the decision last Friday was very significant. The applicants have certain legal rights in relation to appeal. That is something for them to decide, but I want to make it very plain on behalf of the government that we do not support the idea of a reparations tribunal. One of the reasons we do not support it is we do not believe it would be cheaper than going through the court system. There is more than a suggestion in the reaction of many people that, having been disappointed by the decision of the Federal Court on Friday, they now seek a mechanism that would produce a different result. Rather than trying to seek a mechanism that might provide a focus on the future, they would prefer to seek a mechanism that might produce a different result. It does not follow. Basically, what the shadow Attorney-General said on Sunday was that you should reverse the onus of proof. That is what he said. I watched his interview and he is nodding: he wants to reverse the onus of proof. What the Labor Party is saying is, `The normal system didn't deliver the outcome we wanted so we want a new system.' What I say to the Leader of the Opposition and what I say to the shadow Attorney-General is: why don't you be honest enough and say that, instead of hiding behind this argument that in some way a reparations tribunal would be cheaper? A reparations tribunal would not be cheaper. The experience of the immigration tribunal demonstrates that. Also, I think it is very important when people are analysing the judgment of Justice O'Loughlin that they analyse all parts of it and they acknowledge those parts which cast doubt on many of the sweeping assertions made about the stolen generation as well as quite properly drawing attention to sections of the judgment that dwelt upon the pain and suffering of people affected by these practices. We share to the full with the opposition a concern about those practices. We acknowledge that there is ongoing trauma. We have combined with the opposition in passing a resolution acknowledging that, and it remains one of the great distortions of this debate for the Leader of the Opposition—4T4Melham, Daryl, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—and for those who sit behind him, most particularly the voluble, but not very precise on occasions when it comes to his own policy, member for Banks, whose immortal contribution to this debate can best be encapsulated by the two words: Laurie, Laurie.1884114:27:0018841Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of how the government's economic policies have improved the living standards and prospects for Australians?18841Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his question. I think like all Australians he would have been pleased to see that the unemployment figures which came out for the month of July showed that unemployment is now at 6.3 per cent, the lowest in a decade since April 1990. I think all Australians will be glad to see that almost 810,000 new jobs have been created in Australia since the coalition came to office, and nearly a quarter of those—248,000—were created last year.Far from all the doom and gloom predictions of the opposition about how tax reform would put people out of work, for the month of July—the first month of the new taxation system—76,000 Australians got jobs who did not have them before. Isn't that wonderful news for the people of Australia? PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Seventy-six thousand new part-time jobs.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition interjects. We need hardly remind him that he was once an employment minister. He was employment minister when unemployment peaked at 11.3 per cent, and his biggest boast as employment minister was in a speech in September 1994—and well may he turn his back, as he always does when he is reminded of his own record—when he said: `Unemployment has fallen. It is down to 10.3 per cent. We expect it to continue falling.' Mr Speaker, I had forgotten this until I went through the records, but do you know who took over from him as employment minister? It was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Simply Simon.The Financial Review is going into comedy these days with some of its reporting: `Labor promises bigger budget surpluses'—oh really, oh dear. When the Leader of the Opposition was the finance minister, in his last full year as finance minister his surplus was negative $10,300 million. The Sydney Morning Herald was trying to excuse him in its editorial on Saturday by saying that the economy was contracting. No, I am afraid that you produced those deficits when the economy was growing. The economy grew by 4.5 per cent in 1995-96, and the then finance minister produced a budget surplus of negative $10,300 million. The year before that when the economy grew at 4½ per cent, he produced a budget deficit of $13 billion—that is, $23 billion in two years. Until this government came to office there were not surpluses. We had to take a $10 billion deficit; we had to drag the budget into surplus. We were fought every step of the way. The Labor Party opposed every savings measure. They did what they could to defeat us in the Senate, and when they were defeated what was their argument: we are actually in favour of bigger surpluses.It is like the GST. For three years they fought us on tax reform. For three years the GST was the one thing that could never be made fair. And now what do we find? They are so opposed to it that, if they are ever re-elected, they are going to keep it. Or have I missed something? Is there still a political party in here that is in favour of wholesale sales tax? Excuse me, is there still a political party in here in favour of wholesale sales tax? You can abolish goods and services tax and go back to wholesale sales tax—Swaziland has one. You can go back to where we were on 30 June. I said before 30 June that when parliament comes back the GST will have bipartisan support. They do not disagree. Nobody is quite sure what the interjection is at this point. Is the interjection, `We are still against GST?' Or is the interjection that you are now in favour of it?For three years they wasted the time of this parliament opposing a GST which they now want to keep. They could not mention the word `roll-back' at their conference because, after John Della Bosca, it is a completely discredited policy. I reckon that if Jack Egerton can get a knighthood, so should John Della Bosca. `Sir John Della Bosca' who made the most obvious principle: you cannot roll the GST back and keep it simple. There was a wonderful cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald where the Leader of the Opposition was trying to work out his tax policy, with a sign behind him which said, `Keep it stupid, simple'. Labor on roll-back: keep it stupid, simple. They fought us every step of the way. It was completely opportunistic; it was completely fraudulent. We come back to this parliament, and we realise that they are now in favour of GST. They fought us on surpluses, and they are now in favour of bigger surpluses. This is an opposition without any economic credibility at all.1884214:33:0018842Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the thousands of complaints received by members from pensioners who have not received as GST compensation the full $1,000 savings bonus promised to them at the last election. Why did you promise $1,000 to every person over 60 years of age when you had no intention of delivering on that promise? 18843Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Once again the Leader of the Opposition has deliberately misrepresented a policy. The response that I have had from pensioners and self-funded retirees has not been in the terms as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact I have received, as have a large number of my colleagues, a significant number of calls and letters from pensioners and self-funded retirees saying that they had no idea that there was any savings bonus at all. They were immensely grateful that the government has introduced it. I say to pensioners and self-funded retirees of Australia that we have, as we always do, delivered in full on the commitments that we have made to that section of the Australian population.In the process of telling them that, I remind them that, when the Australian Labor Party was last in government, it went to an election attacking a GST; it did not say anything about changing the wholesale sales tax system. When it had been deceitfully re-elected, without warning, without mandate, without justification and without compensation it then increased the wholesale sales tax at every point of the rate scale range to the great detriment of the pensioners and self-funded retirees of this country. When I look back at what private health insurance has done for self-funded retirees, I think of the extension of the health benefit card, the savings bonuses and the many other changes that have been made that have been of enormous benefit to self-funded retirees. It is no wonder that a great volume of the messages that I have received since 1 July are messages of satisfaction and gratitude from the retired people of Australia. They know they now have a government that will guarantee their economic security and not a government that will run their country into massive debt.1884314:37:0018843Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. What effect would roll-back of the GST have on the Commonwealth budget position? Are you aware of any alternative policies in relation to the budget position? 18843Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Mitchell for his question because he would know, as I would, that roll-back of GST would have a dramatic effect on the Commonwealth budget position. Let's suppose that the Labor Party only roll it back 50 per cent. That is $12 billion, which would mean the abolition of every income tax cut which was awarded on 1 July. Let's suppose that they only want to roll it back by one-third. That is $8 billion—the equivalent of a 24c or 25c hike in petrol excise. I was asked about alternative policies. We know this: the alternative policy is to roll back the GST, to make up the revenue lost to the states through other taxation, to roll back tax on fuel, to return bracket creep, to pay business to collect GST, to oppose the excise on beer, to substantially increase spending on education, to substantially increase spending on training, to substantially increase spending on research, to review HECS, to have a dental scheme, to have a decade of growth in Commonwealth-state health funding, to have regional infrastructures and also, as we heard this morning, to have larger surpluses. Labor pledge bigger budget surpluses. So they are going to spend more on everything, tax everything less and produce bigger budget surpluses. As an interview in the Australian Financial Review noted, the great task of Beazley and Crean is to try to prove that they would not be like the Whitlam government. `The experience of the last Labor government in which a Crean served as Treasurer was not particularly encouraging', says the Financial Review. These are just mere words to them: `Oh, we'll have surpluses. We'll roll back taxation, increase spending and have surpluses.' It does not work like that. They had six years from 1990 with decent growth in the Australian economy to produce a surplus. They produced $13 billion deficits and $10 billion deficits. It was also said in this interview—this is the part I like the best—and this is speaking of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, `He is also grappling with contradictory elements of Labor policy such as those relating to the sale of Telstra and GST.' It says this: `He goes off the record quite often to express a personal view.' I bet he goes off the record when it comes to Telstra because we still remember Frank Blount saying that there had been a Labor minister in a former Labor government who had expressed some off-the-record comments on Telstra. I bet he goes off the record when he talks about the GST. If the opposition are going to prove that roll-back is any more than throw back, then they have to say what they are going to roll back on, when they are going to do it, how much it is going to cost and how they are going to fund it. After two years of opposing the government on tax reform saying that they are absolutely opposed to the GST, we now find that they are going to keep the GST and roll it back. But they cannot tell you on what, when or how much it is going to cost or how they are going to pay for it. These are just linguistic games played by people who do not understand economic policy. If it were any more than that after two years, they would be able to name something, how much, what proportion, and where they are going. The opposition have been engaged in an elaborate fraud on the parliament for two years now. For two years the opposition have been running around saying that they were opposed to the GST, which they always intended to keep, and the next subterfuge is to say that they are going to roll it back when they cannot name one single area. I read in the paper that the New South Wales Labor Party Right is upset that it is excluded from all economic portfolios, and well they might be. I know there is not much talent there, but they do not have much to compete against. If the advice that is coming from Della Bosca and others is to get on board with the government's tax reform, to start supporting it, it would be advice well taken rather than engaging in this contradictory subterfuge.18844NaN:00:0018844Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his previous answer in which he said he had never promised a $1,000 savings bonus as GST compensation for all people over the age of 60. Do you recall, Prime Minister, telling listeners to radio 6PR in Perth on 25 August 1998, `You get a $1,000 savings bonus for all people over the age of 60'? Do you still deny that you made this promise to all of Australia's over-60s? Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—When the House has come to order and the member for Makin has resumed her seat, I would inform the Prime Minister that in fact I had not recognised him because of the chorus of noise on my left and his answer will therefore not be recorded in the Hansard. I invite him to repeat it.18844Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will repeat what I said, to the best of my recollection: of course I stand by what I said. 1884414:43:0018844Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House of the effect the increase in the number of Australians with private health insurance cover will have on Medicare and our state public hospital system? What would be the effect of any rolling back in commitment to private health?18844Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. We saw some great results this afternoon from the Private Health Insurance Administration Council, PHIAC—the best results we have ever seen in a quarter—that now nearly eight million people have private health insurance. As the Prime Minister said, we will not know for another quarter what the final results will be because of policies that came into effect on 1 July and the extra people who, in the two weeks grace period, took out Lifetime Health Cover. But we would expect the figure to go up another couple of per cent and then stabilise, maybe drop a little bit, but it will be well above 40 per cent, taking it back to what it was in the early 1990s.This is great news for public hospitals. Public hospital funding is complex and our strategy has been twofold. The first is to provide direct extra resources to the states and territories and the second is to stop the bleeding that the public hospitals are going through because of the drop out in private health insurance. On the first score, since 1997-98 Commonwealth funding in real terms to states and territories for public hospitals has gone up by 23 per cent. The states' own funding for their hospitals over the same period of time has gone up in real terms 10 per cent. So, if there is any pressure on state public hospitals, it is because the states and territories have refused to put in the same effort that the Commonwealth has; or have, in some cases, actually taken money out in recent times, such as New South Wales which has decided that the Olympics is more important. As well as direct funding, though, one has to address the cause of the problem, that is, the extra demand put on the public hospital system by the drop out from private health insurance and the loss of revenue occurring to the public hospital system because they do not have that income stream anymore. This is well known to anyone who has to run hospitals and is the reason Bob Carr and Peter Beattie have in the past been on the record as saying that the public hospital system would work much better if private health insurance was fixed. It has been put that this large increase will make no difference because of the existence of up front and deductible products. I do not believe that for a moment. My own department's estimates, on the basis of very conservative assumptions about utilisation rates, are that over the next two to three years this increase in people's private health insurance will mean an extra 400,000 treatments per annum will occur for people who are privately insured, a majority of them in the private system, thus taking some of the pressure of demand off the public hospital system. Up to 400,000 treatments per annum is an enormous amount of medical care, care that can now be delivered in the public or private system and, when it is not delivered in the public system, that frees up beds for other areas. Further, we believe that people using the private health system will provide a revenue stream to the state public hospitals, and we have agreed with the states that we will examine this very closely.The honourable member also asked what would be the effect of roll-back. Roll-back would be a disaster. It has taken 4½ years of really hard work to turn round the private health insurance sector and give it some stability. It now has a period of stability when we can expect premium increases to be kept to a minimum, we can expect health funds to address the gap and we can expect some pressure to be taken off the state public hospitals. The Labor Party has pointedly refused to rule out fiddling with the 30 per cent rebate. Rolling back the 30 per cent rebate would be a catastrophe. It would lead to instability in the industry, it would lead to greatly increased complexity, it would lead to premium increases, it would lead to more pressure on state public hospitals and it would lead to a dropping off of revenue to state public hospitals. There are eight million Australians who do not want this to happen. The Labor Party knows that this is something that middle Australia wants. The Leader of the Opposition does not have the ticker to stand up to the left wing of the Labor Party. We are very happy to take him on on this issue any time.1884514:48:0018845Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to your claim that you never promised a $1,000 savings bonus for all people over the age of 60. Do you recall telling people at the Carseldine Retirement Village in Brisbane on 18 August 1998:... for every person 60 and over there will be a savings bonus—a one-off tax free payment of $1000 in relation to any investment income that you might have.Do you also recall telling talkback callers Esme and Tony on A Current Affair on 13 August 1998:... because you have investment income, you'll get access to the savings bonus which is $1000 for everybody 60 years and over.Prime Minister, do you still deny you made this promise to all Australians aged over 60?18845Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—He picked up those two quotes, Mr Speaker. I repeat what I said: the commitments we have made to the pensioners and the retired people of Australia have been honoured.1884514:49:0018845Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Last week the Australian Bureau of Statistics released figures which showed that Australia now has its lowest rate of unemployment in over a decade. In my area of central Western Sydney, unemployment has fallen from 13 per cent in March 1996 to 3.3 per cent in June 2000. Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta has the call and will be heard in silence! The member for Parramatta will continue his question.3K6Mr ROSS CAMERON—In my area of central Western Sydney, unemployment has fallen from 13 per cent in March 1996 to 3.3 per cent in June 2000. Can the minister inform the House of the policies which have given rise to this stunning turnaround and of any alternative policies which may impact on the downward trend in unemployment?4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member for Parramatta asked the minister to announce government policy. Questions that ask about policy are out of order.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip has the call and will be heard in silence! As the Chief Opposition Whip is better aware than most people in this House, in fact the question did not ask the minister to enunciate government policy.18846Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. There is no doubt that these tremendous benefits have arisen from the fact that the government has been pursuing a reform agenda. We have been fixing up the problems that we inherited from the previous Labor government, and we have been fixing them up with the strident opposition of the Leader of the Opposition, who described himself proudly during the break as a `carping' opposition leader. `Carping' is defined by the dictionary as: `grousing', `nitpicking'—a grousing, nitpicking opposition leader, bereft of any ideas of his own.But even though the Leader of the Opposition has stood against us—used the opposition's union numbers in the Senate at every opportunity—these last figures are very good: 809,000 jobs since March 1996. You can compare that to when Labor was in. In their last six years—we have done this in under five years—there were just under 400,000 jobs created. Of those, only 27,100 were full time. Compare that to the number of full-time jobs under us, which is 452,000 jobs—a tremendous result and, as I say, a consequence of just doing the hard yards and fixing the problems that had to be fixed.One of the reasons that Australia's employment performance has been much better is because the government supports small business. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand: if you support small business, they will go out and create the jobs. And that is exactly what they have been doing. That is why the government has in the Senate a bill to help small business by encouraging them to employ more people, and that is why it is very disappointing that the Labor Party is opposed to more reforms—in this case a reform that could help to create up to 50,000 jobs. It is a pity that they are not prepared to support the small business community. The Leader of the Opposition will not support that reform. You would have to ask, `Why won't he?' In fact, he told us. He told us on Perth radio 6PR on 7 July, when he said:We have never pretended to be a small business party, the Labor Party. We have never pretended that.That is one thing we do believe. We do not believe the member for Hunter, who was in the paper this morning as saying:Labor is chasing the small business vote. We will go further than the government will go in a number of key areas.What a fraud! What a joke! The fact is the Labor Party is not interested in small business—straight out of the words of the Leader of the Opposition. And if you are not prepared to support small business, then you are not interested in creating jobs. The Labor Party's policy on small business is a fraud, just as their policy in respect of small business on tax is a fraud. John Della Bosca said it. What he said was absolutely true. Your roll-back, in all its complexity, simply is a mess for small business. That is why roll-back is a disaster. There is only one side of politics that supports small business—it is this side—and it certainly is working, with record numbers of people now in jobs. 1884714:55:0018847Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is to the Prime Minister. Given that you said you stand by your promise that all people over 60 get a $1,000 savings bonus, is it not the case that at the moment 40 per cent of people over the age of 60 get nothing and another 10 per cent get less than $50? Prime Minister, haven't you been caught out deceiving elderly Australians about their GST compensation?18847Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—No.1884714:55:0018847Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of any recent announcements regarding alternative education policies? What is the government's response to these announcements?18847Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. Before last week the Leader of the Opposition promised a policy feast in education; `meat on the bones' is what we were going to get. I have to say, now that the week is concluded, that it was very thin pickings. It was hard to find the bones, let alone the meat. We got a policy famine down there in Hobart. The Leader of the Opposition's speeches were breathtaking in their emptiness. There were lots of motherhood statements. There was the typical class warfare rhetoric that was needed for Shazza and Dezza. There were a few more scholarships. A web site was hastily downloaded from Tony Blair, name and all, nothing changed, just Tony Blair's web site brought down. The policy vacuum was alive and well.But it was not so much what was in the policy speeches, so-called, of the Leader of the Opposition but what was not in those speeches that was significant. There was no commitment in Hobart by the Labor Party to the national literacy and numeracy benchmarks. There was not a word from the Leader of the Opposition, while the teachers unions in South Australia and Western Australia were boycotting the literacy tests, that he disapproved of this action. There was not a word. That is the real test of credibility on literacy and numeracy. There was not a mention in his speech of the 70 per cent of young people who do not go straight from school to university. That was a blind spot when Labor was in office. It is still a blind spot for the Leader of the Opposition. These young people who need a bit of assistance were totally neglected by the Leader of the Opposition.There was not a word from the Leader of the Opposition disassociating himself from the pattern bargaining of the National Tertiary Education Union which is undermining the capacity of the universities to get the flexibility they need. Why were these gaps there? Because these are the policy sacrifices demanded by the education unions of the Labor Party, and the Leader of the Opposition is all too willing to give in to them. He is too weak to stand up for the standards that Australian parents are looking for, for opportunities for disadvantaged young people.It was no surprise that at the end of the conference the Leader of the Opposition announced a committee to work out what the knowledge nation was going to be all about. This committee has got a very interesting membership. It includes the member for Bonython as the deputy chair. It includes the member for Perth, the member for Griffith and the member for Rankin. There is just one strange omission from this committee—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Werriwa.BT4Dr KEMP—The member for Werriwa was not on it, and he is the only one with any ideas. You would think they might have drawn on him. But the member for Dobell was not on the committee to develop the policies for the knowledge nation. Education has got nothing to do with the knowledge nation, apparently. Certainly the member for Dobell has nothing to contribute. That is now official from the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Dobell has nothing to contribute, because he had made his contribution to the policy vacuum evident in the Leader of the Opposition's speeches. He delivered all that he had to deliver. There was nothing else to deliver. He is the spokesman for the policy vacuum, and that is now official. The Leader of the Opposition spoke the truth when he said to his biographer, `I thought there was less capacity to achieve in the education portfolio than in just about any I have had.' That was the truth—less capacity for him to achieve than in any other portfolio—and the Hobart conference confirmed fully the truth of those words. 1884815:00:0018848Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. I refer to the government's rejection of the National Party's call for the GST on rent for permanent caravan park and boarding house residents to be removed and the government's announcement of increased maximum rental assistance which was supposed to overcome this discrimination. Is the minister aware that only 3,955 permanent park residents will receive any benefit whatsoever from this change, representing less than three per cent of those 161,000 Australians who live in this form of accommodation? Minister, did you not mislead 97 per cent of permanent park residents when you told them you would `listen to their concerns' and `take action'?18848Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—We know what the member for Grayndler does in his spare time when he is masquerading as a caravan park tenant, whether it is at Tweed Heads or in other areas. The government did make an announcement—and it was a good announcement—of increased rental assistance, raising it from a maximum rate of seven per cent to 10 per cent, an additional $33 million. From the increase from the new tax system, $100 million of new money has gone in rental assistance. That is assisting over one million Australians. A large proportion of those are in boarding houses as well, in your electorate, Member for Grayndler, and others. For those who are in mobile home parks, the vast majority of those seeking rental assistance are getting 75 per cent of it. They had their four per cent pension increase. The response that has been coming from constituents in my area, no doubt along with the constituents in other coalition seats, is that the new tax system has been warmly received.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—I seek leave to table the correspondence from the minister's office regarding questions asked of the parliamentary library relating to the number of people who will get benefit from the scheme.Leave not granted.1884815:03:0018848Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of any recent public comments regarding the future of employment services including the Job Network and Work for the Dole? Are these programs at risk?18848Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—These programs are at risk if members opposite are ever lucky enough to get back into government. I am aware of reports emanating from the Labor Party's recent national conference in Hobart, where the shadow minister for employment, the member for Dickson, said that the Labor Party supports Work for the Dole but wants to change its name and change the way it works. This is as absolutely oxymoronic as saying that I belong to the Labor Party but I want to change all its policies and I want to change its name as well. It is a complete contradiction in terms. People should be under no doubt whatsoever that Labor wants to abolish Work for the Dole because this program has been too successful at getting people off welfare and into work.I have also been asked about the Job Network. The essence of the Job Network is that job seekers have a choice of employment agencies which are providing services on a pay-by-results basis. That is the essence of the Job Network. It is competition and choice which is responsible for the fact that the Job Network is 50 per cent better at getting job seekers into work than the system it has replaced. At the Labor Party national conference, the member for Dickson said with great fanfare, `Labor is not abolishing the Job Network'. But the member for Lilley stood up five minutes later and said that Labor will remove compulsory competitive tendering based on price and competition. On the one hand they support the Job Network and on the other hand they will destroy the foundation on which the Job Network is based. Who is right? Is it the member for Dickson? Is it the member for Lilley? There is no point in Job Network members who now fear for their future looking to the Leader of the Opposition for guidance. Back in June he said, `We won't be looking to knock off the competitive market'. I presume his deafening silence ever since shows that he has been rolled on employment policy by the member for Lilley just as he has been rolled on family policy by the member for Jagajaga. 1884915:06:0018849Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of today's report that several universities are prepared to lower their entrance standards for students who are prepared to pay up to $110,000 for a university degree? Does the minister believe that his policy is fair when it means that there will be two different entry standards—one standard for battling Australian families and a lower standard for very wealthy people who can afford to pay $100,000 for a degree? Minister, will you give an absolute guarantee that none of these lower standard, wealthier students will transfer to a fully funded place in their later years of study, pushing out better qualified, less wealthy students?GK6Kelly, Jackie, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Sport and Tourism!18849Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I was hoping I would get that question. This is the Labor Party's policy! The policy for the knowledge nation is to stop qualified Australian students with high tertiary entrance scores investing in their future education. That is the Labor Party's policy. Its policy is to abolish the opportunities for Australian students to invest in their education while allowing overseas students to invest in these places. It is this government that has opened the doors to Australian universities that were slammed in the face of qualified students by the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party. That is why there are now 40,000 more students on Australian campuses than there were when this government came into office. We believe it is the right of qualified students to invest in a university education. I totally reject the insulting language used by the member for Dobell against these students. These are students who have worked for years to gain the qualifications to enter university; they are students that the universities themselves judge—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Affirmative action for the rich.BT4Dr KEMP—Well, the class war rhetoric of the Labor Party is what leads it into policies which exclude qualified students. Let us make it quite clear that the Labor Party wants to give access to Australian universities to foreign students who can pay these fees but is not prepared to allow Australian students to enter universities on the same terms. This government has removed the discrimination against Australian students; we believe that it encourages students to invest in their own education if they are qualified. For the Labor Party to say that it is going to reduce student places to stop qualified students from entering university and to have people believe that it is interested in education and building up knowledge and qualifications shows the utter hypocrisy of the Labor Party and its domination by an ideology shared by a very few.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie Kelly—It's more interested in the Western Suburbs of Sydney than—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Sport and Tourism! If I have to deal with her again, I will take the sort of action that is appropriate to her offence.1884915:10:0018849Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the region's response to events in Fiji and the Solomon Islands, in particular the outcomes of the South Pacific Forum Foreign Ministers Meeting in Samoa.18849Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the member for Aston for his question. I appreciate the continuing interest he shows in South Pacific affairs. The meeting held on Friday and Saturday in Samoa was the first ever meeting of the South Pacific Forum foreign ministers and was a historic occasion. It was also an extraordinarily successful meeting. At a difficult time, when there has been a coup in Fiji and a breakdown of administration in the Solomon Islands, there was a strong sense at that meeting of shared responsibility and partnership amongst the forum membership. We have not seen that before in previous regional crises. I was extremely encouraged that all of the ministers—some heads of government were there as well—accepted the need to address these difficult and, frankly, rather sensitive regional issues. For example, the meeting condemned the use of force to overthrow a constitutionally elected government in Fiji. I was heartened by the unanimous support at the meeting for a return to constitutional and democratic government in Fiji. The Fiji interim foreign minister, who was at the meeting, announced that that was his objective on behalf of the interim government there. Ministers also welcomed the ceasefire agreement in the Solomons and expressed warm appreciation for Australia's assistance in facilitating those negotiations. In conclusion, I was pleased that, some weeks ago, more interest was shown in this country—through the media and elsewhere—in South Pacific matters, obviously emanating from the coup in Fiji and the problems in the Solomon Islands. But this meeting was of particular importance in terms of taking forward the whole notion of the Pacific as a region working together to address the whole range of very difficult social, economic and political issues that the region faces. It is in our interest that all these countries should be working so positively with us to try to solve those problems.1885015:13:0018850Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and it follows his previous answer, in which he explained why he believed there should be different entry standards. I ask the minister again the question he did not answer. Minister, will you give a guarantee to the House this afternoon that none of these lower standard, wealthier students will transfer to a fully funded place in their later years of study and thereby jump the queue ahead of better qualified, less wealthy students? Give us the guarantee.18850Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Dear, oh, dear, you can see why he is not being used to develop the knowledge nation! The universities are entitled to admit into their courses qualified students. If a student meets the qualifications for entry, they are entitled to have entry. If you dropped that ridiculous class war rhetoric and got on with education policies, the Labor Party might have something to say in the area.1885015:15:0018850Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. With Australian industry increasingly competing in the global market, which has a growing demand for highly skilled employees, will the minister inform the House whether there has been an increase in demand for the temporary entry of highly skilled workers? Will Australia reap the benefits of an increase in temporary entry?18850Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the member for Herbert for the question. The fact is that we have seen a growing interest in the number of people being nominated for temporary residence in Australia on the basis that they have skills that are in high demand. This is very much required to create further job opportunities in Australia for young Australians. Of course, this is a growing demand. The demand for temporary entry visas was up by eight per cent in the year 1999-2000 to somewhere of the order of 77,000 people. This is making a very significant contribution to our economic growth. It does that by filling skill shortages, introducing overseas knowledge and experience and enhancing our ability to compete in overseas markets. That makes it absolutely crucial in economic terms for the benefit of Australia.The fact is that we do have a number of categories under which people can enter Australia as skilled migrants. Some of them are for permanent entry, particularly where there is nomination by employers. Notwithstanding the considerable open-endedness of the number of places available, those places are not all used. In fact, last year we included a contingency reserve for additional employer nominations so that people could come to Australia permanently if they had skills that were going to benefit Australia. The fact is that employers seem to prefer temporary entry because it is responsive, flexible and quick. Of course, the temporary entry arrangements resulted from the consideration of the Roach report, which was initiated by the former government. It is for that reason that I was very surprised to see that at the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party in Hobart the alarm bells were ringing for Australian industry, which wants to bring highly skilled temporary entrants to Australia. It became very clear from the comments of the member for Bowman, Mr Sciacca, that he has very little understanding of the way in which the immigration program operates and has a prejudice against temporary entrants. It is quite clear from the way in which he commented that Labor is about wanting to roll back the beneficial elements of the migration program today. After considering the temporary entry regime, the member for Bowman said, `This is not what the Labor Party is about.' It is clear from those comments that what the Labor Party is about is rolling back any program that is going to be beneficial to Australian industry and create jobs and opportunities for young people. Labor wants to remove the opportunity to bring to Australia those people who are going to help create those opportunities.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker188511885115:19:0018851Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On 29 May, question on notice No. 1573, addressed to the Attorney-General concerning the alleged travel rorts of former Senator Mal Colston, first appeared on the Notice Paper in my name. It is now 11 weeks since the question first appeared on the Notice Paper. I would be grateful if you would write to the Attorney-General and seek reasons for the delay. Further, on 5 June, question No. 1603, addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry concerning farming deregulation, first appeared on the Notice Paper. Since it is now 70 days since that question first appeared on the Notice Paper, I would be grateful if you would write under standing order 150 to the minister seeking reasons for the delay. Finally, while I am on my feet, on 13 April 2000, question on notice No. 1441, addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, first appeared on the Notice Paper in my name. I followed this up with you on 20 June under standing order 150. It is now 123 days since that question first appeared. I would be grateful if you would write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care seeking reasons for the delay in responding to my question.18851SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the three issues raised by the member for Lowe.1885115:20:0018851Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—In accordance with the standing orders, I also request that you write to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in relation to questions Nos 1628 and 1629 placed on the Notice Paper on 8 June this year.18851SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Brisbane.1885115:20:0018851Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I would also ask that you pursue the Minister for Health and Aged Care concerning a question I placed on the Notice Paper on 9 August 1999, question No. 827. I also request that you chase the Minister for Health and Aged Care with respect to a question placed on notice on 6 April 2000, question No. 1366. With respect to these two questions, I might say that it is not the first time that I have asked that you raise these issues with the minister. I also refer you to question No. 1572 placed on notice on 29 May 2000 to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs concerning people jumping ship in Australia, and I request an answer to that question.18851SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I acknowledge the concerns of the member for Batman and will follow up the issues raised by him as the standing orders require.1885215:21:0018852Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I refer to the question I asked you on 27 June this year in which I raised the importance of the Parliamentary Library being independent and of the information the library gives being confidential. At that time, I asked you:Are you aware that the Minister for Community Services has directed the Parliamentary Library to send any requests relating to Centrelink to an officer in his ministerial office?Having raised it in parliament, I received on 24 July this year—during the winter recess—three pages of information from the Parliamentary Library in response to my request relating to rental assistance and permanent caravan park residents, including a breakdown of the numbers who would benefit from the increase in maximum rental assistance. I was surprised to receive this on the ministerial letterhead of the office of the Hon. Larry Anthony MP, Minister for Community Services, from Kath Brady, the liaison officer.I continue to be concerned that, in spite of the issue being raised in this parliament, requests to the Parliamentary Library for information are still going through the minister's office. I think this is a very serious breach, particularly in light of the fact that it had been raised in this parliament before and that you had undertaken to investigate. I ask that I be able to table these documents or hand them to you on an informal basis and that you will undertake to investigate this matter and report back to the parliament.18852SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Grayndler may care to assist me. From recollection, the matter was dealt with by my office and I responded to the member for Grayndler. Am I right in that?R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—No, Mr Speaker. We had an informal meeting in your office the next day. At that meeting you undertook to investigate, both in your capacity as Speaker and also in your capacity as the chair of the library committee. There still has not been a response to the parliament and the minister still continues to demand that the Parliamentary Library go through his office.10000Mr SPEAKER—I do know the matter was followed up, and I do know—and, I must admit, I am now going by memory, as the member for Grayndler is aware—that there was no impropriety detected. I am sorry that matter has not been conveyed to the member for Grayndler and I will follow that up. However, if he would like to make copies of the letters he has available to my office I will of course follow up the matter he has just raised. The member for Grayndler is seeking leave to table the documents?Leave not granted.10000Mr SPEAKER—If the member for Grayndler is happy to make them available to my office, I will take the matter up.Miscellaneous1885215:25:0018852SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—In May 1997, Speaker Halverson approved the use of notebook style or laptop computers in the chamber when the House is sitting. Until now, the computers could only be used in stand-alone mode as there were no connections from the chamber to the parliamentary computing network. During the break, those connections have been installed and there is therefore an extension of the existing capacity to use computer support in the chamber. It is now possible to connect laptops or notebooks to the network to access services such as email, ParlInfo, news, the Internet and the Intranet.Other than for most frontbench members, the connection will be by way of a cable which fits into a newly installed socket on the brass faceplates on each desk. Electric power is also now available at each desk through a separate plate on the inside of the desk support. Advisers' places on both sides of the chamber have similarly been cabled and new faceplates installed. Two cable outlets have also been provided on each side of the centre table. Battery power only is available at these positions.The cables are available from the attendants, along with audio muting plugs to disable the sound outlets on the computers. I would ask all members to use these audio muting plugs at all times when they are operating their computers in the chamber. These items should be left in the House or returned to an attendant when members leave the House. For members on the front bench a wireless connection has been installed which will require a special enabling card to be used in the laptop or notebook. This can be arranged through the client services centre in the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff on telephone 2020. Audio muting plugs will still be required and can be obtained from the chamber attendants. Small laminated instruction cards will be placed in each member's drawer. Additional cards are available from the attendants.I would encourage members to undertake some brief training to become fully familiar with the facility and with the documentation and support arrangements. Training can be provided by the client services centre and can be arranged by telephoning 2020.I intend to invite the honourable members for Menzies and Bonython, as Chair and Deputy Chair of the Presiding Officers' Information Technology Advisory Group, to monitor the implementation of this new technology in the chamber and to advise me of progress and any concerns which may arise. I would stress to the House that I will view very seriously any failure by members to use this new facility with commonsense and consideration so that the proceedings of the House are not interrupted nor are our colleagues inconvenienced. In particular, I ask that members using laptops in the chamber close them during divisions to facilitate the count and also close them when not in use. Care should be exercised when moving past members' desks to avoid the power connections. Finally, I reiterate that audio muting plugs must be activated every time notebooks or laptops are used in the chamber. Let me restate the sentiments of Speaker Halverson when he first permitted laptop use in the chamber in May 1997:I want to make it clear that if their use proves to be disruptive or a major distraction to the proceedings of the House, I will review the matter without delay.188531The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:18853110WF6DanbyTo 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.110Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 110 citizens).18853256LS4FergusonTo the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Government expects prices for sales of draught beer over the bar to rise by around 7 to 9 per cent as a result of the GST tax package.This expected price rise is much greater than the 1.9 per cent promised by the Prime Minister before the last election when he said: `There'll be no more than a 1.9 per cent rise in ordinary beer' (John Laws Program, 23 September 1998).This expected price rise is also much greater than that promised by the Prime Minister before the last election when he said `Across the board there is virtually no change in relation to alcohol. A tiny CPI equivalent rise in relation to ordinary beer. Perhaps a small reduction for low-alcohol beer.' (Alan Jones Program, 14 August 1998).Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Prime Minister to honour his promise that beer prices will not rise by more than 1.9 per cent as a result of the GST.256Mr FergusonLS4Mr Ferguson (from 256 citizens).188533983NHallTo the Speaker and Members of the Parliament of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned believe that the GST should be legally required to be shown as a separate item on all receipts. We do not believe the GST should be allowed to become a hidden tax. Australian people have a right to know exactly what GST they are paying.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to ensure the GST is shown on receipts.39Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 39 citizens).188545683NHallTo 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. 56Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 56 citizens).188543783NHallTo the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament.We the undersigned request that John Simpson Kirkpatrick, of Simpson and donkey fame be awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia.Under the Imperial Award system, the Victoria Cross was denied to Simpson as a result of some confusion in the original application. In 1915 John Monash (later General) recommended Simpson for the VC. In 1967 Lieutenant Casey who also witnessed Simpson's work (later Governor General, Lord Casey) together with Prime Minister Holt and the Chief of the General Staff, Major General Brand (also a witness) recommended him for the VC. This was also denied. The British Government claimed that a dangerous precedent would be set. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to honour the integrity and wishes of these fine Australians and overturn the original decision not to award the VC to Simpson. Simpson is symbol of the self-sacrifice, mateship and all those values that Anzacs now stand for and Australians treasure. By honouring him, we honour them all.37Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 37 citizens).188549512LN6HattonTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that certain citizens of New South Wales request that you exempt the RSPCA of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The imposition of this tax on the RSPCA will severely limit its operations to provide care and attention and rehoming of `all creatures great and small'.Your petitioners pray that the Legislative Assembly pass the necessary legislation to ensure that the RSPCA is GST free. Thankyou.9512Mr HattonLN6Mr Hatton (from 9,512 citizens).18854240ZD4HowardTo 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 fact that unsafe practices are being followed in this State, namely the sale and distribution of genetically modified foods that have not been labelled as such.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will take all actions within its power, to prohibit the sale and distribution of all unlabelled genetically modified foods.240Mr HowardZD4Mr Howard (from 240 citizens).352AE4NehlTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain residents of the state of New South Wales draws the attention of the House to the Northern Territory Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders Bill 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.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House intervene in this matter to pressure the Northern Territory Government repeal the Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders Bill 1999 immediately.52Mr NehlAE4Mr Nehl (from 52 citizens).18855120UT4NugentTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:Contamination of the environment across national borders like the effects of Chernobil or the more recent contamination of Hungary's second largest waterway, the Tisza river with cyanide as well as assorted heavy metals from a Rumanian-Australian mining joint venture calls for the establishment of international instruments to prohibit and prevent environmental contamination across borders.Therefore your petitioners humbly pray that:The Australian Parliament, through its diplomatic means, hasten the establishment of international instruments for the prevention of environmental contamination across national borders, with the power to sanction non-compliance and to ensure due reparations.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.120Mr NugentUT4Mr Nugent (from 120 citizens).18855151SU5VaileTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned citizens of the Upper Hastings Valley in the State of NSW and serviced by the Ellenborough Telephone Exchange draws to the attention of the House the following points:(1) The Ellenborough Telephone Exchange uses old style technology that will not allow us to access the services listed below:(a) Caller identification, Call return, Call Waiting, Messagebank and other such services requiring the new ditigal technology.(b) The local school cannot access I.S.D.N.(c) The local Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade cannot use pagers and have to rely on the church bell, which only few can hear.(d) The several computer programming businesses cannot provide the services required by their customers because of this old technology.(e) Computer download times for those connected to the Internet are very much slower and therefore more expensive.(f) We are denied use of the Fax Stream Duet Service and if we wish to have a separate fax line have to pay the cost of installing another complete service line to our office or homes.(g) As Telstra introduces new products in the future, we will not be able to access these either.(2) Telstra have no plans to upgrade this exchange which makes it difficult for the very many small businesses to compete on equal terms with their rivals who do have access to the latest technology.(3) We pay the same rental and call charges as everybody else yet are denied equal services.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House request Telstra to upgrade the Ellenborough Exchange without delay. 151Mr VaileSU5Mr Vaile (from 151 citizens).1885559084FWasherTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House that the only GP in the Two Rocks area is leaving, after spending many unsuccessful years trying to attract a replacement GP to the area.This will leave the entire community without the services of a family doctor, and residents will have to travel considerable distances to the nearest medical centre.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to define the Two Rocks area an `Area of Unmet Need' so a suitably qualified overseas-trained doctor can obtain a Medicare provider Number to practice in Two Rocks.590Dr Washer84FDr Washer (from 590 citizens).Petitions received.Business188551885515:31:0018855Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I move: That a Standing Committee on Legal Affairs and Ethics be appointed to inquire into whether to permit human surrogacy in Australia and, if so:(1) under what terms and conditions surrogacy should be legalised; and(2) the legal, ethical, moral and religious framework by which legal agreements could be drawn up to allow human surrogacy to take place giving maximum legal safeguards to all people involved.I thank other members of the House for participating in this debate. I have moved for the establishment of a committee to inquire into human surrogacy because I believe it is an issue that needs to be debated. It is an issue about the technological advances of the 21st century. It is also an issue about the sensitive, emotive and humanitarian issue of parenthood. I am sure there are many people who have an opinion about surrogacy. I am not sure those opinions are always based on accurate information or on a full consideration of all the legal, ethical, moral and religious issues involved. But I do know that there are many devoted young couples who would make ideal parents and who cannot have their own children. They fall outside the IVF guidelines, so are outside our current legislation. It is for the sake of those young couples, perhaps only a very small number in our society, that I wish to see this issue explored. I do not think anyone disagrees with the view that, in an ideal society, a family should be composed of mother, father and children. I want to talk about a young couple who have those natural aspirations of becoming parents. Philippa and Peter Hudson are in the chamber today. They are a vibrant, happy and devoted couple, married for six years and have just moved into a new home in Dungog, New South Wales. Philippa is an outstanding person. She was school captain at Dungog High School and an involved sports person in horse sports, water sports and a representative netball player. She trained as a teacher and she loves her work. She continues to work as a tutor. But three weeks before she and Peter were to be married, a tragic accident meant that she will spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair, paralysed from the chest down. But being the brave and devoted couple they are, Peter and Philippa married 12 months later. Peter or Tiger—I had better call him Tiger; otherwise the people back in Dungog will not know who I am talking about—is Philippa's carer, her soul mate and her life partner. All they want is what any young couple their age wants—they want to have their own family, and those children would come into a loving, secure home environment. Philippa and Tiger can provide the genetic material for their own child, but Philippa cannot bear that child. So they began investigating the possibility of surrogacy. No doubt they could find a willing and generous partner for their family planning, but they do not want to enter a potential legal minefield of extended court procedures and the possibility of losing that child that they consider theirs. Are members of this House aware that at common law the mother of a child is the woman who bears the child and her husband the legal father? In all Australian jurisdictions there is legislation that states that, where donor gametes—that is ova and sperm—are used to create a pregnancy, the donors are not the legal parents. In New South Wales where Peter and Philippa live, the Status of Children Act 1986 states that there is an irrefutable presumption that the husband of the birth mother and not the semen donor is the father of the child, provided the husband consents to his wife being artificially inseminated. Of course, Peter and Philippa could go to other countries, enter a legal agreement with a surrogate mother and return to Australia with their child. The child's birth certificate would show them as the parents of the child and Australia would accept it. But this is expensive and would take them away from their home, where they would be getting ready for a new baby, from their loved ones and from their family. Those of us who have children know all the procedures that we go through at that stage of our lives. As Philippa said to me, `I would want to be in close contact with the surrogate mother as the foetus developed, experiencing the growth, the changes and the birth, because that is part of parenthood.'I know this is not an easy issue for parliament to debate. All too often we avoid the controversial and complex issues. And this is complex. The May 2000 update of obstetrics and gynaecology summarises the laws of each state with respect to surrogacy, and let me quote from it:Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have actively legislated to ban surrogacy contracts.In Victoria, the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 contains a broad definition of `surrogacy arrangement' but the act makes surrogacy arrangements `void and unenforceable'. In Queensland, the Surrogate Parenthood Act of 1988 makes it `an offence for a person to publish an advertisement or a document' and further down, it says: All surrogacy arrangements made in Queensland are void and cannot be enforced by a court.Go to South Australia and we have a similar pattern; go to Tasmania and there is a similar pattern. Even in the Australian Capital Territory, where I understand there is a clinic that will support surrogacy, surrogacy agreements are void, pursuant to provisions in the Substitute Parent Agreements Act 1994.This is the legal minefield that I spoke of. This is the problem that confronts any young couple such as Peter and Philippa, who want to be parents, who had always the natural expectation to be parents, who are biologically capable of being parents but who, through a sad twist of fate, cannot be parents while the legal framework in place in Australia continues to exist. I mentioned that Peter and Philippa could go overseas. Are members aware that Californian clinics advertise their services in Australia and that for a fee of between $50,000 and $100,000 Australian couples can legally have their child in the United States?We have the usual disagreements between states and territories and the federal law, too. I have already mentioned the common law recognition of parenthood. Are members of this parliament prepared to support the point of view that Peter and Philippa should enter into a surrogacy arrangement that is not enforceable? They could do that in any state in Australia where it would not be enforceable and then, at the end of the 40-week gestation period, they could be dragged into court and lose their child. I cannot think of anything more devastating. Sensibly, they will not enter into any agreement unless the legislation clears the way so that they are confident of the outcome of the pregnancy that they would be involved in with another person. I was talking with an IVF practitioner who advised me that, although the clinic where he operates have the technology to participate in surrogacy, they will not. They will not do it because they are severely afraid that, at the end of a pregnancy, they could be in conflict and could be involved in a very expensive legal procedure, and it is not worth their while. They certainly do not have the insurance to cover themselves for that.All I am asking is that the issue of human surrogacy be fully investigated by a committee of this parliament and that it determine the conditions under which it should be permitted. Australia should have a policy that comes to terms with the ethical and legal questions raised by the technology of the 21st century. Young couples like Philippa and Peter Hudson who are currently denied parenthood want to take advantage of this technology but, more importantly, they want us as the legislators of the country to listen to their needs.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:41:0018857Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I was going to make some comments about other issues today, particularly in relation to the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act and the attitude of the Labor Party in relation to a conscience vote. But, to be duly considerate to my friend and colleague's constituents who are here today, I am not going to pursue that course.There are a couple of issues that I would take up with the honourable member for Paterson in relation to this matter. The first is that, were this parliament to look at this issue—and I will in due course be pleading the case that it is inappropriate to do so—I would think that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee would be the appropriate vehicle for that. Our parliamentary colleagues the member for Menzies and the member for Gellibrand would, as the chair and deputy chair, in my view appropriately deal with such a matter and therefore there would not be any need to take it off to another committee. The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs would in my view be the appropriate committee to take this matter up—if indeed it were appropriate for them to so do.I do not believe it is a matter that this parliament can legitimately take up. I believe that there is no constitutional power for us to deal with these surrogacy matters. That view has been endorsed elsewhere. I quote from Helen Szoke's paper `Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology—the State of Play in Australia' in a book entitled Controversies in Health Law edited by Freckleton and Petersen: Even in the ACT where altruistic surrogacy is enabled, there is no legislative provision to allow the child to become the legal child of the commissioning parents, except through the adoption process. In the case of a surrogacy arrangement that is not organised within a family, the adoption process becomes more difficult and complicated. The Commonwealth government lacks clear constitutional power to legislate on the issue of surrogacy.Indeed, that was acknowledged some time ago, I believe, by the fact that the states and the state health ministers and social welfare ministers met in 1991 in relation to this matter and acted on the advice of the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council's National Reproductive Technology Working Group, which was established in 1990 and is, I understand, still going. There was a meeting in Adelaide in 1991 where the state ministers agreed to set up some uniform state laws in relation to surrogacy. Basically, the outcome of that meeting with the state ministers was that surrogacy arrangements should be made illegal and void and that commercial surrogacy and advertising in connection with surrogacy should be prohibited, along with professional and technical services in relation to surrogacy. So the underlying legislation in the states that have introduced legislation to adopt what was a desire for uniform laws has been very clearly to oppose the question of legitimising surrogacy.The other difficulty that the member for Paterson has in relation to this whole question is the Family Court's view. In the case of Re Evelyn, the court very clearly said that it was going to be bound by the principle that underlines the Family Law Act—that is, that the welfare of the children is of paramount concern. So, indeed, the Family Court has looked at some of the legislative requirements in some of the states and what they have meant. But ultimately it has decided that, as far as the Family Court is concerned—and this was endorsed by the full court, which endorsed the trial judge's approach—the paramount consideration remains the best interests of the child. So, indeed, that court overrode some of those matters that were contained in some of those pieces of state legislation.The difficulty I think is that you have state legislation that is not uniform. Indeed, the honourable member's state is one of those that have not implemented uniform legislation. I would encourage and urge New South Wales to do so in line with that 1991 agreement. I would accept the principle that there are difficulties surrounding the fact that there is not uniform state legislation. Indeed, I would have thought that the reproductive technology working group should be meeting to investigate the matter further and either decide that there should be uniform legislation amongst all the states and territories in line with the decision in 1991 or, if they want to review it, to do so. But the difficulty that we have is that, because these are health matters, I do not think the Commonwealth has any constitutional power to become involved with them. I think that was acknowledged back in 1991 where it was the state and territory ministers who adopted the attitude that they would need to implement some uniform legislation. So in that respect, I think the member for Paterson's case fails, unfairly or otherwise, because of the lack of that power and it needs to be taken up in another domain.Western Australia, New South Wales and the Northern Territory are the states and territories that have not implemented legislation. I acknowledge that those states that have implemented legislation seek to outlaw the commercial aspects of surrogacy. There is the basic principle that underpins those states with their legislation, but there are some differences as to whether immediate parties to a commercial surrogacy arrangement should be penalised and there are also differences in relation to the treatment of non-commercial or what are called `altruistic arrangements'. My understanding is—and I will take the lead from the honourable member for Paterson with his head movements as to whether or not I am right—that, indeed, altruistic surrogacy is specifically allowed under the ACT legislation— UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—It is not enforceable.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—I have the appropriate nod—but in the other jurisdictions it is not. Obviously these are very difficult issues. My wife Kate and I—and I am sure she would not mind me saying this—were one of those fortunate couples who had no difficulty in starting a family. We were very fortunate in having that occur on three occasions. But I absolutely and emphatically accept that the constituents that the member for Paterson represents and who are here today, and indeed friends of ours, have not had the ease that Kate and I had.But the question of surrogacy—and I think the member for Paterson said it himself—is a potential legal minefield. In some respects, even if you had the uniformity of laws that the state and territory ministers wanted to implement in 1991, you still have the overriding view of the Family Court, where most of these matters will ultimately end up, that, irrespective of the legal arrangements that have been put in place, the Family Court has an overarching view that the child or children are the paramount concern of the court, which will indeed determine what happens in relation to the question of custody. I can imagine a situation where you might have the tightest surrogacy laws in the world but ultimately, as was the case with the Re Evelyn case in the Family Court both with the trial judge at the first hearing and then with the full bench at the second, the court will determine what is in the best interests of the children.So I do not support this motion. I do very much accept the issues raised on a personal basis by the member for Paterson on behalf of his constituents. But I think this is a matter that needs to go back to the reproductive technology working group for some consideration. That group can either endorse the views of the state and territory ministers in relation to matters that are fundamentally their responsibility—and not a Commonwealth responsibility for constitutional reasons—and implement uniform legislation or, if that working group wants to review the 1991 decision and come back to the state and territory ministers, that would be an appropriate course as well.15:51:0018859Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I just want to take the opportunity to speak on this motion because I think it is important that we do not close our eyes to these complex issues. Unfortunately, the previous speaker seems to want to rely on a small segment of our community to make decisions for all of us. In these very complex areas, I think it is important that the whole community have a say, that we have a full debate and that everyone have a chance to make a contribution. It is all very well to refer it back to working groups. Most of the deliberations of those groups are not made public and are not known by the wider community. I think it is also important to put it in the context of the fact that, when the question has been broadly asked, over 50 per cent of the community have indicated that they are not opposed to surrogacy. They clearly want to see certain constraints placed on it, but they are not opposed to the sorts of aspirations that Peter and Phillippa have. Nonetheless, I recognise that we would need to have a much more wide-ranging debate. I also acknowledge that these are matters that in the past have been the province of state governments. I was the Premier of Western Australia in 1991 when the proposal that there be uniform legislation was put forward. But if we are capable of getting that uniform legislation in areas, for instance, like the quality of products that are sold in the community and regulations surrounding trade, then surely we are capable of getting it about these very important issues. In our society, infertility is seen as a problem which merits treatment and assistance; it is not something that governments turn their back on. For some, surrogate motherhood is the only hope they have of raising a child that is genetically related to at least one of the potential parents—and in the case we have heard about, probably both of them.As I am sure members would be aware, surrogacy occurs when a woman agrees to become pregnant and bear a child for another person or persons to whom custody will be transferred after birth. Demand often comes from women and their partners when the woman is physically incapable of pregnancy for a number of reasons. As we have heard in the present case, it could be as a result of an accident, or it could be because of a hysterectomy, a history of spontaneous abortions or a dangerous medical condition, such as kidney disease. Surrogacy is rare. We are not talking here about wholesale involvement of the community, but just a very few instances. There is, however, likely to be some small increase in demand for two reasons: one, rising infertility in our community, and that is another problem altogether; and, two, a decline in the number of children who are available for adoption. Many families I am sure would be happy to take on other children but do not have the opportunity to do so. It has been estimated in one study that, between 1977 and 1987, about 40 surrogate births occurred. We simply do not know how many arrangements are being entered into at the moment.It might seem unnecessary to have another inquiry, but I think it is time for a full, open debate on this. There have been 10 committees of inquiry in Australia into surrogacy and related reproductive technologies. All but one, I think it is fair to say, expressed grave reservations about the practice or recommended that it be prohibited or curtailed. The legislation that does exist, but not in all jurisdictions, contains certain similar features. For instance, all of them prevent advertising, something I am sure we would all recommend. They by and large render surrogate arrangements unenforceable; in other words, the surrogate mother cannot be required to relinquish. They apply when a woman is already pregnant and an agreement is entered into. Most importantly, they distinguish between altruistic and commercial surrogacy, and I am sure that is the one element we would all want to see retained, no matter the outcome of any deliberations. But not all states have the legislation, the definitions are confusing—for instance, what is commercial surrogacy?—and the degree of prohibition varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I think there is a need for uniformity. All Australians should be treated in the same way.However, like many, I would call for caution, and an inquiry can apply that. We need to recognise the pain of infertility at the beginning, we need to understand the possible psychological consequences for the surrogate mother and for the child as well, and we need to recognise the severe ethical dilemmas that surround these decisions. Some would argue that surrogacy is something that should be prohibited altogether. Others say there are certain circumstances in which it should be allowed. Others worry about the fact that it is commercialised effectively, compartmentalising the mother. We do not know how these arrangements would affect the child. Nonetheless, I think we are a mature enough society to debate these issues openly and to come to a set of conclusions which mean that all Australians are treated equally so that people who might aspire to surrogacy well understand the position they are in, instead of the confusing uncertainty they face at the moment. Peter and Philippa are very brave to have put their case before the Australian people, and I hope the government will listen to them and consider it carefully. (Time expired)15:56:0018860Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—This is a very significant debate we are having here and I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution. My heart goes out to Peter and Philippa, and I pass those remarks on to them through the member for Paterson. As a matter of fact, I look on the member for Paterson in a new light because of his foresight in bringing such an important debate into the chamber. He is right: this debate is fraught with complex legal, ethical, moral and religious complexities. My only concern is that society in general has not kept up with the new pace of technological advance that modern medicine has provided. There is nothing new about surrogacy. It has been around since biblical times. Anyone who is a scholar of the good book, the Bible, would know that. My observation from reading biblical history is that, when such arrangements were entered into, they usually ended in some form of historical disaster as people made challenges for legal rights. I think that is where this issue is so sensitive, as the member for Paterson has quite rightly pointed out. There have been so many inquiries in regard to this matter—not just within Australia but in Great Britain and the United States—that I really wonder what a new inquiry would achieve. The reason the debate is fraught with such complex issues is that we are dealing with some very fundamental human nature issues. The emotional contact between parents and children is a rich bond that is formed. The reason my heart goes out to Peter and Philippa is that, like the member for Ballarat, I am fortunate to be a parent myself. I believe we need a proper, ordered and well-mannered society, and I have the old-fashioned view that a stable family centred on good parenting is the most significant contribution any of us can make to that peaceful society. We could debate whether or not that is happening when we look around our community today. There are some parents, like Philippa and Peter, who are anxious to make sure that they can have an opportunity to participate in that way.There has been a lot of debate about the ethics of surrogacy, particularly the arrangements which introduce a commercial nature. I think given the inherent conservatism of the Australian community, this is the issue that bothers us the most. Sadly, people use the disadvantage of others for their own commercial gain, but that is the nature of the world we are in. There are concerns about the effects such arrangements have on birth mothers themselves. Those long nine months of gestation and the resulting emotional attachments can create a difficulty for her when releasing the child on to the non-fertile mother. As well as that, there is the trauma of labour and the bonds that are created with that first contact. I was fortunate to be at the birth of my second child. It all happened so fast the first time that I was not there for that, but it is a very special moment in a person's emotional position, especially in regard to the bond with children. This is why it is so complex. Notwithstanding the heartfelt desire of Peter and Philippa, I think it is important that the community does not go too fast too quick on this issue. We should hasten slowly and not make the mistakes that I have seen occur in the United States. I read a very interesting article on the matter by Tony James in the Australian Doctor of 30 April last year. He said that the practice of surrogacy remains rare in Australia because of social, legal, and ethical concerns. It is not the technical barriers—Australia leads the world now in in-vitro fertilisation—but the conservative nature of the Australian community that is holding us back. I do not see the need for a referral to a committee on this matter.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.1886104:01:0018861Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I move:That this House: (1) acknowledges the significance of the Paralympic Games as the second largest sporting event in the world in 2000; (2) applauds the example of our elite paralympic athletes in keeping alive the best sporting traditions of honour, excellence and competition; and (3) records its appreciation to the people of the ACT and NSW for their generous support of the Paralympics throughout the 2000 Pollie Pedal bike ride from Parliament House, Canberra, to the Sydney Town Hall.Just over three years ago, one late sitting night I was in my office with the member for Boothby and the present Minister for Employment Services. We were having a discussion about the risk of becoming a caricature of the politician in terms of remoteness from the people and a lifestyle lived in white cars, frequent flyer lounges in airports and suits, and of protocol and formality. We were talking about how we could ensure that we stayed in touch with the people and how we could strip away some of the accoutrements of office, and each year have a kind of ritual that would keep us connected.Inspired by the example of Larry Anthony, we settled on what has become known as the Pollie Pedal. Each year we would take a week out of our schedules, get on bicycles and ride between 600 and 800 kilometres, and stay in caravan parks just as ordinary mortal Australians among those who elected us. Each year we would select a cause to raise money for along the way. This year the greatest cause that we could think of was the Paralympics. In the end, we raised enough money to send the Australian Paralympic cycling team to the games, and that is a source of enormous satisfaction to me. I wanted to mention a little bit about the cause and our experience on the Pollie Pedal, riding bikes from the steps of Parliament House to the steps of the Town Hall in Sydney, passing through Goulburn, Wollongong, Campbelltown, Camden, Penrith, back through my electorate of Parramatta, down to Mona Vale, Dee Why and back across the bridge to the city. The Paralympic Games will open on 18 October and go through to 29 October. The 18 sports share 14 in common with the Olympics and four are specific to the Paralympics—boccia, goalball for the vision impaired, powerlifting and the infamous wheelchair rugby. Australia will have the largest team ever in its history, with over 400 athletes out of the total of 4,000 from 123 countries.I think some people do not fully appreciate the magnitude of this event. It will be the second largest sporting event in the world this year. Australia will be fielding a very impressive team—the biggest team ever. It was placed second in Atlanta out of 103 countries. Australia is one of the few countries that has been represented in every Paralympic Games since 1960. The ticket sales so far are going fantastically well. We have sold over 440,000 tickets, which is over 70 per cent of the target. It is fantastic to see the way Australians are getting behind the Paralympic Games. We have already sold 40,000 tickets to the opening ceremony, a key event on 18 October. We are really encouraging people to get behind it.As an example of the spirit of these athletes, it was fantastic for Pollie Pedal to be launched here on the steps of Parliament House this year in a bipartisan way. I appreciate the bipartisan support for this motion. I note that Mr Edwards will be joining me. He is one of the founding members of the Parliamentarians for Paralympics, which is supported by members from all parties. It was great to see at the launch Senator Kate Lundy, Madam President from the other place and Senator Helen Coonan, who is the Chair of the Parliamentarians for Paralympics. We were joined by the whole Paralympic contingent from the Australian Institute of Sport. The party, comprising about 60 bikes and wheelchairs, headed off for the 90-kilometre ride to Goulburn in a head wind and with driving rain in some places. I have just been joined by the member for Robertson who, I must say, never faltered from the moment he got on his seat until the moment he arrived, as darkness fell, reflected in the headlights of one of the vehicles travelling with us. He gave a very impressive performance on behalf of the Central Coast cyclists.The whole experience was a tremendous one for us politicians to try to stay in touch; we could not help but be affected by the level of support we received along that route. I mentioned that our first stop was Goulburn. We were accompanied along that whole first leg by Max Hadlow, the Mayor of Goulburn, who is a good, solid Labor man but not a bad bloke all the same. For example, he arranged a fantastic reception for us in Goulburn. The town had raised quite a bit of money for us. We were taken to a performance by the Argyle Players that evening—Pirates of Penzance. Anyone who has done community theatre knows what a struggle it is to raise funds to pay for props and other things. When we turned up completely unexpectedly that night, the Argyle Players presented us with a cheque of $1,000. We were quite touched by that.When we stopped at the little hamlet of Marulan, which members and senators from Sydney will know of from the journey between Canberra and Sydney; it is basically a truck stop—Deputy Mayor Maureen Eddie turned up with a $1,000 donation to support us. As we went along the ride many of the councils were very generous. Mayor Cec Glenholmes of Shell Harbour—and I must say that the Shell Harbour Caravan Park right on the coast is one of the most beautiful caravan parks you could ever stay in—turned up with a cheque for $4,000. Once he had done that poor Wollongong down the road were really under the acid to match it, so they kindly chipped in with another $5,000. I want to talk about the spirit of these Paralympians. It was my pleasure to attend a fundraiser at the Parramatta Leagues Club—under the inspiration of Alan Overton, the President of the club—where the Winter Paralympic athletes were raising funds for this summer team by pushing their wheelchairs from Mount Kosciusko to Sydney. One of the athletes involved was Michael Milton, a downhill skier, an amputee. I want you to imagine a bloke going down a mountain at 100 kilometres an hour on one leg. That is not a bad achievement. The ones I like even more are the blind downhill skiers who team up with a seeing partner. They head down the mountain at 80, 90, 100 kilometres an hour with a bloke in front turning around and shouting, `Turn left, turn right' to a blind skier. That is the spirit of these Paralympic athletes. We were met at Wollongong at a breakfast put on by the council by Damien Burroughs, who is a one-armed discus thrower who competed with our team in Atlanta. He told the story of how he watched all the other kids playing sport and he desperately wanted to participate. He started out in wheelchair basketball and, with particular appreciation to his coach Scott Goodman, who was there at the breakfast, this one-armed athlete found that wheelchair basketball was not really his thing when he was spinning around and around on the same spot. His coach suggested to him that perhaps discus throwing might be more suited to his particular gifts. With this great sense of humour, these elite athletes continued to inspire us wherever we went. I want to acknowledge the support of my parliamentary colleagues—Jo Gash, who met us at Robertson; Jim Lloyd, who is going to speak on the motion; Kerry Bartlett, who rode with us from Penrith to Richmond; Kerry Chikarovski, who joined us for the whitewater rafting in Penrith; Peta Seaton in Moss Vale, who is from the New South Wales parliament, along with Michael Richardson. The Hon. Charlie Lynn MLC has been a stalwart. He has been with us on the ride every year. Jackie Kelly has likewise been one of the core team members and this year her daughter Dominique came too, which was particularly pleasing because there was a fair bit of speculation that she was actually conceived on last year's Pollie Pedal when her husband joined us for one night at Bathurst. I note that the member for Werriwa has just arrived. The member for Werriwa likewise set a cracking pace from Appin to Campbelltown. He left the rest of us in his wake, although he did not join us up the hill from Wollongong. These Paralympians deserve every bit of support we can muster. We ought to get behind them in exactly the same way we are getting behind the other Olympians. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their support of this initiative. 10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?16:11:0018863Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I am happy to second the motion and endorse the comments of the member for Parramatta and fully agree with the sentiments which he has expressed. I did not take part in the bike ride mainly because I could not find a bike where I could reach the pedals, but I can assure members who did that it was very well appreciated by the Paralympians and the Paralympian movement generally. I happen to have the privilege of being the Chairman of the WA Paralympic Committee and I also have the privilege of being on the Paralympic team, not as a competitor but as an administrator. I am very much looking forward to the games when they begin on the 18th. I am very much looking forward to sharing two weeks with people for whom I have an immense respect and admiration as I do for our Paralympians. I wanted to quote a bit from a document put out by SPOC, the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee. It reads:Sydney will peak twice in the year 2000, first for the Olympic Games and then from 18-29 October for the Paralympic Games.As the name implies, the Paralympic Games are parallel to the Olympic Games.The Paralympic Games is the elite competition for the world's top athletes with a disability. The passion, grit and determination of Paralympians will inspire the world as they compete in the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games. I think they will inspire the world, and it is a great opportunity for our home grown Paralympians to achieve the dream of a lifetime—that is, to perform at the elite level in front of a home crowd.As a matter of interest, the Paralympic Games grew out of a small sports meeting held in 1948 by athletes with a disability. These were mostly people who were ex-servicemen, mainly paraplegics. From the first Paralympics back in 1960, which were held in Rome where 400 athletes from 23 countries competed—and it was the first time the Olympic and Paralympic Games were held in the same city—and when only wheelchair athletes competed, we will see in Sydney, as the member for Parramatta has said, 18 sports, representation from 125 countries, 4,000 athletes, 2,000 team officials, 1,300 media people, something like 1,000 technical officials, 2,000 International Paralympic Committee people, VIPs and guests, and supported by 10,000 volunteers. I have a view that what we are going to see with the Olympics is the curtain-raiser. I think the main event will start on 18 October—certainly it is the event that will do most in this country to encompass and embrace the true spirit of sport, the true spirit of people who have overcome incredible adversity to be there. I would encourage as many members of parliament—and, indeed, as many members of the public—who possibly can to get to these games because the level of competition, the level of professionalism and the level of courage and determination is as much alive in our Paralympians as it is in any able-bodied sportsperson. But, to cap it off, it is the spirit of sport that is most alive in these people and it is something that you have to see to believe.I must say, too, that the Paralympics has done an immense amount to bring together members of parliament. I have been incredibly impressed by the bipartisan support from members of parliament—particularly in the form of Parliamentarians for the Paralympics—for Paralympians and the Paralympics. Senator Helen Coonan has done a wonderful job in chairing Pollies for the Paralympics. I must also compliment Carolyn from Senator Coonan's office on the great work that she, too, has done in pulling people together. I attended a dinner in Perth a few weeks ago to raise money for the Paralympics. We raised about $30,000. That spirit of bipartisanship was very much alive in WA because, when I approached Dr Mal Washer, the member for Moore, to see whether he would co-host a table with me, he did. We had a great night. I think that that bipartisan support is the sort of support that the spirit of our Paralympics demands.I also briefly want to compliment a private company in Western Australia, an organisation called RIC Publications. I was invited by Chris Carter, one of its principals, to come along to the launch of a Paralympic resource book which was put together by RIC Publications and the Perth Mint. I think they are the only two organisations outside New South Wales to be licensed to utilise the brand name `Paralympics'. As a matter of interest, I have made this book by RIC Publications available to all the primary schools in my electorate. In the book they use a product called a `black line master', which teachers use in schools to enable them to make multiple copies of the activities that they require for different parts of their teaching program. The large majority of the intellectual property was created by Western Australian teachers who form the author base, and the content is based on the sound practices evident in Western Australian schools. The product's acceptance in many countries around the world recognises, in my view, the high standards of teaching and publishing that exist in Western Australia. RIC have every right to be very proud of the writing talent that they have brought together. This resource book, which is available across Australia, will enable classes and teachers to photocopy pages and enable schools to follow with a great degree of interest exactly what is happening in the Paralympics. It will enable them to follow the various sports and the various champion athletes as they go about their involvement in the Paralympics.The Paralympics has come a long way since the days of Sir Ludwig Guttmann. By the time of the 2000 Paralympics, the Paralympic Games will have shared the same city with the Olympic Games six times: Rome in 1960, Tokyo in 1964, Seoul in 1988, Barcelona in 1992 and Atlanta in 1996. The Sydney 2000 Paralympics continues, in my view, the path of the coming together of the Paralympics and the Olympics. I look forward to the time when some of our Paralympians will be able to go into the Olympic arena and compete in front of an Olympic crowd with the same level of Olympic interest and profile as experienced by our able-bodied athletes. What is the difference between someone who is an elite athlete competing against other world leading athletes in a wheelchair and someone riding a pushbike around a velodrome? Each is a professional athlete, each has sacrificed and put in an incredible amount to reach that elite level, and the level of competition and the spectacle differs very little. The other thing is that when you go to the other level of the Paralympics and watch the people who play bocce, you will see an incredible level of competition in that sport as well. It does not matter which one of the 18 sports it is, spectators will be treated to an incredible spectacle and an incredible level of sports determination, endurance and courage. As I have said before, the true spirit of sport will best be recognised and encapsulated at our Paralympic Games. I once again take the opportunity to support this motion. 16:21:0018865Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I am very pleased to rise today in support of the motion moved by my colleague the member for Parramatta in supporting the Paralympics and the Paralympians. There is no doubt that the Sydney 2000 Paralympics will be a magnificent event. I believe there is no doubt that the Paralympics will be supported to an unprecedented level by Australians. In my area, the Central Coast of New South Wales, only one hour's drive north of the Olympic site, there is of course tremendous excitement and interest in the Olympic Games, but there is also tremendous excitement and interest in the Paralympic Games. Not only is there interest; there is real activity amongst people organising to come and support the Paralympians.The Paralympians are world-class athletes, and they need a world-class crowd to support them. I am sure that they will get that in Sydney. This motion by Mr Cameron acknowledges the significance of the Paralympic Games as the second largest sporting event in the world in 2000. As we have heard before, there will be some 125 countries participating, with 18 sports.I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Paralympians from my electorate who have made the teams. There is Andrew Newell from Terrigal in the athletics, and Kirra O'Cass from Bensville in the swimming team. In the standing volleyball there is Joe Egan from Green Point and Adam Lusted from Copacabana. I would like to add my congratulations to those people in my electorate who were successful in being named as Paralympians this year. I am sure that they will be great ambassadors for Australia and great ambassadors for the Central Coast of New South Wales.I did participate in the Pollie Pedal, which was a great event. I felt very privileged to be able to join my colleagues not in all of the ride but on a number of occasions. My colleague Mr Cameron mentioned that I rode from Canberra to Goulburn. Many of the members here have driven from Canberra to Goulburn. It is quite a considerable way. For somebody who does not ride a great deal it was a fairly daunting challenge for me. We did have a very cold headwind that day, and there were many times on that ride that I felt like giving up. I thought that I should not give up. When I thought about the sacrifices the Paralympians make and the dedication and the professionalism that they show to reach the pinnacle of their sport and their career, I thought I should not let a little cold headwind and a few sore muscles stop me from achieving my goal. I was very pleased that I was able to reach Goulburn on that day, albeit a little bit after many of the other riders. I also managed to ride with the rest of the team from Richmond through to Parramatta on one day and then from Parramatta through to the finishing line in Sydney on the following day.My colleague Mr Cameron mentioned many of the people who participated in that Pollie Pedal, but I would also like to recognise Minister Bronwyn Bishop, who escorted us on the final day in a jeep provided by the Vietnam Veterans Association with Australian flags flying. It was quite a sight to see her supporting us in that way. Also Tim Fischer, the mayor of the Paralympic village, was on hand to welcome us to Sydney that evening. It was great to have both of those people supporting us in that way. I am also very pleased that the Pollie Pedal was able to raise over $70,000 with the tremendous generous sponsorship by people along the way and by other corporate supporters. It raised not only a lot of money but also awareness for the Paralympics and the Paralympians, and I think that was really what we wanted to do. I am also very pleased that the Commonwealth government has provided over $500,000 to waive the accommodation fees that the Paralympians were facing. That was a great announcement that was made recently. The Commonwealth was not responsible, but I am pleased that it was able to make sure that the Paralympians were not disadvantaged by that fee. It is very important that as many people as possible come along to what the member for Cowan said will be the climax of the Olympics in Sydney. I am sure that there will be a great crowd there at the Sydney Paralympics. One other thing I might mention to the member for Cowan is that I had a go on a hand cycle which was provided on the Pollie Pedal, and that was quite an achievement as well. (Time expired)16:26:0018866Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I am pleased to speak on this private member's motion moved by the member for Parramatta as an indication of the strong bipartisan support of this parliament for the Paralympic Games. There are over 65 federal MPs and senators who have indicated their support for these games, and each member has been assigned a particular sport. I have been allocated the equestrian events. It is our job to support our athletes and promote an increased awareness of our allocated sport. The equestrian events for the Paralympic Games were first held at Atlanta in 1996, so it is a relatively new Paralympic sport, and as such I am proud to be associated with it.There are quite a few differences between the Olympic and Paralympic equestrian events. Athletes at the Paralympic Games will be competing only in the dressage events, which will be held between 25 and 28 October. The Paralympic athletes will not be riding their own horses, like their able-bodied counterparts. Instead, hundreds of dressage horses from around Australia have been loaned to the Paralympic Games, and there will be a draw on 17 October to match athletes with the horses. This creates a level playing field, as no athlete will be too familiar with a particular horse, having only six days to train on their competition mount.There are four different grades of competitors in the equestrian events, and athletes are classified according to their disability from grade 1 to grade 4. There are six Australian team members: Sue Ellen Lovett, Julie Higgins, Sue Haydon, Marita Hird, Anne Skinner and Rosalie Fahey. The team coach is Carolyn Lieutenant, and the chef d'equipe is Judy Cubitt. All riders will compete as individuals and four will be chosen to compete in the team event. The winner of the team event will be determined by the top three scores of the four nominated competitors.Australia produced an outstanding effort at last year's world championships in Denmark, where they took the bronze medal, so the prospects and expectations for Sydney are quite high. All days of the Paralympic Games will feature a wide range of sporting events, and with the $15 day pass tickets the public can watch a great cross-section of events: from athletics to swimming, archery to judo and cycling to volleyball. There will also be wheelchair basketball, where the Australian Rollers are the defending men's champions. And in the women's event the Australian Gliders are the only team to have beaten the world champion, Canada, since 1991. So, again, our prospects are quite good in both of these events.There will even be wheelchair rugby. With the Bledisloe Cup having just been contested between Australia and New Zealand there is no doubt that the Australian wheelchair team will be endeavouring to live up to the exploits of John Eales's Wallabies, while the New Zealand team will be wanting to equal and indeed improve on the gallant showing of Todd Blackadder's All Blacks. Currently Australia must be considered medal prospects after recently beating the New Zealand Wheel-blacks 3-2 in a five-test series. All in all we can look forward to an aggressive attitude by all Australian athletes, and I will be particularly watching the performances of athletes from the electorate of Greenway. Four Greenway residents have been selected for the Paralympic Games: basketballer Nicholas Moroney of Lalor Park; men's goalballer Troy King of Seven Hills—our men's goalball team won bronze at the last world championships, so they are well placed for a medal; Troy's wife, Kerrie-Anne, who is captain of the women's goalball team—the team is ranked fifth in the world, again with high expectations; and swimmer Alicia Aberley of Riverstone. Alicia competes in the 200 metres, 100 metres and 50 metres freestyle for athletes with intellectual disabilities, but the 50 metres breast stroke is the event that she hopes to excel in. Alicia, in an interview in one of our local papers, the Blacktown Advocate, advised that she was only two seconds away from the world record in this event. I wish all Australian athletes the very best in the upcoming Paralympic Games, particularly the athletes from the electorate of Greenway.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Grievance Debate18867Question proposed:That grievances be noted.1886716:31:0018867Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise today to speak about the circumstances of one of my constituents, Mr Joze Kosorok, who received lifesaving heart surgery at Liverpool Hospital earlier this year. It was a rewarding pleasure to assist Mr Kosorok in his quest to receive the adequate and quality care that he deserves through the public hospital system. However, his story is not without its major obstacles. Mr Kosorok's story is just one of the many stories of frustration and anguish that many people are now experiencing when dealing with the current public health system, which this government has allowed to fall into disarray.Mr Kosorok of 15 Shannon Avenue, Merrylands, came to Australia in 1951. He is a skilled migrant, who worked full time until he was 65 as a shopfitter and carpenter. During his working life he paid health insurance. This was until the Whitlam Labor government introduced Medibank, which later became Medicare under the Hawke government. Mr Kosorok believed a levy out of his wages would provide quality and universal health care, as Medicare was designed to provide and did provide for many years because of proper management and nurturing by the Hawke-Keating Labor governments. However, Medicare and the whole idea of a quality public health care system in Australia had one main enemy: the Liberal Party of Australia. Mr Kosorok's story proves that after four years of a coalition government led by Prime Minister Howard—a man who has made it his ambition to destroy Medicare—public health care in Australia has now turned into a farce. Now the Prime Minister's life ambition of destroying Medicare is almost complete.Mr Kosorok wrote to me on 8 June 2000 informing me that he was suffering from coronary heart disease and that he would have to undergo surgery. He had undergone heart surgery previously in 1988 and since then had been on medication for his heart. He expected the treatment to be as smooth and hassle free as the last time he went to hospital for surgery in 1988 at Westmead, when Australia at that stage had a quality public health system and, needless to say, a Labor government.His story reads as follows—and I relate it with his permission. On 27 February 2000 he was admitted to Fairfield Hospital with severe chest pain and was told that he needed surgery. He was given an admission date to Liverpool Hospital of 15 May 2000. While he was aware of the risks of the operation not succeeding, he had confidence in the public health system. This confidence came from past experiences that he had with that health system. Mr Kosorok was told in pre-admission clinic on 11 May 2000 that his heart operation was postponed because there were no beds in intensive care available until 7 June 2000. This really means that there were no beds available to those people who rely on public health. Although surprised and very unhappy with this decision, Mr Kosorok accepted the hospital's decision without too much fuss and was given medication. He soldiered on but to no avail. Mr Kosorok, feeling dizzier by the day and short of breath and weak, collapsed in church due to heart problems and was immediately admitted to Emergency in Liverpool Hospital on 28 May. He was now in serious need of medical assistance. Here was a pensioner with a history of heart problems who had recently been told that he would need urgent surgery, was on medication, had had his initial surgery postponed and had now collapsed. Surely this man has a right to at least the basics of a reliable public health system.But this was only the beginning of his problems. Still in hospital, on 31 May 2000 he was told to go to pre-admission clinic for tests and instructions in preparation for his open-heart surgery. Now thinking that he was on the road to his health being somewhat restored, Mr Kosorok went to pre-admission only to be told that he was not expected and that the operation would not be held until later in the year. At this news Mr Kosorok was understandably distressed and agitated at not receiving the proper treatment that he thought he was entitled to, while it was obvious that those who could afford private health insurance could easily receive the same operation without any complications. Mr Kosorok was discharged from hospital later that day, even though the hospital knew he had collapsed the last time that he had to wait for surgery. He was now told he was due for his surgery on 7 June 2000.D-day, 7 June, arrived and Mr Kosorok was driven to Liverpool Hospital by his family and admitted. Finally he thought his operation would be completed and his pain would soon ease. After being admitted to the hospital, he was showered and shaven. He was in the waiting room when a nurse appeared with his file and said, excitedly, `Mr Kosorok, you are going home!' Mr Kosorok, still not having received surgery, could not share her excitement. `There are no beds in intensive care because three people have been shot this morning,' she said. This came as a very bitter disappointment to Mr Kosorok, who needed a bed in intensive care for his operation. Once again he was discharged, given medication and told that he needed surgery at a later date.Feeling very dejected and depressed at this stage and in fear of another collapse and indeed his life, Mr Kosorok then contacted me on 8 June seeking my help. I immediately got in contact with Ian Southwell, CEO of the South Western Sydney Area Health Service at Liverpool, for an explanation. Mr Kosorok received a phone call then from Dr French to come to Liverpool Hospital for admission on 14 June. Mr Kosorok was eventually operated on on 14 June and has now fully recovered, I am pleased to say. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Dr French, who performed the operation, for his professionalism and understanding of Mr Kosorok's situation. This is just one person's story of dealing with the public health system under the Howard government. It reads like a hard luck story of the American health system, but it is an everyday reality for many people, especially low income earners and pensioners. This government has smashed our public health care system into relative oblivion. Now it resembles only a skeleton of its former self.Upon coming to office the Howard government cut over $800 million from the public hospital system, then increased patient charges under the PBS by $500 million and abolished the Commonwealth Dental Scheme—a scheme which provided quality and affordable dental care for pensioners and low income earners. The Howard government has completely removed access to dental care and has forced many pensioners and lower income earners to stretch their incomes to the absolute maximum in order to take out private health insurance. I believe that every Australian should have a basic right to a high quality, universal, well-managed and well-administered public health system which does not discriminate between those who are wealthy and those who are poor. We in the Labor Party are not against private health insurance, unlike the government members who are completely and ideologically opposed to any notion of public health. We believe in a fair balance between the two. People should not be excluded or given the run around in our public hospitals because they have not taken out health insurance. Private health insurance should always be an optional extra for those who can afford it—that is the Australian way of health care. Under the Howard government private health insurance is becoming a necessity while the public health system is deliberately being starved of funds. Many people are having experiences similar to that of Mr Kosorok. I say that there is an alternative and that there is an easier and fairer way. Medicare is being deliberately starved of funds by this government. It is plain for all to see that this coalition government has run away from its responsibilities to provide a quality and accessible health care system. The Labor Party is proud of establishing a public health care system. A Labor government will unashamedly make it a priority to rebuild and strengthen the Medicare system. I condemn this government for neglecting its responsibility to provide and maintain a quality public health system. Again, I commend and congratulate the people with whom I got in contact. They very sympathetically understood and appreciated the problems my constituent was having. More importantly, he has now recovered from his operation and has the peace of mind of knowing that he has a few years left free of pain and is able to enjoy life, get around and walk freely without collapsing and shortness of breath. Circumstances like the one I have recounted should not occur in Australia; we should have the facilities—our wonderful medical staff certainly have the expertise—to attend to everyone that comes through the clinics for that type of service. People should not be told: `We haven't got intensive care beds. You need an intensive care bed for a day or two; therefore we cannot put this operation on.' To have a man of this age being sent home a number of times I believe is a disgrace. More importantly, it is a disgrace that other people around Australia will suffer because of the lack of facilities to administer a proper health care system—brought about by the lack of funding by the Commonwealth to the states. Surely, the Commonwealth government understands and appreciates the concerns being expressed by so many people in so many different cases. It should take more positive action and ensure that the money goes to the states so that a proper health system can be administered fairly and made available—not to those who have the money to purchase it but to those who have the need for care. Again, I condemn the government for its actions of slashing and burning and taking money from what should be every Australian's right—a good health care system in this nation.1886916:41:0018869Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I rise to speak about a very positive and helpful program that the government has instigated in my electorate of Groom. The Peacebuilders program, which was funded by a $50,000 grant through the Living in Harmony program, has been extraordinarily successful in dealing with the difficult situations found in many of our state schools at the moment to do with discipline and students being put down by their colleagues. To quote briefly from the Peacebuilders program, `Peacebuilders is a program designed to help create an environment that reduces violence and establishes a more peaceful way of living in schools.' That has certainly been the case in Rockville. The program also helps to build organisations and communities within the school and is a way of changing interactions and interrelationships to create a more harmonious environment in which the students can grow and work. I am talking about students from grade 1 through to grade 7. It is a way of helping them to reduce and prevent social problems such as crime and violence. It is a program based upon increasing cooperation, achievement and individual successes, allowing individuals to have aims and engendering greater levels of peaceful behaviour. The Peacebuilders program is community based and relies on community support to be successful. It has certainly achieved that in this instance at Rockville. Peacebuilders not only reduces levels of crime, delinquency, substance abuse, teenage pregnancies and unemployment; it can also help increase levels of learning, school attendance, engagement in positive social activities, positive social attitude and employment and can increase resilience in individuals—and confidence is one of the great gifts we can give our children. I had the pleasure of attending Harristown High School and talking to year 12 students last week. All too often we see young people having their confidence destroyed by a whole range of social and domestic pressures. Programs such as Peacebuilders are aimed at rebuilding that confidence, underwriting that confidence, cementing that confidence in the young person's mind and ensuring that we get a generation that will come through this very challenging time and achieve to the best of their ability. Resilience is the ability to bounce back after setbacks or being stressed and to recover strength, humour and spirit in the face of adversity. Again, I merely highlight the very significant need for that in our youth. Resilience also helps them to lead a fulfilling life and contribute to society in spite of adverse experiences. The more resilient children are, the more they will excel in life. I think that is very much a given.Peacebuilders provides the building blocks for the development of self-sufficiency. It is an effective violence reduction program enhancing everyday parenting competence prior to the child's adolescence. Peacebuilders is enhancing the rate of praise and reward for positive daily behaviour. The effect that the program is having on the school is quite dramatic, and I will go into detail in a moment about some of the very positive results we have seen across a whole range of areas. The program is also reducing threats in schools and in after-school settings. Children felt that they were in danger from fellow pupils as a result of what had previously been going on.Peacebuilders is teaching children how to reduce insults, to increase the use of praise—something we can never see too much of—to accept feedback, to engage others in cooperative tasks and play, and to monitor self-behaviour. Increasing the daily frequency and availability of positive social skills and parenting models in mass media and school community settings is also a goal of Peacebuilders. It also disseminates practical, hands-on tools to reduce disruptive and aggressive behaviour at home, in schools and in the workplace. We can see that this program, which I am very impressed with, stretches right across the whole gamut of young people's lives—that is, in both the school environment and the home environment. We also hope that children will take it into the workplace environment when they work part-time or when they leave school and actually enter the work force.I will summarise the results before I go into the specifics. As a result of the Peacebuilders program being introduced, we have seen levels of school detentions, suspensions and truancy go down. We have seen the levels of student satisfaction go up. Levels of parental participation have been increased in schools, and that is just as important. Levels of parental satisfaction have also increased. Levels of school enrolment in schools that have had difficulties in the past and are now participating in Peacebuilders have increased, and levels of teacher transfer have decreased. All these are positives. Also, there is the social issue of police visiting the school. That occurrence has dropped significantly.The overall outcomes of the Rockville program are nothing less than spectacular. I have to congratulate the Principal of Rockville State School, Helen Parker; Councillor Bruce Hinchliffe, the Chairperson of the Crime Prevention Partnership; and Geoff Holmes, the Coordinator of the Crime Prevention Partnership for their work and encouragement. I congratulate them for coming to me, for asking for some support to get the money and for supporting me in my endeavours with the office of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to get the $50,000, which has been so well used by this group. Danny Tattam, who is the school community liaison officer and who has been employed as a result of this funding, also deserves special commendation. Jenny Clarke from Education Queensland and Gary Wells from the Queensland police have certainly put organisational support behind what has been going on at Rockville. Let me deal with some specifics in the time that I have left. In Rockville, the Peacebuilders program was introduced in late 1999 and early 2000. It was introduced for staff and students in the latter part of 1999—that is basically your reference date. Suspensions in 1998 in Rockville were running at 31 students. We are able to see that that number has decreased as a result of the introduction of this program in 1999. So far in 2000, we have seen a dramatic decrease in suspensions, with a predicted outcome of fewer than two-thirds of the suspensions that we saw in 1998. We have also seen a similar dramatic drop in the number of children involved who required assistance. Interestingly, when the parent opinion survey was taken into account, in all areas we saw a dramatic improvement in parent opinion, particularly in areas like the safety of the environment that the children are now learning in, the learning outcomes, effective teaching and the quality of the curriculum. All showed a dramatic increase under the program. Interestingly, we have also seen a dramatic drop in the number of children involved in student misbehaviour which has required time-out in the time-out room. In the last 12 weeks of 1999, that number was 72. In the first 12 weeks of 2000, as the program really started to take hold, we saw that number reduced to 51.We are seeing the number of students requiring support in learning decrease dramatically—from 50 per cent of the students in that school in 1998 to 30 per cent in 1999. It now looks as though it will be something like 20 per cent in the year 2000. This is an extraordinary program, and it has had an extraordinarily positive effect on Rockville State School and the community that surrounds it. I applaud the people of Rockville for getting involved in it.1887116:50:0018871Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—I am very pleased that the previous member had a positive story to tell to his constituents.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—There is nothing wrong with that.008K0Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE—Not in my part of the world, I can tell you. I would like to talk specifically about the vicious, contemptible, gutless manner in which this government has treated the electors in my region. The government that professes to be concerned about battlers and those on middle and lower incomes, particularly in my region, has made a decision—and I will bring it to light—that has effectively treated the 1.2 million people who live in the region with contempt. The government has been involved in no consultation whatsoever about a decision that impacts quite severely and profoundly on their lives. But what can we expect from this government? This is a government—make no mistake about it—that in this region shows its absolute contempt with its vicious, contemptible decisions time after time. You might want to reflect upon that because it is not only people in my electorate, which is what is categorised as a safe Labor seat, who will be affected but also people in similar areas accessing the service that I will be talking about shortly who will be affected. In places like La Trobe, Deakin and Dunkley—places where people will actually need to access this service—people will remember this when they come to vote at the next general election.I would like to start with a reading which was provided to me, thankfully, by the Parliamentary Library, which talked about the new Dandenong Registry of the Family Court of Australia. This is from an article published in 1984 by the Law Institute of Australia. It reads as follows:The new Dandenong registry of the Family Court of Australia is expected to remove pressure from the Melbourne Registry, which has become the biggest and busiest in Australia. It will serve the eastern part of the State from Mornington Peninsula to Gippsland as well as one and a half million people in the eastern part of the metropolis. The Federal Attorney General, Senator Gareth Evans, opened the premises on 20 September. There are five courtrooms, including a Registrar's Court, and accommodation for four judges and ten counsellors. Large waiting areas, wide corridors and tasteful decor are designed to assist in providing a calmer, less stressful atmosphere in a jurisdiction where emotions often run high. Let us cut to 16 years later to an announcement in the Herald Sun:The Family Court at Dandenong, one of Victoria's busiest courts, will close this month. Justice John Wilczek made the surprise revelation during a busy hearing yesterday morning before about 30 stunned lawyers.And why wouldn't they be stunned?And when the court is reopened after renovations in December, its size and role in family court hearings will be reduced.My goodness! So there we have a statement 16 years previous talking about the great need for services in this region, but 16 years later they are reducing it.Three of its five court rooms will be closed and it will only hear small procedural matters and minor interim hearings. “Space requirements have been reviewed and it is expected that we can now be accommodated in some 1200 sq m instead of the 2700 sq m currently occupied,” Justice Wilczek said.Defended hearings such as custody battles, contact and access hearings will be shifted to the Family Court in Melbourne.So, 16 years ago they made a decision based on this growing region—a region where the population is exploding—to provide a decent and much-needed resource, but, 16 years later this callous, contemptible government is taking that very same service away. But we can read on further:Dandenong family lawyers said the decision signalled the closure of the court by stealth.Now why wouldn't that be a surprise? It reminds me of a movie I was watching on the weekend called Bulworth—and you should take notice of this on your side—where one of the people actually decided to tell the truth. At a particular conference he was basically asked, `You came here X number of years ago offering services but did nothing'—a little bit like the Premier when he offered to truly fund Dandenong as a second city before the 1994 and the 1998 elections, but of course did not do anything. This is the same sort of thing. In effect we have people promising lots and not delivering but taking away. We must not forget that this is a region which has been buffeted by the cold winds of technological change. When we look to the government for an industry policy—where there is none—we look to the government for a cooperative and collaborative approach to industrial relations. But we have seen the result of that: we have 100 workers locked away in a canteen at a Heinz factory. We were told specifically that this factory would be continued so it would be world's best practice. This is world's best practice in retrenching 200 people, I can tell you that much now.So these people who have been buffeted by the cold winds of economic change have an expectation that they will get a little bit of decency from the government. This is a much-needed service. We have people under stress in this region and in the 1.2 million catchment area. But what do we get from the government? We get a reduction by stealth, a reduction with no consultation, a reduction which kicks the people of Dandenong and the surrounding regions completely in the teeth. I will read further from this article:Mr Woods said litigants from Gippsland and La Trobe Valley—statistically the poorest in the state—would now face 1½ hours more travel for their day in court.Dandenong family lawyer Chris Woods said: “I can't understand how reducing the size of the court by 55 percent can result in anything more than a token court.“This is the thin end of the wedge for Dandenong Family Court and it would appear that there is no serious commitment to people in south-eastern outer and regional areas.”This is another example of the thin end of the wedge when it comes to the government services that people desperately need in this area. They were busily trying to run down funding to the Dandenong Hospital for X number of years. Our state government is now having to move to make up the shortfall. But now, basically, we have a decision which has been made by stealth, without public consultation. As I said, it is a contemptible kick in the teeth for the people of my electorate. To read on:A spokesman for Family Court Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson said: “The court has taken the opportunity to reconsider the design of the Dandenong registry in keeping with new directions in service delivery.” The directions must be diminishing services. This is the new Howardspeak for increased services. This is what we are coming to expect in our region.He confirmed that defended hearings would be moved to the Melbourne Family Court, but said they comprised “only 8 percent of hearings”.Gosh, eight per cent of hearings. When one has a look—again courtesy of the Parliamentary Library—at that measly eight per cent, we can see that the dissolutions granted between 1976 and 1998 in the Dandenong Court went from 2,594 up to 3,445. Going to another area, to the number of court files opened, they go from 3,687 in 1988 to 4,967 in 1999. When we go to the number of orders sought from the Dandenong Court, we go from 4,850 in 1988 to 11,789. Now doesn't that justify a reduction in service? When we look at the number of resident specific issues orders sought and ancillary applications, in 1998 it was 1,205 and in 1998-99 it was 3,919. The number of contact orders sought in ancillary applications went from 1,078 in 1988 to 2,431 in 1998-99. That really justifies a streamlining of the service, doesn't it? Finally, when we go to the number of injunctions sought in ancillary applications, they went from 228 in 1988 to 797 in 1998-99. I am not precisely sure how that justifies a diminution in services. You cannot callously say this is going to be streamlined when people in this region are struggling—struggling to pay their mortgages—notwithstanding this so-called era of economic prosperity that the soon-to-be retiring leader has basically announced. The fact of the matter is that people are not silly. It does not matter how much sugar you put on this particular decision, the people in this region, the people of my electorate, know exactly what it is. It is a very bitter medicine. My comments are independent comments, of course. Then we go to the press release put out by the City of Greater Dandenong about this particular court closure. They sum it up quite eloquently. They say, `These people have got to be kidding.' Let me read a bit of the press release: “These people have to be kidding!” exclaimed an outraged mayor at Friday's announcement that services at the Family Court at Dandenong—one of the state's busiest courts—will be reduced later this month. “This is going to have a massive impact on the people of Dandenong. We condemn this closure and call on Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams to reverse this ridiculous decision.”The mayor slammed the news, saying it would place a massive burden on the already exploited support services in the region. “Instead of reducing these services, they should be increasing them!” she cried.So there has been no community consultation about this whatsoever. They decided to close part of the state's busiest court and they do not even ask anyone first. This is absolutely ridiculous. It is the very same court and the very same justice that this news article on 6 July talks about: The Family Court is suffering its worst budget crisis in 13 years and has been forced to lay off adjudicators and cut back counselling services, its Chief Justice said yesterday. The court's long-serving head, Justice Alastair Nicholson, said he had never before witnessed such pressure on the Family Court's finances. He said the court was reeling from federal budget cuts and an unexpected $2 million GST slug.There we have an unwitting person who has to execute this government's policy as a consequence of savage funding cuts and the GST, and the people that get kicked in the teeth are the people who can least afford it. I condemn the government for this outrageous decision, and it should not be allowed to stand. (Time expired)1887317:01:0018873Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I have decided to take the opportunity of this grievance debate today to express some of the concerns that I have and which I know are shared by the vast majority of my constituents arising from the recent debate on access to IVF treatment. Firstly, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister for having the courage and the leadership to take a stand on this issue. I am aware that this matter is under the jurisdiction of each state government. It seems to have been lost in the media hype and hysteria that this government is not seeking to overturn state legislation. We are not playing God and we are not imposing our will on the people. What we are doing is altering a federal law which has been found by the legal system to conflict with the states' ability to legislate regarding eligibility for IVF treatment. We believe the state governments ought to have that ability to legislate to reflect community statement and expectations on this issue. In this regard, no matter how the media and the elites want to try to portray things otherwise, community sentiment is very clear. Polls have shown that the vast majority—up to 90 per cent, in fact—of Australians believe that IVF treatment ought not to be made available for single women and lesbians. I want the Prime Minister and this House to know that, over the past two weeks, I have received enormous feedback from my constituents on this issue, and they very strongly support the stance that this government is taking. They support our stand for many reasons, but mostly it is about the sorts of values and ideals we hold as a community, and the primacy of families and children to those values. I do not propose to go into a debate today about what constitutes a family. I know they come in many different shapes and sizes. I know that divorce is a sad fact of modern society and of life. It certainly does not mean the end of a family, though there can be no argument that it does alter the family permanently. What saddens me most in this debate is that proponents of allowing women who are infertile only in a social sense access to IVF appear to have totally written men out of the parenting equation. The term `father' and all that it means to a child has been made redundant, reduced to a contribution of the sperm. I heard one person say that it is a woman's right to have a child without the encumbrance of a man, as if husbands and partners are some sort of hindrance and nuisance when it comes to parenting. There is one letter to the editor on this matter that I think hits the nail on the head, and I would like to read it out to this House. I would also like to point out that it comes from a person who has different views from me on a number of issues, but on this issue he is absolutely right. This letter was sent in by Greg Ellis of the ACT. Mr Ellis says:As a middle class, trendy chardonnay drinker, who supports the republic, reconciliation, public education, Medicare, the right of women to have abortions, and even Phillip Adams, I find the idea that father figures are superfluous to children to be highly offensive. He also added: I also find characterisations of my thinking as reactionary and outdated to be morally and intellectually shallow. Mr Ellis goes on to say:Supporters of the right of singles and gay couples to conceive with this deliberate plan in mind should ask themselves what their opinions on this issue would be if the roles were reversed and a man were to pay for a surrogate daughter to be brought up in a single male or gay couple household with no mother figure. The man, or men, might be perfectly good fathers, but would anybody see the planned exclusion of a mother figure as other than selfish and depraved? The idea that the state should assist by subsidising such an arrangement coming into being adds to the absurdity. I could not agree more with Mr Ellis. I have been dismayed that this issue has been portrayed solely as a women's issue about the rights of women to be mothers. The Prime Minister was spot on when he said that it is a child's right to have a reasonable expectation of receiving the care and love of both a mother and a father. Sadly, the reality is that it does not turn out that way for all children, but undoubtedly it is an ideal worth striving for. Countless studies show that children who have a close relationship with both their mother and father do better on the whole than those who do not. It seems incredible to me that some people—to forward their view on this issue—have been so quick not only to dismiss but also to denigrate the role of fathers. Surely this is a most regressive sort of thinking; surely it is harking back to 1940s and 1950s when father figures were viewed primarily as the breadwinners, when they were often distant figures in their children's day-to-day lives; surely we have spent the last 50 years going forward. In today's world we know the value of shared parenting. It is a fundamental part of modern-day family life. Most fathers play a nurturing, sharing and inclusive role in their children's lives. Surely this has been one of the big benefits of advances in women's lives: not that men have been made redundant but rather that they shoulder more of both the joy and the responsibility when it comes to the practicalities of raising children. It is a wonderful progression that most men both want and feel more able to play a major role in their children's lives than our fathers or their fathers could. I look at the close relationship my husband has with our children and wonder how someone would deliberately want to deprive their child of such a unique and special relationship. What disturbs me most of all is that some views have been expressed which imply that children are actually better off without a father. This is the case in a very small minority of cases where violence or abuse occurs, just as there are a small number of cases where children are better off not living with their natural mother. But this ought to be kept in the right perspective. In the vast majority of Australian families, both mum and dad play a very vital role in their children's lives. It amazes me that as a society we are so quick to extol the virtues of motherhood but that throughout this debate there has been very little discussion on the value of fatherhood.This debate has focused on rights, legalities and individual desires. It has prompted indignation on the part of the elites that the Prime Minister has had the strength to stand up for what the majority of Australians believe on this issue. The simple fact is that the government does have a role to play in ensuring that we build the sort of community that we all want for the future. Unlike Labor, we are not beholden to any special interest groups or minorities. We are not prepared to stand by and allow the values that we all hold dear to be eroded bit by bit.I am appalled that the Labor leader has rolled over on this issue. It really is a telling indictment of his lack of political leadership. He says he agrees that ideally children should have both a mother and a father yet he caved in so quickly to the minority view on this matter. He was not even prepared to stand up for what he personally believes in. If he does not care about his own view or the views of the majority of Australians, he at least ought to have regard for the views of many of his own backbench. I know there are many Labor members who privately support the Prime Minister's stand and who are angry that Kim Beazley will not allow them to express that support.My constituents have let me know very clearly that they support the government's stand on this issue. It is something that I personally believe strongly in: every child deserves the best possible start in life, and that clearly means the love and care of a mother and a father. Personal circumstances dictate that that does not always turn out to be the case. But the government has no role to play in helping subsidise those who deliberately set out to deprive their child of a father. I grieve that there are some sections, however small, of our community who are so strident as to dismiss the immeasurable value of fatherhood in our society. It is something that we ought to be promoting and encouraging, not down playing and denigrating.1887517:09:0018875Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I wish today to speak about the infrastructure needs of rural and regional Australia and, included within that, of the Sydney Basin. Recently there was a report produced by the Sydney Committee entitled Sydney's gateways in the 21st century. That is one of a series of reports that have gone into the issue of a second airport for Sydney. This report goes further and not only looks at the infrastructure needs of Sydney in terms of an airport gateway, the need for a second airport for Sydney and the timing of that second airport but also looks at Sydney's port facilities—in particular, at Port Botany—and the fact that we are only five to seven years out from Port Botany reaching completion and being unable to provide access for any further container movement.Both of these things—the question of the future of Port Botany and the movement of containers from Port Botany through to Sydney and out into the rest of New South Wales, and the question of Kingsford Smith airport and a second airport for Sydney—are major infrastructure needs for the city of Sydney and the surrounding region. Likewise we have had parliamentary reports into transport indicating that the most sensible thing that one could do in terms of fixing up the rail lines would be to spend about $600 million dealing with the great problems that freight trains running from Brisbane to Melbourne have in getting through Sydney. I am pleased to see that the minister for transport recently announced some moves to address those problems within Sydney, in order to get those trains through, but it only partly answers the great problem of freight movements down the eastern seaboard—and that compounds, of course, when you think of the freight coming into Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and the freight coming in through Port Botany. We need better transport links. We need to plan for the future. The federal government, linking with the states and the shires, needs to be involved in infrastructure development if Australia is to fully develop economically and if Australia is to have a balanced development.Further, recently in the past six months or so I have been with a number of my colleagues to rural and regional seats—to Kirsten Livermore's seat of Capricornia, to the seat of McEwen in concert with our candidate Andrew Macleod, and most recently with Steve Whan to Eden-Monaro. What was most evident in the discussions with people in the development associations in those seats and also in discussions with the shire councils was that people in rural and regional Australia are heartily sick of yet more studies about what their problems are. They know that there should be concrete investment in their infrastructure. They know and understand that, for years now, they have been called upon to make their determinations as to what their priorities are. But all they have had from the federal government, in large part—and we saw that with the bush summit—was that it was a wonderful thing for them if they were actually able to get their plans together and somehow to go about making sure those plans came to reality, but that they should not come knocking on the door of the federal government in order to ensure that that took place. The model effectively is a self-help one: you organise the plan and you find out a way to actually fund it.What is apparent within McEwen and Eden-Monaro, and also in the seat of Capricornia, is that the work done—and it is differential over those three seats—has been substantial. The local people know and understand what their economic and social problems are. They have a fundamental understanding of the fact that funding to local government and to shires has declined over the past number of years, particularly since 1996. Where they had expected two per cent of funding out of the federal budget, it has now declined to 1.4 per cent. Their problems have grown greater. The resources with which they attempt to deal with those have grown, relatively, much less. From one end of Australia to the other, local councils have enormous difficulty dealing with their local road programs. One council after another stressed that great problem. It is even made greater when their local work gangs are supplanted by state crews. That has an absolutely negative effect for those people who lose their jobs with the shire councils.But just as those local councils have a range of problems, they also have come up with a range of solutions. They do not want the federal government to say to them, `Give us another set of studies.' They do not want the federal government to send in another ream of consultants to discuss with them what they might need and what needs to be done. They would like the federal government to actually front up and start supporting rural Australia in the infrastructure needs that it has.Four years down the track from 1996, what indication have we had from the federal government that it has finally woken up to the fact that there is a great need here? It is going to come up with a policy, I think it is called regional solutions, for which there will be $90 million over four years. Unfortunately, $90 million over four years does not spread very far when in the Bowen-Collinsville region they have a number of projects of great significance. The Urannah Dam, for instance, has a cost of about $149 million. The Elliott main channel is roughly of an equivalent amount. Both of those viewed simply in terms of their dollar amounts indicate a fairly large amount of expenditure. But from most of the academic work done in this area and the practical indication of the benefits that have been taken into account, we know that for every one dollar invested in infrastructure where it is well invested there is a $4 return to the community—not just in the construction stage but also in the ongoing operational stage. Not only are there those two projects in Bowen-Collinsville, but there is also the missing Newlands-Goonyella link of the minefield rail links and the question of building a new terminal at Abbott Point to get more coal out of that area. All of those things cannot be achieved, cannot be got up by the local shires and the local community groups identifying their needs and then handing around the hat on a Saturday afternoon at the races. They cannot just be done out of the resources of the shire councils as depleted and degenerated as they are. They cannot just be done through the state governments. These are projects that need federal government intervention and decision and a federal government commitment that is much greater than $90 million over four years.One very simple thing concerns the town of Namadgi in the seat of McEwen. There is a local issue there in relation to Kirwans Bridge. That bridge is a wooden structure, undergirded by steel. It was built in 1890. In 1956 it was renewed. It has now come to the end of its effective life. It requires about $400,000 to be spent. The alternative is to do up the local road at the back where you would end up with a 20-minute trip into town instead of one of five minutes across Kirwans Bridge. That would cost more than double what the infrastructure costs are for Kirwans Bridge. The local shire council is not capable of providing the money itself. It has made approaches to the federal government, but so far it has got nowhere. This is an important piece of infrastructure for Namadgi, for the seat of McEwen, which by its very nature has no large central population centres. It is important that the people on both sides of the river are able to get access in order to develop their products and get them out to market and to enjoy all of the normal social benefits one would have by having close access to the town.It was evident throughout the trips, but particularly throughout the seat of McEwen, that people had a number of things to say to us that were important: first, that the whole question of road funding needs to be addressed to make better use of the rate and tax payer's dollar; second, that Telstra must stay in public hands, and the whole question of the cost of communications for regional areas has to be considered; third, that jobs are vital to keep the regions healthy and self-supporting, and we need to stop as much as possible the outmigration of people and skills; fourth, that the fuel price differentials between city and country need to be addressed urgently; and five, that more encouragement and protection need to be given to the whole question of research and development in country areas—and I have linked to that the whole question of local educational facilities. The question of Australia's infrastructure development in rural areas is crucial. (Time expired)1887717:19:0018877Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise tonight to call on the government and those with an interest in supporting the take-up of LPG technology in our vehicle sector to embrace some decisive action that will remove some of the barriers to LPG fulfilling its potential as an alternative fuel. We know when we look at LPG and compare it with unleaded petrol that there are a number of very positive environmental benefits—15 per cent lower carbon dioxide emissions, 20 per cent lower ozone forming potential, 80 per cent less harmful air toxins in the emissions and a number of other areas in terms of reduced nitrous dioxide emissions and the like.One of the things though that is standing in the way of us gaining those benefits is the fuel itself—and I will talk about that briefly in a moment. The cost of LPG is currently about half of what it is for unleaded petrol. Taking into account the differing energy content of petrol and LPG, which is about a 20 to 25 per cent difference, there is still a savings of around 30 to 40 per cent in using LPG over a similar distance. So there are some savings there for motorists as well as benefits for the environment. About five per cent of vehicles in Australia are currently run on LPG. That is almost half a million vehicles. Automotive use of LPG is growing at a rate of about 10 per cent a year and has been since 1983, and Victoria leads the way with about 40 per cent of the vehicles in that state using LPG. There are about 3,300 LPG outlets around Australia, so the infrastructure is expanding. But there are some barriers to the take-up of LPG, and they are what I would like to talk about tonight. I often call the brew that is LPG a cocktail because it comes with a great degree of variety and variation, making it difficult for those who design and engineer the technology to get that perfectly right so that the motorist gets the full benefit of the conversion to LPG and the environment gets those benefits I mentioned earlier. The volumes of the two principal gases, propane and butane, do vary in terms of LPG made available for the transport industry, depending on what is available at the time, the production process and the demand. It is helpful to recognise that propane is in particularly high demand for heating and other household uses. That at times means its proportion of LPG fuel reduces.On top of that though, there is evidence that other contaminants find their way into the mix that cause problems with vehicle efficiency, idling, maintenance, difficulty starting in the morning and poor fuel economy. I have brought with me an example. This is a converter which takes the LPG and converts it into a vapour before it is combusted. You can see that it is almost like it is covered in vegemite. The residues that are in this part of the vehicle are clear to see. It is not difficult to understand why this piece of technology is not optimising its own performance when it looks more like a bit of vegemite toast in the morning. That is an example of what happens with this technology.The minister at the table, Bruce Scott, is probably aware of some of the difficulties with valves and seats. These are some of those examples. It is probably difficult for those listening to grasp, but members will see that there are residues caked on that obviously affect equipment performance. Some of the rubber parts and components that are a part of this technology corrode and deteriorate at differing rates depending on what is in the mix. The difficulty the industry faces is that, as the mix of the gas changes, the choice about the technology that is used in the conversion equipment and what parts should be made out of what types of rubber varies as well. So it is difficult for the industry to devise and provide the optimum technology to make use of the LPG because the gas itself is a bit of a movable feast, and that is something I would like to talk about tonight.We have seen some very encouraging developments in the take-up of LPG technology. My congratulations go to Ford Australia, which recently, with some fanfare, announced their single-cell Falcon range which they believe will generate some savings for the people who purchase them, as well as making a constructive contribution to our environmental conditions. I congratulate them for that. One issue that Ford have identified is this variation in the fuel type. How do engineers design their engines and the supporting components to work at their best when they are working with a movable feast on the fuel? This is an area that we as a country need to face up to if we are to support the take-up of LPG in our vehicle fleet and secure the environmental benefits that are available. From what Ford tell me, the polling is clear: there is support within the community for the use of more environmentally friendly vehicles. We should be supporting that interest in the community and facilitating the take-up of this technology by insisting that there be a mandated national standard for LPG.Some would say that our problems relate to whether it is a butane mix or a propane mix. The interesting fact is that around the world different mixes are used in different countries, so that of itself clearly is not our problem. France, for instance, uses an LPG that is almost entirely butane, whereas the US version of LPG is almost entirely propane. The point we should take out of that is that there are benefits in both, but you cannot secure the full benefit from either until you settle on what the mix of the fuel should be. We know that the mix can vary; it does around the world. What we need to do as a country is make a mandated national standard that gives all those involved with the industry a chance to design the best technology available to support the take-up of LPG. Another benefit, aside from the benefit to the environment, is the cost to the motorist. Having to carry out repairs on these pieces of equipment to remove the `vegemite', the oil deposits that are there, actually incurs cost. There are also costs incurred upon the industry that is involved in fitting this technology through servicing and responding to warranty claims. This difficulty with the fuel finds its way right through the system—from the people manufacturing the conversion technology, to those who are servicing and supporting it, to the motorist who gets up in the morning and finds the car does not start terribly well because there is some of this residue in their system. I know from the examples in my electorate that my attention has been drawn to that some motorists have been getting either under 300 kilometres or above 370 kilometres from the same-sized tank of fuel but a different type of fuel that is sold to the market as LPG. That highly variable composition of the LPG is causing problems right throughout the industry.It is interesting to talk with people who have LPG conversions. They talk about getting a good brew—that is, a tank full of LPG that supports the optimum performance of their cars, improved fuel efficiency, power through the vehicle itself and the amount of fuel they consume.What can we do about this? The government—to its credit and in support of implementing its Living Cities policy and also its Measures for a Better Environment package that have been negotiated with the Democrats—is looking at implementing mandatory national fuel standards for diesel and petrol, bringing up those Euro standards as many people would know. My view is that that is excellent work but it needs to be complemented by exactly the same thing for LPG. A number of the submissions to those national fuel standards highlighted the need for LPG standards to be part of the work. The government is considering those recommendations, and I urge Minister Hill and the government to take those suggestions, embrace them and actually insist on having LPG mandatory national standards developed as part of the work that is going on for diesel and petrol.My sense as you look around the industry is that there will be support for the industry getting behind that initiative. I have talked with some of the players in the field that have considered investing some of their own industry funds to identify the causes of the `vegemite' effect on the components—whether it is in the fuel itself or whether it is the fact that some of the hoses used to deliver the fuel to the vehicle actually lose some of their insides and that finds its way into the fuel and the car system itself. They are prepared to invest to find the answers to those questions.My suggestion to the government is: why not take that industry goodwill and work with it? Why not approach the car industry, the LPG fuel suppliers, the conversion and servicing industry and all of us who are interested in a better outcome for our environment and resource the rapid development of a mandatory LPG standard so that it can be implemented along with the diesel and petrol standards? There is work going on but, understandably, the government is focusing on those priorities that it committed to through the negotiations with the Democrats. My suggestion is that we should actually pick up that opportunity and include LPG in it.I know the industry has done a lot of work in this area. We could take that work and accelerate the development of the standard so it can plug into the legislative processes that are there. Other ideas might be that we could have a `better brew' monitor where the motorist industries—the RACV and the like —could actually publish where the best mix of LPG is to get optimum vehicle performance and fuel efficiency. We need to support the research that is going on to find out what those phtalates are doing in the fuel supply system, where the contaminants and impurities are entering the system and what we can do to remove them so that the fuel quality is up to what we all expect. The government can lead that, but the industry has got to be a part of it. I think there is a challenge before us as a country to actually support the take-up of LPG fuel. There are some constructive steps we can take to support that, and I encourage the government to do so. (Time expired)1888017:29:0018880Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise on the same issue as the member for Forde earlier. However, I come to the issue from a slightly different perspective. I was interested in the Prime Minister's recent comments on denying fertility treatment to some women on the basis of their sexuality or marital status. Unfortunately, I believe these comments were a cynical move to distract attention from the successful ALP conference in Hobart at the beginning of the month. I believe these comments will have repercussions that the Prime Minister could not have expected or, if he did expect them, he does not deserve to be Prime Minister.In the same way that the Prime Minister many years ago raised Asian immigration as a political issue and refused to repudiate the base racism of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, he gives succour to those extremists in the community who have always been racist and just need to be let off the leash. This latest foray into the politics of division will also lead to increased discrimination, if not violence, against lesbians and increased discrimination against the children of single mums and lesbians.The proposal to chip away at the Sex Discrimination Act in this way also sets up a worrying precedent. This Prime Minister has refused in the past to allow the debate of legislation to remove discrimination against same sex couples in relation to superannuation. The government has made it more difficult for same sex couples to be reunited under migration legislation. There is enough discrimination already against non-heterosexual people in the community without the government using parliament to add to it. Undermining the provisions which deal with discrimination based on marital status in the Sex Discrimination Act is also of concern. Could the next step be an exemption for people working with children in care, or perhaps removal of the provision altogether?What is at issue here is the Prime Minister's implication that single mothers and lesbians are not good parents. There is no evidence for this, and the many women in the community struggling to bring up children on their own have enough to deal with—financial hardship, lack of time, workplace discrimination and expensive child care. They do not need the Prime Minister telling them that they are not doing a good job. The Prime Minister suggests that children need fathers. I agree that children benefit from positive role models of both sexes, and I know that many single and lesbian mothers make a big effort to ensure that their children have positive male role models. But the truth is that many children grow up in households where they have no contact with their fathers, or sometimes their mothers. In other cases, parents are abusive, and children are better off without them. The Prime Minister is talking about his ideal of a happy nuclear family, and the truth is that very few families live up to this ideal. Yet most families muddle through.The Prime Minister and the health minister are making a distinction between social and medical infertility. This is an artificial and discriminatory distinction. Is a fertile heterosexual woman whose male partner is infertile socially infertile? Should she be told to find another partner who can give her fertile sperm? No-one would suggest such an outrageous thing. Yet the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care are saying that after two people have fallen in love and decided that they want to start a family, if those two should happen to be women, they should ignore their love and commitment and go looking for a man to impregnate them. This is particularly surprising coming from the minister for health who has carriage of our national HIV-AIDS strategy. As well as being illegal in some states, self insemination carries with it all sorts of risks associated with unscreened sperm. Yet our federal health minister sees no problem in forcing women who want to have children to pursue this unsafe option. Denying sections of the community medical treatment because of lifestyle choices ignores the fact that sexuality is not something that people choose. It also sets a precedent that other members of the community should be wary of. If a person has made a lifestyle choice to drink, smoke, not take exercise and eat fatty foods, should they be denied medical treatment for their heart disease? What if they were not wearing their seatbelts in the event of a car accident? That is another choice that may lead to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses.The cost of IVF is significant, and much of it is borne by the recipient of the treatment. According to a Victorian doctor, Dr Gabor Kovacs, IVF treatment costs about $16,000 to $20,000 per successful treatment. Two-thirds of the cost is met by the patient and one-third by Medicare. Of course there is a taxpayer subsidy, as there is with most non-cosmetic medical procedures, but lesbians and single women pay taxes too and should of course be offered access to medical treatments on a non-discriminatory basis. The Prime Minister implies that women who want children enough to go through the physical discomfort or pain of IVF treatment, the psychological trauma and the financial cost will somehow make worse parents than those who find themselves parents by accident, as long as they happen to be heterosexual. And, oddly enough, if single women or lesbians wishing to access IVF are medically infertile, according to the Prime Minister's definition, they will still have access to the program through Medicare. According to the Prime Minister's logic, are they likely to be better parents?If the Prime Minister is genuinely concerned about Australian families, there are much more important issues than IVF. For a start, domestic violence is still an enormous problem in Australia. Male offenders were responsible for killing 94 per cent of the 875 female victims of homicide in the years 1989 to 1998. Of these killings, 61 per cent occurred in the context of an intimate relationship. They usually occur in the home of the victim or the offender or the family home, and in many cases when a woman is trying to leave a violent relationship. In the murder of children in the period 1989 to 1993, fathers were perpetrators in 46 cases, de facto fathers in 11 cases, mothers in 22 cases and more than one parent was charged in seven more cases. These are the sorts of shocking figures that should be a priority for this parliament when we discuss family policy.The Partnership Against Domestic Violence program, announced with such fanfare by this government, has done little to address the problem, mainly because a great deal of the money remains unspent and the money that has been spent by and large has not gone to grassroots organisations that assist women and children who are leaving situations of violence. The current federal government has put enormous pressure on families by cutting $850 million from child care and hundreds of millions of dollars in total from primary and secondary schools and TAFE and university education. By and large, families spend a greater proportion of their incomes, particularly when they have children, and are less likely to save money. So a tax that is based on consumption affects families, and particularly families with children, disproportionately. Despite over a decade of economic growth and recent improvements in unemployment figures, the distribution of jobs is uneven. There are still 800,000 children living in households where neither parent has a job, and the numbers of long-term unemployed have grown as a proportion of total unemployment.Cuts to child care, education, health and labour market assistance disadvantage children. An industrial relations regime that makes it harder, not easier, to negotiate family friendly policies in the workplace disadvantages children. Longer working hours and increased stress disadvantage children. This government's continuing refusal to address the issue of pregnancy discrimination in the workforce affects families.The Prime Minister still cannot bring himself to say sorry to those Aboriginal children forcibly removed from their parents and communities. Today he again refused to show any sympathy for those stolen children. He is not able to intervene in the Northern Territory's policy of gaoling children. None of these issues has prompted an adequate response from the Prime Minister. It is these issues which show the emptiness of his claim that his motive is to ensure the rights of children are protected. Instead, he has reserved his comments for an issue that he knew would be a distraction from the positive agenda Labor was putting forward at our conference. I have received a number of letters from lesbian parents talking about the loving and close relationship that they have with their children, and I am sorry that I do not have the time to read them into Hansard today other than to read the following comments: After a great deal of thought and discussion, Danielle and I decided that we would like to have a child. We were fortunate enough to have a dear friend to ask to be a donor and we now have a wonderful 16 month old son. Not only does he have two mothers and one father, he also has 6 doting grandparents, 6 aunties, 5 uncles, 3 cousins and a huge extended family of friends. Later in the letter they write:We love our son and are caring and committed parents. We hope he will grow up to be a warm and open-minded man. We want all the wonderful future every parent dreams of for their child.While I always resist resorting to anecdotes, I know a lot of good and loving parents and I know a lot of happy kids. Some of those parents are married and some are single. Some of them are heterosexual and some of them are not. The children who are happiest are the children who feel loved and wanted and who have as many adults around them as possible showing love and caring for them. 1888217:39:0018882Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—Just after midnight on 23 June this year the town of Childers woke to tragedy. Fire had engulfed the Palace Backpackers Hostel in the town's main street, claiming the lives of 15 young backpackers and leaving a permanent scar in the hearts of the survivors and the townspeople themselves. Today I would not like to dwell too much on the details of how this fire occurred. That is for the coroner and the police to pursue. Rather I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of the people of Childers who showed what could be achieved when a town bands together in a time of great need. Less than five hours after the fire a team of professional counsellors, led by the Childers Neighbourhood Centre Director, Shirley Maisey, was already assisting the 70 survivors and went on to do so over the following days. Teams of grief counsellors from Bundaberg Lifeline, headed by Richard Johnson, and the Salvation Army, headed by Major Lionel Parker, arrived in Childers later that day to provide further emotional support, while local ministers, led by Father Gavin Talbot, and the Ministers Fraternal provided pastoral care. The Childers area is a big fruit and vegetable growing area and the local growers were one of the groups hit very hard by the tragedy. Many of the victims and survivors had worked on farms alongside the owners of those farms. So the fruit and vegetable growers and their families were among the first to mobilise their forces and offer assistance. They were coordinated by Donna Duncan who, along with other community organisations, manned a 24-hour kitchen for 11 consecutive days providing meals to survivors, security workers, police, fire, SES, the consular corps and many others. Some of those volunteers worked up to 14-hour stretches to keep the extraordinary effort going. The lights never went out for the 11 days. When I arrived with the foreign minister on the Friday, the kitchen was in full swing providing a variety of meals and refreshments. I vividly recall the wife of the deputy mayor, Kathy Riccardi, offering me a cup of tea but the tragedy etched on her face told the story of the community's trauma. In the initial aftermath, Childers restaurants, cafes and grocery stores all pitched in to help, providing food for the kitchen, while a group of local St Vincent de Paul volunteers helped to clothe the backpackers, many of whom escaped the fire with only the clothes they were wearing. Every conceivable church, charity and community organisation, not only in Childers but also more widely afield in Bundaberg, Maryborough and Hervey Bay, including Rotary clubs, Lions clubs, the CWA, the Catholic Women's League, Lifeline, the Uniting Church, the Anglican Ladies Guild, the Red Cross, the RSL and many more whom I have no doubt missed, offered their help. Schools threw their weight behind the support effort. Local councillors and their spouses and the Childers Pharmaceutical Museum manager, Nancy Calder, all helped coordinate various levels of assistance and survivor briefings as well as meeting clothing, medical and pharmaceutical needs. Some of the kids had no prescriptions and had lost their medicines and contact lenses. It was a horrific thing. Residents offered to help out in any way they could, providing everything from accommodation to showers to financial assistance. Two motels cleared their rooms for the survivors. Free email was made available to the backpackers at the local shire library and ISIS Online allowed the survivors to contact their loved ones overseas. In response to an appeal by me to Doug Campbell of Telstra Country Wide, four phones were installed for the survivors by the Friday evening. ISD links to the families was a critical feature in easing the trauma at both ends of the line. Telstra generously donated the cost of all calls—a huge saving to the survivors themselves and to the shire. But, apart from the efforts of the community, I would like to praise the efforts of the local emergency personnel. Sometimes we take these services and the service of our police force, fire brigade, ambulance and SES for granted. I think it is worth while acknowledging them and thanking them. These people are trained to deal with situations like this, but the reality of this particular situation is that no-one could ever have anticipated coming face to face with the enormity of such a fire and such a toll. The investigation and retrieval teams had the most harrowing job of finding the causes of the fire and removing the bodies. A huge burden fell on the local sergeant of police, Jeff Fay, and the SES coordinator, Trevor Ballinger, to say nothing of the enormous contribution of the staff of the Isis Shire Council, most of whom refused to accept any overtime payment as a result of the additional duties in that first fortnight. Almost as harrowing was the responsibility which fell on the shoulders of Mayor Bill Trevor. In the end all roads led to him, whether it was organising, planning, welcoming or chairing press conferences for an extraordinarily large press corps of over 50 representatives. His leadership deserves particular attention. Stephanie Balogh from the Australian wrote a feature article about Bill in the days that followed the fire. One paragraph she wrote sums up Bill's role quite well:The Isis Shire Council Mayor Bill Trevor has been thrown in at the deep end—grappling with the responsibility of caring for the survivors of last Friday morning's fire at Childers, juggling constant media inquiries and then, finally, beginning to plan the community's emotional and economic recovery.The way Bill took on these responsibilities was truly admirable, and I know the respect that he already has earned in the community is deeply enhanced. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the victims of this terrible blaze, and would like to read their names into Hansard. Fourteen of the victims have been identified, while the identity of one deceased is still unknown. From Australia, Kelly and Stacey Slarke; from Holland, Joly Van Der Velden and Sebastian Westerveld; from Ireland, Julie O'Keefe; from Japan, Atsuki Toyona; from Korea, Hui-Kyoung Lee; and from the United Kingdom, Mike Lewis, Natalie Morris, Adam Rowland, Melissa Smith, Gary Sutton, Clare Webb and Sarah Williams. As I said, one victim, sadly, is not yet identified and named. Our hearts go out to their families not only because of the tragic loss of those so young, in the prime of their lives, but also because of the initial sense of uncertainty after the fire and then the loneliness of distance, knowing that it was probably their children in a morgue in Australia. I might add that the Queensland state government and the various embassies have been bringing the families to Childers to come to grips with this particular situation and to return the bodies of the victims to their native lands.On the night of Sunday, 25 June Australia stopped to mourn. The focus became the Childers Cultural Centre where a memorial service was held in the presence of the Governor-General, Sir William Deane; the state Governor, Major-General Arnison; the Prime Minister; the state Premier; the state Leader of the Opposition; several state and federal ministers; the High Commissioner of the United Kingdom and the ambassadors of Holland and Ireland; the consuls of other delegations; Catholic Bishop Putney; and Anglican Bishop Appleby. The celebrant was the Reverend Gavin Talbot. The ceremony of lighting a candle for each of the victims and the moving tributes of our leaders on the one hand and the survivors—grieving for their mates—on the other left a haunting memory for all who attended. The healing process was further assisted by a visit by Princess Anne a few weeks later. She met the survivors and all the players in this tragic drama. Her visit went a long way to ease the pain that all were suffering. The problems are not all solved at this stage. The next phase is to rebuild the physical side of the community. A number of the shops were closed as a result of the fire and that has had an effect on the town. There is a huge gap in the middle of town, surrounded by a timber screen, and that has virtually cut one side of the main street in two. I facilitated meetings with the Mayor, Bill Trevor, and the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss some form of national recovery process. I hope that we will be able to rebuild the Childers Backpackers Lodge, the facade of which is a registered heritage building. That way we will help put some life back into the town and pay a tribute in a living way to the young people who lost their lives. It will be a visible expression of the admiration we hold for those backpackers who survived and for those who contributed so much to the life of Childers. The community of Childers did a marvellous job. They were tested beyond normal physical and emotional endurance and they responded magnificently. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills18884Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2000-2001Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2000-2001Customs Amendment (Alcoholic Beverages) Bill 2000Excise Amendment (Alcoholic Beverages) Bill 2000A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill (No. 2) 2000Indirect Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 2000Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment (Rent Assistance Increase) Bill 2000Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2000Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Amendment Bill 2000Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Bill 2000New Business Tax System (Miscellaneous) Bill (No. 1) 2000Financial Management and Accountability Amendment Bill 2000New Business Tax System (Alienation of Personal Services Income) Bill 2000New Business Tax System (Alienated Personal Services Income) Tax Imposition Bill (No. 1) 2000New Business Tax System (Alienated Personal Services Income) Tax Imposition Bill (No. 2) 2000New Business Tax System (Miscellaneous) Bill (No. 2) 2000New Business Tax System (Integrity Measures) Bill 2000Product Stewardship (Oil) Bill 2000Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Waste Oil) Bill 2000Excise Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Waste Oil) Bill 2000Product Stewardship (Oil) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 2000Sales Tax (Customs) (Industrial Safety Equipment) Bill 2000Sales Tax (Excise) (Industrial Safety Equipment) Bill 2000Sales Tax (General) (Industrial Safety Equipment) Bill 2000Sales Tax (Industrial Safety Equipment) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000Primary Industries Legislation Amendment (Vegetable Levy) Bill 2000Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Amendment Bill 2000Bills18885The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2000-2001Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2000-2001Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001Bills18885R103618885Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendment disagreed to by the House.Bills18885R106018885Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not press its requests for amendments Nos 1, 6 and 13, agrees to the amendments made by the House in place of the Senate's request for amendment No. 6, and agrees to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate.Committees18885188851888517:50:0018885Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the draft Financial Services Reform Bill.Ordered that the report be printed.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—by leave—This report that the committee has tabled today is a result of its inquiry into the draft Financial Services Reform Bill. This particular bill is the sixth stage in the implementation of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program. The bill seeks to legislate a number of recommendations of the financial services inquiry, perhaps better known to members of the House as the Wallis report. The draft bill proposes a new regulatory framework for financial services. The bill covers a wide range of financial products, including securities, derivatives, general and life insurance, superannuation deposit accounts and non-cash payment. The regime will apply to the activities of existing financial intermediaries such as insurance agents and brokers, securities advisers and dealers and futures brokers, as well as any other person carrying on financial services business.The report that has just been tabled includes a majority report, substantially supported by government members of the committee, and a minority report prepared by the Labor members of the committee. There is some difference of emphasis in the conclusions that the members of the committee reached. The government members have concluded that there is general support for the broad thrust of the draft bill and they go on, having identified a number of significant points or comments that have been made in the very extensive submissions the committee received, to make the point that Treasury has assured the committee that all of these concerns will be taken into account in the final bill and would include drafting changes to ensure that the bill as it comes before parliament expresses the policy intent.The opposition report has a slightly different emphasis. It indicates general support for the principles encapsulated in the bill; however, the opposition view is that there can be no recommendation with respect to the bill and the final form in which it should be passed until that final form is in fact known. The government members seem to have a charming and delightful confidence in Treasury's capacity to adequately encapsulate the very basic comments that have been made about a number of aspects of the bill that are causing concern in a wide variety of areas. Because of the limitations on time, I do not propose to go into any detail at all on those matters, except just to illustrate the fairly fundamental nature of some of the concerns that have been raised—concerns about adverse effects of the draft bill on financial services in rural and regional areas; concerns about the impact of the bill on e-commerce and the information economy in Australia; concerns about Australia's capacity to grow as an international financial centre; concerns about impacts on financial services for small business; concerns about the adequacy of regulation for professional bodies, such as accountants and solicitors; and, of course, concerns about the adequacy of consumer protection. These are no small matters. As I said, I suspect the extent of those concerns in a practical sense and the adequacy of possible amendments that will come forward to address them will add considerable weight to the opposition view that, really, we ought to be waiting for the final form of the bill to come before the House prior to recommending, as the majority does, the acceptance of this bill as the basis for proceeding.Bills18886R109418886Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Lee moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes with concern that the Government has failed:(a) to address the problems in universities which its own Cabinet submission identified, such as higher student/staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation, as well as eight institutions operating at a deficit, with some regional campuses at risk;(b) to respond to calls from academics, scientists and the business community to increase significantly higher education research funding; and(c) to produce legislation to implement its proposed changes to university research funding, die to start in six months, and legislation to make urgently-needed changes to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act; and(2) calls on the Government to immediately address each of these major issues.17:55:0018886Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I will continue my speech on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 with some interesting facts that emerge when we study higher education funding under this government. I have learned through examining a number of Bills Digests that in the year 2001 the real level of the Commonwealth's contribution to operating grants will be about the same as it was in 1983; in terms of operating grants for planned equivalent full-time student units the Commonwealth contribution will have declined by 37 per cent between 1983 and the year 2001; and Commonwealth grants, net of HECS, should drop below 50 per cent of university revenue in the current triennium. This will be similar to the proportion that existed before the Commonwealth assumed responsibility for the funding of tertiary education in 1974. We would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, that this is a massive step backwards. The Prime Minister, as we all know, wants us to return to the golden era and live in the 1950s. Dr Kemp it seems is a little more modern; he only wants us to live in the 1970s. Unfortunately, we have to live in the 21st century and this slash and burn attitude to education funding is not, and cannot be, the way to go.Last year the government moved to an accrual system of accounting for its budget. This change allowed the department and the minister to do some very dodgy things with the education budget. Do you realise that there is now no differentiation in the budget between higher and vocational education? We cannot tell from the budget how much is being spent on each. As a result of this combination of higher and vocational education into one output group the budget no longer contains any useful data on the sector as a whole. There are many problems with our tertiary education system. Student to staff ratios have increased by 33 per cent over the last 10 years. The dropout rate has increased, and the issues of equity and access have never been fully addressed. What is the minister's answer to all of this? His answer seems to be to cut funding and make the students pay. This, of course, will have no chance of addressing the problems and will in fact create more.Another concern about the changes to the funding arrangements of higher education institutions is the roll-in of capital grants into operating grants. There is now no delineation between the two; they have been lumped in together. Universities, faced with increased running costs and trying to provide for the students' needs, are increasingly using that capital grant component as general operating funding. It has been stated in previous Bills Digests that recurrent funding pressures have resulted in some infrastructure neglect. This would be an understatement. Universities are letting their infrastructure responsibilities slide as a direct result of this government's policies.I would like to speak about another problem within the system that directly affects the funding issue, and that is the issue known as `credentialism'. Once upon a time you could get a job with only a primary school education. Then you needed to at least have finished third year at high school, your intermediate certificate. Of course, you know as well as I do that should somebody front up for a job interview with just the school certificate there is little chance that they would get a position. The higher school certificate, year 12, used to be enough. Not any more. Now, sadly, just a degree is increasingly becoming worth less and less. Postgraduate work of some kind is becoming necessary for those seeking a professional career. Postgraduate work, of course, attracts higher fees for students and less government funding. Society is changing rapidly and credentialism—the need for more and more bits of paper to prove you can do the job—is becoming a major concern, particularly for those from lower socioeconomic areas who cannot afford the increased costs of obtaining the required certificates and diplomas.The minister proudly points to increased revenue streams from outside sources to fund the tertiary system. By 2002, HECS receipts will have increased by 113 per cent since the government came to power in 1996; that is, from $500 million in 1996 to an estimated $1.135 million in 2002. This increase has given the government the excuse to cut its own contribution, the publicly funded component, by some 12 per cent; that is, from $5,218 million in 1996 to $4,589 million in 2002—a paltry amount by comparison. No skiting about alternative revenue streams on behalf of the minister can hide the fact that the government has cut its own contribution. More and more we are moving to the bad old days where you can get a look in only if you have the cash to do so. If this situation continues and the minister has his way, universities will once again be a place for only the privileged few. The minister is abrogating his responsibility for one of the basic tenets of our democracy; that is, a properly funded public education system.Universities are crying out for funding. They are struggling to maintain services. Indeed many services are being cut as a result of this change in funding arrangements, while departments are disappearing from some campuses. Clearly the increased revenue streams are not leading to a stronger system, as the minister would have us believe. Why? Because, as the government find another revenue stream—usually by upping the fees paid by students—they are correspondingly cutting their own contribution. Think how strong the system would be if the Commonwealth maintained its share of the funding alongside other increases in revenue. Since the Liberals came to government in 1996, every single university has suffered cuts in Commonwealth funding. None of the 38 universities in Australia has escaped the knife.In my own region of Western Sydney the University of Western Sydney has lost $39 million in grants from the Commonwealth. This is the sixth highest cut of all the universities in Australia. As you would know, the University of Western Sydney is a relatively new institution. It does not boast the long history or tradition of the sandstone universities, such as the universities of Sydney and Melbourne. I am sure that one day it will boast a long and proud tradition, but at present it is fairly new. Because it is new, it is suffering from these cuts more than most. The university does not have the investments or the bank balances that the older sandstone universities can claim. It does not have the reserves that could be drawn upon in times of reduced funding that the sandstone universities have and therefore suffers more than these universities when the cuts are made. What cannot continue in this sector is the increasing reliance on the student to foot the bill for higher education. University fees and charges will have almost doubled to $2 billion in the period between 1996, when this government came to power, and 2002—an amazing increase where the students have to find the money to support themselves. At the same time the Commonwealth will decrease the amount spent on students from $10,204 per student in 1996 to a mere $8,949 in 2002. This represents a fall of 12.4 per cent. When the Labor Party came to power in the early seventies Australia had barely 270,000 students in tertiary education and spent 1.4 per cent of GDP. Under John Howard and Dr Kemp there are now almost 800,000 students in tertiary study, yet the percentage of GDP has dropped to less than 0.8 per cent. As Simon Marginson of the Australian stated on 9 May this year:Undergraduate classes are at record levels. Library acquisitions are frozen. The efficiency drivers are so strong there is a serious danger of dumbing down through competitive price cutting. Education quality is in crisis.There are more students, all paying more money. However, couple that with government cuts and you have not a stronger system but a weaker one where the quality is suffering, where subjects and whole departments are disappearing and where class sizes are becoming unmanageable. It is simply not good enough.For the first time in the history of this country, investment in research and development has fallen. This has happened both at a Commonwealth level—falling from 0.77 per cent of GDP when this administration took the treasury bench to a paltry 0.64 per cent of GDP last year—and in the private sector with the reduction of the tax concession. This government is simply not investing in our future. It is trying to make the short-term dollar on the stock market merry-go-round without any apparent thought for the decades to come. That is why the Labor Party and the shadow minister, Michael Lee, will be putting in place a number of initiatives to boost the investment the Commonwealth makes in this vital area.When we come to power after the next election Labor will be doubling the number of research fellowships available to Australian academics. We will be creating a new system of elite fellowships to slow the brain drain overseas and even, hopefully, to attract some of our scientists back to the country. Labor will also be introducing a new system of education priority zones where funding can be better targeted to disadvantaged areas. We will be abolishing the despicable enrolment benchmark adjustment scheme that has cost our government schools enormous amounts of money.In short, Labor will be doing their best to reverse the losses this sector has suffered since the Howard government came to office. We must reverse the losses or face irreparable damage to our education system and our nation's future. The government—in fact all governments—have a responsibility to provide a decent and strong public education system from primary school through to tertiary level. This government's attitude of forcing students to pay higher and higher fees while at the same time cutting their own contribution is a clear demonstration of their total lack of respect for the Australian people and their institutions.18:06:0018888Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 amends the Higher Education Funding Act. This act, of course, is for funding Australian universities. The intention of this amendment is to vary the maximum funding levels for 1999, 2000 and 2001, taking into account, as alluded to in the concluding remarks from the member for Greenway, the revised Higher Education Contribution Scheme estimates, supplementation for price movements and the reallocation of unspent funds. The member for Greenway is a very decent man. He has my admiration because he is out of what I call the traditional mould of a representative of the Australian Labor Party. But the paradox which is contained in what the member for Greenway actually said is that, when we came to government in 1996, only 10 per cent of university students came from the bottom 25 per cent of income earning households in Australia. In contrast, 40 per cent came from the top 25 per cent of income earning households, with an average income at that time of just over $81,000 a year. In other words, the taxes of everyday working men and women in Australia were funding the education of people who actually came from much more affluent backgrounds and funding the universities that working men and women would never see the inside of, or at least that their children would never see. It is worth teasing out some of the issues and actually having a look at who is the beneficiary of the education for which people pay with their higher education contribution, introduced, of course, by a Labor government.This bill will also give effect to some measures announced in the 2000-01 budget, and what I want to focus on are the 100 new medical places a year for students on bonded scholarships as part of the government's country health package. The funding will provide an additional 100 new medical places each year, beginning in 2001, for students who hold these bonded scholarships. The scholarships commit the student to practising for at least six years in rural Australia after the completion of postgraduate training. After five years, an additional 500 medical students, who will eventually practise in rural areas, will be studying in Australian universities. This is part of a broader component of the $770 million committed in the budget over four years to increasing access to health and aged care services in rural and regional Australia. It will also include increasing by 50—from 400 to 450—the number of places that are available in postgraduate training for those medical graduates who want to be family doctors or general practitioners. Within two years of the budget this year, over half of those who are undertaking training to be general practitioners will do their training in rural areas, and that has got to be in everybody's interest. The scholarships which this bill gives effect to—there will be some complementary legislation that will deal with this in the health sector—are worth $20,000 a year and will be offered to new medical students each year in return for a commitment to practise in rural and regional areas for at least six years after completing postgraduate training. The number of medical school places will be increased cumulatively by 100, and the initiative is worth $32.4 million over four years. The students who accept these scholarships will be issued with a restricted Medicare provider number—a number which doctors need in order to practise and attract a Medicare benefit for their services—for the six-year period. They will only be eligible to charge for and receive a rebate for medical services in urban areas after they have met their obligations.One of the other points that ought to be made is that the budget also introduced a capacity for medical graduates to spend time practising in a rural area and defray their HECS repayment. I often said to the previous government, and I have said to my colleagues in this government: `People go down and work in coalmines for all kinds of reasons and people go to work in Middle Eastern countries to practise medicine because, if the incentives are strong enough, people will do whatever needs to be done—alternatively, if there are penalties attached to it.' One of the important measures introduced in the budget this year was to give medical students, having graduated, the opportunity to work off their HECS, so to speak, by working in a rural area, with about 20 per cent of that HECS to be defrayed for each year of service. That is something I have long supported.I noticed in Australian Doctor—a news magazine for medical practitioners—of 2 June that GP registrars have vowed to campaign in high schools and universities against the Commonwealth bonded rural scholarship scheme due to concerns over its use of geographic Medicare provider numbers. That refers to the fact that you can practise medicine, but within a defined area. The GP Registrars Association has described the scheme as `horrific' because doctors enrolled in it who fail to fulfil their commitments will be denied another unrestricted Medicare provider number for 12 years. That really does reflect a degree of petulance which is out of step with community expectation. The fact is that, if there are students or prospective students in medicine who can subsequently give a lifetime of commitment to the community, providing medical services, especially where they are needed, then they should be able to take up a bonded scholarship. A scholarship that bonds them in return for giving them money whilst they are doing their training and which ties them to a particular area—by definition, an area of need—has surely got to be in the community's interest, apart from anything else. In the course of talking about rural doctors and the bonded scholarship program, I would like to give the House and those people who are perhaps listening to this debate an insight into what it is like to be a rural doctor. Over the years, I have done some locum relief for doctors working in rural areas. I have found myself up and out of bed at about 6 o'clock in the morning, doing home visits from about 7 a.m. and practising all day. If you do have a lunch break you spend it at the hospital seeing patients. You get home at 9 o'clock at night and as soon as you get home the phone is ringing and people are banging on the door wanting to see you. You finally get to bed at about 11.30. Every second night you are out of bed at least once, generally looking for a red letterbox or something on the side of the road some 50 kilometres from where you are actually living. These were my experiences. I even had to get out of bed at one stage to put a drip in a cow which had hypocalcaemia. I said to the farmer as I was doing this, `Is this what Dr Chow'—the fellow for whom I was doing the locum—`would normally do?' He said, `Oh yes' And I said, `Isn't this the sort of thing a vet ought to be doing?' and he said, `It's much cheaper to get the doctor.' Sadly, there is truth in that.There is a remarkable woman and medical practitioner called Dr Leanne Rowe who now runs Clockwork in Geelong. That is a very innovative program to give access to medical services to adolescents who are on the margins. In an earlier life, she and her husband, Peter, were medical practitioners at Bannockburn in rural Victoria. She wrote to me when she was leaving Bannockburn to tell me her story. She said, `If you can ever share this with other people, could you please do so.' This is from Dr Leanne Rowe:My experience of rural Victoria as a medical student, was overshadowed by a heated argument between the GP and his wife. She was “sacrificing her life in this hole of a place” and she stormed out to visit her children at boarding school in Melbourne. I was also relieved to return to Melbourne to see my friends who told more stories of loneliness and the horrors of the country. One of the students was sickened when she visited a farm, where she witnessed the castration of lambs—made much worse by the fact that the farmers used their teeth! We both ended up in practices in rural areas, not because of our experiences as medical students—in spite of them.As a member of the Victorian Health Minister's Committee on the Medical Workforce, a female doctor, a doctor's spouse, and having lived in the country for the last thirteen years, I would like to discuss the realities of current strategies for overcoming the maldistribution of general practitioners, and possible solutions.The problems have been discussed many times, and include professional isolation, continuing education, the availability of locum services, and male and female spouse issues. There are many issues deterring female GPs from staying in the country, and this is important as over 50% of medical graduates are female. The current strategies to help overcome the shortage of rural GPs include medical student recruitment from the country, extra points for FMP rotations in the country, rural health training, rural incentives and locum programs ... and better practice grants (rewarding rural GPs better).These strategies have done much to improve the status of rural GPs, and although they may not have had time to work, there is a feeling that more needs to be done to address the shortage of doctors in the country.In the real world, many GPs do not trust the short term government initiatives and incentives, which have been implemented at the same time as cut-backs and closures of country hospitals. FMP trainees are not guaranteed for all terms, a rural locum program is difficult to access for a well planned medical course, let alone for an emergency illness ...The things that are really difficult about staying in the country are your enmeshment within the community, the professional and moral obligation to be on call all the time, the burn-out and the isolation. It's having to keep your composure when you feel cold and nauseated, and you are called at midnight for someone who has had a headache all week (and you know you will have an argument about Pethidine). It's being ignored in the street by someone you have reported for child abuse. It's remaining professional when your own child is victimised at school by one of your patients. It's being called out to a cardiac arrest in the middle of a lunch with friends who you haven't seen for a year. It's being reminded at the kindergarten that your husband missed a mother's delivery because you had the gall to take one weekend off. It's answering a knock at your door at 2am to a tearful teenage boy who requests the morning-after pill for his girlfriend, as the condom broke twenty minutes ago (“and her father will kill him”). It's listening to your own baby screaming for a breastfeed while you are resuscitating a choking child who has been rushed to your home by his parents. It's having your supermarket shopping prolonged by a patient who asks for your advice about his haemorrhoids. It's taking your children on a long awaited outing and stopping at a motor car accident, where instead they are entertained by fire engines, police, ambulances and a helicopter, unsupervised in the back of your car. It's unbandaging your neighbour's hand at your kitchen table at 11pm, and finding that he amputated his finger when he fell off the haystack that morning (“Well, who else was going to milk the cows?”). It's having a well known teenage boy die in your arms in front of his mother, due to an accident on the mainstreet, and having to counsel a community's grief when you feel you can't contain your own. It takes time to be accepted in a rural community. It is worse if you are female or from a non English speaking background. Narrow attitudes are perhaps not more common in the country, but much closer to the surface—you hear about them. Enmeshment in the community can be stifling—the impact of making a mistake has both personal and professional ramifications. Female doctors with children will know that in the country “good mothers don't work” and child care is not only unavailable, but socially unacceptable. Being away from your extended family is difficult, particularly when they answer your requests for help with “well, you chose to go to the country.”It may be that we will never find the solution to the problems for female doctors, doctor spouses and those associated with children's education. Perhaps replenishment rather than retention of GPs is the answer to the crisis in the country. However, there are some other solutions to consider ...The move by the government to introduce bonded scholarships for medical students who go on to train to be doctors is long overdue and ought to be welcomed not only by all members of the parliament but by more thoughtful and informed members of the medical community. That small insight into what it means to be a rural doctor, as provided by Dr Leanne Rowe, provides some understanding of why it is so important not just to get doctors into country areas but to see that embedded in their own culture as they go through medical training is the understanding that they will be practising in a rural area, that they are spending 12 years training to be in that rural area, that the community and society recognise the importance of that by providing a bonded scholarship and that ultimately that scholarship will be repaid in terms of years of service.In the remaining time, I will turn back to the broader issues of education. I could not help but notice that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that an essential part of the federal Labor Party's campaign and re-election strategy is to develop a knowledge nation—something which I am sure would be supported by all members of the House. I could also not help but notice that the first step taken towards building a knowledge nation was to see that Mr Barry Jones stepped down as President of the Labor Party, which seemed inconsistent. Mr Jones, apart from his many strong and endearing qualities, has to be one of the most knowledgable and educated Australians I think any of us have ever had the pleasure of meeting. One would have thought that the Labor Party would have enjoyed seeing him continue in that role.The second thing I noticed was that the shadow minister for education, the member for Dobell, has not been included on the committee which opposition members have put together to develop the knowledge nation. I think it was Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States of America and co-author of the Declaration of Independence, who described education as the defence of the nation. I would have thought that having your prospective education minister on the knowledge nation policy formulation committee would have been important. The third observation I made after having heard this announcement of a knowledge nation was that the Australian Education Union called on teachers last week to boycott literacy benchmark testing in Western Australian primary schools. Yet at the federal Australian Labor Party conference in Hobart it was said that literacy and numeracy were critical for the knowledge nation. In other words, the early indications of the Australian Labor Party building a knowledge nation are, shall we say, not encouraging.A number of claims were made by the Leader of the Opposition at the Labor Party conference. I noticed he said, `The Labor Party has always understood the challenge of education in this society.' The current Leader of the Opposition was at one stage the education minister and he appears to have had limited success in that regard. When there was a change of government in 1996, 30 per cent of Australian children were not able to read or write. Worse still, when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for education he gave in to pressure from the unions to continue to suppress the results of the longitudinal youth surveys which revealed the huge literacy problems among 14-year-olds in year 9 and their close link to, among other things, youth unemployment.One other thing I would like to draw the attention of the House to is the Leader of the Opposition's attempt to evoke some societal divisions by describing trade unionists as people who `don't spend their Saturday mornings reading the weekend Financial Review over a caffelatte on the cafe strip'. Instead, according to the Leader of the Opposition, they are out organising little athletics and t-ball games. The implication is that those who are caffelatte drinkers or who drink a bit of coffee are those who do not engage themselves in children's sport—as if these sorts of things, as the Sydney Morning Herald said, are mutually exclusive and in many ways are the heart and soul of the nation.The Leader of the Opposition in trying to build a knowledge nation dismisses Barry Jones as President of the Labor Party, does not lift a finger to support literacy and numeracy benchmark testing and then goes on to describe with derision people who pursue intellectual pursuits. How can you build a knowledge nation on that basis? It is also a criticism of everything he says he so passionately supports. How can you deride on the one hand learning, knowledge and education and then on the other say you are going to build an education nation and you are going to be an education Prime Minister?I have said this so many times, but I have to say it again. The other thing Labor members need to realise is they cannot have it both ways. You cannot have fully funded public education, health, social services and a whole range of things on the one hand and then deny and obstruct everything that goes on in this parliament brought on by the government to improve efficiency, productivity and generally support wealth creation which ultimately finances it. That includes, amongst other things, the tax reforms which commenced on 1 July.Sitting suspended from 6.27 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0018892Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—As has been noted by other speakers in this debate, the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 and the second reading amendment moved by the member for Dobell deal broadly with the question of education funding. Specifically, the bill does the following: it indexes all aspects of higher education funding; it includes for the first time funding in the forward estimates for the year 2002; it makes a number of technical changes in the Higher Education Contribution Scheme; it implements the budget announcement to introduce a system of bonded medical scholarships; and it provides $4 million per annum for the Research Infrastructure Equipment and Facilities Scheme. In doing so, it implements the budget changes to higher education. As detailed in the second reading amendment moved by the member for Dobell and in his speech on the second reading, assessing this bill cannot be divorced from assessing the performance of this government as a whole in the area of education, and particularly higher education.In making that assessment I want to concentrate on two key questions: specifically, the question of access to higher education and the question of equity. It is an important day on which to be considering the question of access to higher education. As members would recall from question time today and hopefully from reading the newspapers this morning, the Sydney Morning Herald contained a report dealing with the question of universities lowering their entry standards—as the headline put it—`for cashed-up students'. It is important that the details of what is happening in our universities actually go on the record in this place. The article records the following: Students with the money to pay fees in advance will be able to gain entry to a wide range of NSW university courses next year, including elite degrees, with significantly lower marks than other students.Some of the courses will allow them to have a universities admission index (UAI) five points lower than those of other students. The institutions with full-fee courses—the University of NSW, University of Sydney, Australian Catholic University and Charles Sturt University at Bathurst—will offer 211 [such places] next year, an increase of 23 per cent. The fees range from $7,000 to $36,000.A student beginning a bachelor of commerce degree at the UNSW would need a UAI of 94.35 next year, but someone paying the $11,000 annual fee would need a UAI of only 89.40. At the University of Sydney, a student doing—the much sought-after combination of arts-law—a combined arts/law degree would need a 99.05 UAI, but this drops to 94.05 for a full fee-paying student spending $16,000 a year.On two occasions today the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs was questioned about this matter. It should be noted that even this minister—who is not known for his judgment given his demotion to his current job and the Prime Minister's eagerness to bury his higher education agenda when it was leaked to the media—understands that you cannot justify to the Australian community fee paying students taking away places from non-fee paying, more meritorious students; that is, students with a higher academic entry mark. Even he realised that proposition was completely unarguable, so he did everything he could to avoid arguing it in question time today. First we saw him attempting to justify this situation on the basis that this government has increased access to higher education and so there were more places for everyone. That was the proposition that he put in question time today. But, as we all know from the statistics that we have in this area, it is not true to say that there are sufficient places in our universities for everyone. It is not true to say that growth under this government is occurring anywhere near fast enough. In particular, this minister often boasts that there are 40,000 more students on Australian campuses now than when this government came to office. That fails to take into account two very real factors: firstly, this minister is on the record in this House boasting about the number of higher education places for this year in the Australian higher education sector, and the boast that he makes is actually for a figure that is less than last year's figure. So on the minister's own admissions in this House, we are actually not seeing growth between last year and this year; indeed, we are seeing a reduction in places. That needs to be viewed in a context where the growth rate for places in our higher education sector over five years of this government has fallen way behind the growth rate for higher education places which was taking place under the Labor government. Indeed, the growth rate figures are down at less than half. So it is simply not true, as this minister would try to contend and as he tried to contend today, that somehow this arrangement where people with lower academic scores can access full fee paying places, possibly excluding someone with a better academic mark, does not matter because there are places in the higher education system for all. That is simply not true.The second justification the minister endeavoured to put today—it is not one that worked either—was that this system was comparable with the fee paying system for overseas students. What we know about the fee paying system for overseas students is that overseas students come here and pay fees each and every year throughout the life of their course. That is done to generate revenue and profits for our higher education sector, which hopefully then uses that revenue and profits and directs them into useful activities such as the funding of other student places, research activities or what have you. On two occasions today, the minister was given the opportunity to say, `These places will be like that; that is, each and every year these fee paying students present to universities, they will be required to pay fees again.' On two occasions, given that opportunity, he refused to say that. So let us be clear about it: this minister is clearly countenancing a situation that does not happen with overseas students now. He is countenancing a situation where a fee paying student could present at university with a lesser academic entry score than has somebody who cannot afford to pay, could secure themselves a first year place by paying for it and then, in the latter years of their course, move to a fully funded government place and complete the course in a fully funded government place. Clearly, if that is what the minister is countenancing—and you would have to say from his performance in question time today that that is clearly what he is doing—then in the latter years of that course there are government places being taken by people who originally secured their entry to higher education because they could pay the fee, even though they presented with a lesser academic standard. That is the system that is being countenanced here.If the government is going to promote that system, it needs to be clear to all the battling Australian families—and I have large numbers of them in my electorate who have a dream, an aspiration that their kids will get access to higher education and the opportunity for a better career and a better life—that the system this government is contemplating for higher education will be one where that whole picture can be distorted by the ability to pay. That is what we heard in question time today; and I hope the government has the honesty to clearly put that position and campaign on it, if that is what it intends to do. What we saw today was not an honest assessment of that position. We saw the minister trying to duck and weave and hide behind access figures and, when that did not work for him, trying to hide behind some comparison with overseas student places and, when that did not work for him, going back to the stock standard response we hear every time this minister gets up—which is that, when in doubt and you do not know the answers and you cannot explain the system, you criticise the Labor Party and the unions and everybody else in the higher education system, because you are not in a position to explain your lack of vision.Moving from access questions to equity questions, as the member for Dobell noted in his speech on this bill, there is a Howard government inspired education deficit of $3 billion, an enormous black hole—of wasted lives and wasted opportunities—created by this government since 1996. Just to recap the calculation of that $3 billion, this government has cut almost $1 billion from universities. There have been cuts of $240 million in funding for vocational education and training. There have been higher HECS charges, which strip away from students almost $1 billion. The enrolment benchmark adjustment has so far cut about $60 million from federal funding to public schools right across the country. Finally, there have been cuts to student assistance of more than $500 million.We need to note—and this bill confirms it—that, against that huge $3 billion deficit in education funding, what this government delivered on budget night was a bit of tinkering, the adding of $17 million extra for new education initiatives in the financial year that we are currently in. But anybody with sense would look at those figures and say that that $17 million simply cannot repair the damage that has been done to our education system and it cannot fix the clear inequities that are in our education system and that continue to exist.I note that the minister in question time today criticised the Labor initiative which was announced at our recent national conference of committing to education priority zones. I would say in respect of that criticism that it ill behoves this minister to criticise that policy, when this government is doing absolutely nothing to address the increasingly spatial nature of inequity and inequality in our education system. I refer in that regard to what I think are very important statistics to note, because they are the kind of statistics around which the government ought to be shaping its education policies—and, given the increasingly spatial nature of disadvantage, those policies ought to include something like the priority zones which have been advocated by the Labor Party. I take the House to some of the research that is detailed in what is referred to as the Kirby report, which is the Ministerial Review of Post Compulsory Education and Training Pathways in Victoria, a report that has been procured by the new Labor government and by the incoming minister Lynne Kosky. There are some very important statistics in this report about the spatial nature of disadvantage, which continues to go unaddressed by this government. The report reads as follows:Dropping out of school is influenced by socioeconomic level. In regions of Melbourne where there are many tertiary educated families, fewer than 1 in 10 young people leave school early. In regions of mixed socioeconomic status, dropping out increases to around 20 per cent of girls and 30 per cent of boys. Lower socioeconomic status areas record the highest rates of early leaving, from as high as 30 per cent of girls to more than 40 per cent of boys. In country regions, early leaving is also at these high levels.What is difficult to describe to the House is that the report then provides a spatial map of Victoria, a country map and a city map, and shows through the shading the relative disadvantage in the sense of early school leaving. It records, for example, in relation to my electorate—which would be in the outer western region of Melbourne, as this is displayed—that early leaving from school among girls in my electorate is in the region of 11 to 20 per cent and, among boys, in the region of 21 to 30 per cent.Those figures, I would have to say, are not the worst—because there are some country and outer suburban city regions where early leaving among girls reaches 21 to 30 per cent and early leaving amongst boys reaches 36 per cent and over. What is clear when you look at the coloured-in map is the very spatial nature of disadvantage. We are able now to quite clearly point to suburbs and localities which are characterised by early school leaving and lost opportunity and to suburbs and localities that have higher retention rates, not only through the completion of secondary school but into higher education.Interestingly the report goes on to note that within Melbourne, where my electorate is located:... the regions where early leaving is generally high are also in general those in which student achievement is also relatively weak. For example, in the outer-western, north-western and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, students are much more likely to receive low grades in VCE English than in suburbs of middle to high socioeconomic status, and in the north-west and south-east of the city they also drop out of school more frequently.It is interesting to note that in relation to country regions there is not that correlation between low achievement and early leaving. The report goes on to say:In contrast to regions where both low achievement and early leaving are found, there are regions in Victoria in which early leaving is not associated with low levels of scholastic achievement. This is the case in much of country Victoria and in some areas, on the outer-urban fringe of Melbourne, which have large rural segments, notably the outer-eastern suburbs and Mornington Peninsula.I think what that says to us really is that the data is saying to us that there is this spatial nature of disadvantage. But we would not want to move from that data to saying that there is a simple explanation as to why people leave school early and that that explanation is uniform across all of the areas that experience high rates of early school leaving. The data, in fact, is telling us that there are different factors at work in different locations. That would tend to suggest that we need different and specifically tailored responses in different locations if we are to address that kind of disadvantage.It is clear that this government is just not dealing with these questions at all. It has no response to these very chronic and worrying questions of educational disadvantage. In terms of quantifying how chronic and worrying these questions of disadvantage are, I would point to some important work that has been done by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum where it quotes a study undertaken by Anthony King of the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling at the University of Canberra. This study tries to quantify, in dollar terms, the personal loss and the society-wide loss of early school leaving. The model, referred to as NATSEM, estimates that about 35,000 students `do not complete their secondary schooling and will not participate in further formal education or training'. Then it takes into account what that will cost the individuals involved. It arrives at an average figure, an average cost to each early school leaver of close to $15,000—that is in net present value terms. It goes on to state: What this means, is that when someone leaves school early they are effectively forgoing a cheque for $15,000 which they could have invested to enjoy the rewards over a lifetime.It then goes on to estimate the society-wide costs of early school leaving, taking into account a number of factors including decreased social cohesion, higher costs associated with the provision of health care, higher costs associated with crime prevention and protection, higher administrative costs attached to providing social welfare programs. It comes to the conclusion that, if you aggregate the costs overall to our society of early school leaving, those costs once aggregated represent a total of $2.6 billion per year.That is a staggering figure. But it seems to me that it is in looking at arguments like that and in addressing the kind of disadvantage that those arguments lay bare for us that the future for education policy lies. These are the sorts of issues that we on this side of the House are making a realistic and concerted attempt to grapple with. What is worrying is that from the other side we see nothing but criticisms of these attempts, dismissive waves about these attempts to deal with education policy—while at the same time this government is out of an agenda for education. When it came into office, it had an agenda for literacy and numeracy. It has implemented that agenda. It is out of an agenda for higher education. That agenda was thrown out the window once it was leaked from cabinet. Now all we have is $17 million worth of tinkering from the last budget, notwithstanding that we are dealing with a $3 billion deficit in this area.In relation to this bill and the education area generally, all I can say is that we would prefer to see coming from the other side—rather than tinkering and simplistic lines of abuse—some real thinking about educational disadvantage and some real thinking about what can be done to address it at a Commonwealth level. We will be very pleased if we see some of that.20:20:0018896Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—It is a pleasure to address this issue in the House tonight because higher education and the promotion of it is something that I think we all strongly support, although of course from time to time we differ about how to go about it. The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 does have various parts to it. But, before I get into that, I think I might just go back and look at the way in which the HECS scheme originated.HECS originated with the Wran committee in December 1987. When that committee reported, it recommended in April 1988 that there should be a contribution scheme whereby higher education students would pay an additional two per cent of taxable income until they met 20 per cent of the cost of their higher education. Under that proposal from the Wran committee, the requirement to pay would arise only when the student's personal taxable income exceeded the average earnings of all working Australians. The committee also recommended that there be three levels of contribution: $1,500, $2,500 and $3,000 per annum—whichever would apply would depend on the cost of the course involved. The report also canvassed the possibility of allowing institutions to vary these charges by 15 per cent above and below the standard.They are some of the elements that the Wran committee reported. It did also say that there could be a discount applied to up-front payments and that the discount would need to be around 40 per cent to be attractive in financial terms to students. In August 1988, the then Labor government announced that it had accepted most of the Wran committee's recommendations and it introduced the HECS on 1 January 1989. However, the scheme as introduced only had one rate of contribution, which was $1,800, and an up-front discount of only 15 per cent. That is the nature of the introduction and the policy development that led to the introduction of HECS. Since then, reports on how HECS has flourished have been basically supportive. In fact, research provided by the Parliamentary Library on the matter stated:The shift in cost to students also appears to have been accomplished without any significant adverse impact on participation. The number of commencing undergraduates, excluding overseas students, has increased by at least 25 per cent since 1988, and a recent study concluded that HECS is a very minor factor in the low participation in higher education by people of low socioeconomic status.That is the background to HECS. It has become a fixture in the Australian way of life, but tonight we are looking at a bill which amends the Higher Education Funding Act 1988. This bill also gives effect to measures in the 2000-01 budget. In particular, this will enable us to commit to maintaining funding levels for higher education. This year, universities will receive over $5.7 billion from the Commonwealth, including HECS. This support, combined with reforms that have allowed universities to diversify and expand their income sources, means that university revenues this year will reach an estimated amount of $9 billion. In the budget, there was a commitment to provide an additional $62.8 million for the Strategic Partnerships with Industry Research and Training Scheme over three years from 2002. That is included in this bill. The government gave a commitment to funding levels for higher education, and it also gave a commitment to provide $562 million in the budget for a country health package. That is the largest ever effort by an Australian government to redress the historical imbalance between rural and city health, and that is delivered in this bill.The bill also gives effect to a budget commitment under which additional funding of $16.3 million was to be allocated to the Research Infrastructure Equipment and Facilities Scheme over four years. Once again, that is included in this bill. The government has an excellent record in financial management. It has delivered the benefits of good financial management and careful budgetary stewardship and provided it in a way that assists in areas such as higher education and other important government services.Something that we should bear in mind is that the government has, as a result of its efforts, increased the number of undergraduate students by 35,000 and the total number of students by 42,000—that is, in equivalent full-time student units—since 1996, which is a very commendable achievement on behalf of the government. University revenues, at $9 billion, are now at an all-time high and are $900 million higher than they were in 1995. We have heard rhetoric from those across the wayabout cuts to higher education funding. They say you can make statistics go any way you want, and I think the members opposite are guilty of sheep dogging their statistics in the directions they would like to see them go. However, we on this side are cognisant of the fact that university operating grants, including marginal funding, increased slightly, by nearly one per cent in real terms, between 1996 and 1999 and are to increase further over the period 1999 to 2002. Funding per EFTSU has also increased since 1996. There has been a significant increase in targeted research and research training funding, from $405.9 million in 1996 to $446.5 million in 2000 in real terms.The higher education system we have in Australia today is not only a product of HECS and those funding arrangements but also of the unified national system of higher education, as it was called when it was introduced by the former Labor government under the then education minister John Dawkins. The unified national system had a very rocky road on its introduction, and no doubt the system we have today still bears some consequences of that. For example, in my electorate of Blair, I have two recognised campuses of the University of Queensland. The Gatton College, which is now known as the Gatton campus of the University of Queensland, has had a few difficulties under the control of the University of Queensland. Prior to the introduction of the unified national system, it was a completely stand-alone training institution and it dealt with the highest levels of learning in relation to agricultural pursuits. Since the introduction of the unified national system, it has become part of the University of Queensland. While that does reflect very well on its credibility, its standing and the extent to which the degrees it produces have clout, there has also been a downside to that. It has meant that, at the same time it has picked up on the roundabout, it has lost on the swings because some of those opportunities in higher agricultural learning have moved away from Gatton and have tended to be spirited off to the head campus at St Lucia. I do not think that has always been a good thing, but I must compliment the University of Queensland because, in recent times, they have announced their full commitment to the Gatton campus, and it is good to see them building up a head of steam there. I understand that very shortly plans for a major new development on the site there are going to be revealed, and that is very good to see. One of the offshoots of the unified national system—which is an offshoot, I think, missing out of the system—is that there is no set procedure for institutions that may not have university status today to grow and become universities tomorrow. We see that with the development of practically every new university facility that comes along. The member for Fisher, who is sitting at the table, has witnessed the development of the Sunshine Coast University—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—It is an outstanding institution.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—It is. One of the difficulties that has been involved with that is the need to get credibility in those degrees and the need to follow a formalised process to establish that university. I know that, for example, if Gatton College were ever to establish itself as a separate university, separate from the University of Queensland, it would face the same sorts of difficulties in establishing its name and its place within the system.There are also other facilities in other places. For example, at Kingaroy the march to the unified national system did not leave any established route where the local branch of the Queensland Institute of Technology may in time grow to provide local university courses. The only way they can set about doing that is by making one-off approaches to universities around the place and asking them, begging them, to come around and perhaps provide some of their higher learning opportunities on site at Kingaroy. I think we really need to focus on a way to formalise that process and regular reviews of the provision of higher education services, particularly in communities that are growing and where there is a need to provide that local level of service. Communities that do not have access to university courses on site suffer.When the unified national system came in, one of its big omissions in terms of university status was the Northern Territory University. At the time that the unified national system was brought in, there was no recognition within that for what was then the Darwin Institute of Technology as a university. The only way that Darwin eventually got itself a university was, basically, by the Territory government setting up a university of their own. They called it a university. There was a heck of a fight between John Dawkins and the then Territory government about the establishment of the Northern Territory University. That meant that initially, at this completely separate institution, questions were raised by opponents and by people in Canberra and other places about whether or not that facility really had credible degrees. There was a heck of a stoush between those two levels of government—the Commonwealth and the Territory—before eventually recognition was given to the Northern Territory University and it amalgamated with the Darwin Institute of Technology to form itself into a credible institution, and to go on to become one of the fastest growing and most exciting institutions around the place today.That brings to light the fact that we need to formalise that process because, for example in the Darwin community at that time, if people had youngsters growing up and wanted them to have a higher education degree, they had to leave the Territory altogether. That was artificially stunting the whole community's growth. Even in Kingaroy, in my electorate, people are leaving the community. They are going away and taking their whole family because, when their children reach year 12, they want a higher education opportunity for them, and they cannot find it locally. We should be reassuring those sorts of communities that we are not going to insist in the long term with them being cut off. There are other ways in which it can be done. It is not a matter of going along to the Queensland Institute of Technology in Kingaroy and announcing that tomorrow it will offer university courses. That is not really something that most people would see as an option. But, for example, the University of Southern Queensland offers very good distance education courses. These kinds of opportunities for people in remote areas of our state should be promoted and should be advanced.Once again—I spoke earlier today on education matters—I would like to take this opportunity to talk on some of the developments that we have heard recently from members opposite in their pursuit of what they have dubbed the `knowledge nation'. I said something this morning about the lack of literacy standards under former Labor governments, and I think they have a long way to go before they convince people that they really are not going to slip back on to that slippery slope and allow students' literacy standards to decline once again. I notice that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has dubbed a lot of what the Labor Party have been talking about in recent times two things—one is `headless chookery' and the other one is `windbaggery'—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—He is right on both counts.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—I think he is right on both counts, but let us have a look at some of the issues that they have discussed. We definitely need from members opposite a serious commitment to those basic literacy standards. When I heard the member for Lalor, who spoke ahead of me, make comments about the `spatial nature of disadvantage'—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—She was off the planet!84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—In a spatial sense that is probably true. There is nothing spatial at all if you do not have basic literacy and numeracy skills. These are not people who are struggling to get to university. These are people who are struggling to make it through year 9 and year 10. Yet our system is moving more and more towards a system where a year 12 education is the base standard, and of course we are now going way beyond that into all sorts of vocational and higher learning opportunities.To deny people basic literacy is, I think, a terrible offence against the Australian community, and that was what members opposite were guilty of. When they were in government 30 per cent of school students were unable to read or write properly. We cannot afford that in this day and age, and young people who are today out on the streets suffering because of that kind of policy making really should be given an undertaking that in the years ahead we will maintain a commitment to literacy standards—maintain a commitment to those basic standards of reading and writing. And whether the Labor Party comes to office or whether this government remains in office, this federal parliament should stand for those basics and should insist that those basics be met.Members opposite have again and again urged us to throw money at the problems of education, and while that is something they have done in the past—obviously without great success—this government has continued to maintain a responsible attitude towards funding education. In the time we have been looking after the education system GDP in our country has been growing rapidly. So when we talk about maintaining a constant share of GDP for education we are talking about a share of something that is growing rapidly, and that is something all Australians should be proud of on two counts: one, that increasing amounts of money are going to higher education and, two, that our country is growing rapidly, in an economic sense, to begin with. Because GDP has been growing rapidly, the increase in education spending in real terms is 17 per cent. That is the real increase in Commonwealth spending on education. That is the extent of public school funding increasing in this country since 1996. An extra $1.4 billion will be allocated over the next four years compared to the last four years. We have $402 million more being spent on government schools this year than was spent in Labor's last year—that is an increase of 26 per cent. Commonwealth spending on government schools is growing faster in Labor states than spending by those Labor state governments themselves. For example, in my state of Queensland, total school spending by the state government is up 3.7 per cent and the Commonwealth spending in that state is up 7.5 per cent. In Tasmania, state government spending has increased by 2.9 per cent and Commonwealth spending by 4.3 per cent. In Victoria, state spending is up 4.5 per cent versus 6.6 per cent. (Time expired)20:40:0018900Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I, too, would like to speak on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 which is before the House tonight. The bill itself has provided indexed funding arrangements for all areas of higher education. It sets the maximum grants available up until the year 2002 and also makes some minor changes to HECS. Basically this bill legislates the changes announced in the 2000-01 budget. The bill is an attempt to fill the funding deficit in higher education that was created by four years of Howard government cuts to universities, to TAFE colleges and to student support schemes. Tonight though I would like to comment on the downward direction education is headed under this government.Since 1996 the Howard government have continually attacked higher education, as they have also attacked Medicare and workplace relations. These are the three areas which the coalition have wanted to dismantle for the whole 13 years they were in opposition. They could not stand seeing government money going into the public school system or being invested in universities and increasing research grants. Since March 1996, following the election of the Howard government, almost $1 billion has been cut from universities and vocational training schemes have been cut by $240 million. This is the government which introduced higher HECS charges, effectively increasing the cost of studying for students by $1 billion across Australia. They have also cut student assistance to the tune of $500 million. However, the part which I find the most damaging to Australia's future is the enrolment benchmark adjustment, which has now cut $60 million from federal funding to our public schools across the country.The logic behind this EBA—and government members will be the first to tell you this—is that by giving less funding to public education and more funding to private schools private school fees are eventually reduced. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, would say that people are then given greater `choice' in the education of their children. However, the government is missing the fundamental point—that is, education is the government's responsibility. In a democracy the government of the day has an obligation to provide a quality, equitable and accessible public education system, not to create a private and exclusive education system. This choice, which the government refers to, is still only a choice for a small group of people. For many people in my electorate of Prospect I can assure you that the luxury of a private school education will never be an option for them. I believe this government is neglecting its responsibilities to public education. Public schools are schools funded and maintained by the government which provide equal access for all students regardless of what they can afford. I fail to see any element of fairness in the EBA. This government treats education like a business, applying business theories to their survival. However, free market theories cannot be applied to education because the main goal with education is the attainment of knowledge rather than a profit at the end of the day's trading. The EBA is blatantly unfair and has caused unnecessary division in the Australian community. If it continues, the public education system will continue to be run down and deprived of funds. Its pupils will then have less prosperous job opportunities.That is why the Labor Party upon winning government will abolish it. Over the past three years the EBA has taken, I repeat, more than $60 million from government schools around Australia while, at the same time, those schools have enrolled an extra 26,000 students. The Commonwealth and the public education system must work hand in hand, not against each other like they currently do under Dr Kemp's divisive and backward looking regime. Recently the Labor Party announced the Learning Gateway, an initiative which will serve as an information site on the Internet for teachers, students and parents. This is the direction education will have to take if Australia is to survive and be competitive in the new economy. The Learning Gateway will move the Commonwealth's focus on education from merely announcing three-yearly funding arrangements to becoming an active learning partner with individuals across Australia. This is an area where that $60 million which has been taken out of public school funding would be far better spent. Not only would the Learning Gateway provide education, information resources and tools to students, parents and teachers but it would play a leading role in developing a multimedia content and delivering on-line content relevant to vocational education and training. Under this government education standards have deteriorated. The education sector now has a $3 billion deficit hanging over its head, primarily because of this government's cuts to our universities across Australia and to our TAFE colleges. However, there is a real crisis in the area of research. We are the only advanced Western nation where private business research and development is not only falling in real terms but also falling in nominal terms. This means that, under the Howard government, spending on research and development—investment in the future of this country—has fallen three years in a row as a percentage of national output. There is a flashing warning light out there which indicates that there is serious work to be done in this area but this government seems to be too complacent to want to do anything about it.The bill itself enacts initiatives laid down in the budget with respect to education. In this budget only $17 million extra was allocated to new education incentives. This $17 million is expected to cover all areas from university right down to TAFE, high school, primary school and early childhood. This is an appalling amount of funding when one considers the urgent need for more investment in the education field. Even the Howard government's first budget—that slash and burn budget in 1996—had more spending on new education than this measly $17 million that the 2000-01 budget produced. These budget figures raise a very important point with respect to how much money should be available for spending on education. The budget estimates for this year claimed that an $11 billion surplus would be delivered. But come budget night there was no $11 billion. In fact, the $11 billion would have been a good deposit to spend on education initiatives or on research and development. But where has this $11 billion surplus gone? The 2000-01 budget was delivered with a phoney surplus propped up by the sale of mobile phone spectrum. It was a budget which had the lowest amount of money allocated for new education initiatives since this government won office. It has been squandered on the coalition's obsession with taxation reform. The effect of these four years of government cuts is really starting to take effect out there. Now that the universities have been starved of funds and are cash strapped, thanks to the Howard government, they are willing to lower their entrance mark for full fee paying students. This is chequebook education.The Sydney Morning Herald today reported that the universities which offer full fee paying courses—the University of New South Wales, the University of Sydney, the Australian Catholic University and the Charles Sturt University—will lower their admission index five points for those who are willing to pay up-front fees. Does this now mean that, for a student doing a combined arts-law degree at the University of Sydney, for example, who would normally need a UAI of 99.05, this year if they or their families can afford to pay the $16,000 a year for the course, the UAI will drop five points to 94.05? They will then study law while students who got the same UAI and cannot afford the $16,000 will be forced to miss out. That once in a lifetime opportunity of getting a good education, the opportunity to study at university level, is now at serious risk. This old-fashioned, old hat style of higher education is a direct result of this government cutting funding to our universities. We are now seeing the ramifications of funding cuts to universities and the consequences of applying free market theories to the education system; that is, now that the universities have been starved of funds they are now looking for funds from anywhere they can find them. However, what suffers in all this is the principle of equal access to university and higher education. University education is now becoming a luxury afforded only to those from privileged backgrounds. However, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs does not see the problem with education in this country. He has, I believe, a very blinkered vision of education. Even today in question time—twice he was asked—he said he could not rule out the situation of people who had better UAIs missing out on places to richer students. He stood up here in this chamber today and used the same old tired, shoddy rhetoric to argue that all Australian students should have to pay fees to go to university. This is the typical user-pays education spiel that we have become so used to from this minister. We know that the user certainly does pay, and pay extensively. We all remember that leaked cabinet submission paper that admitted that students would be paying up to $100,000 for a degree. This reminds me of the American style of education: their universities and colleges are so expensive that large college funds are needed to pay for a university degree or higher education. This style of chequebook education will not be tolerated by a Labor opposition or by Labor in government. It is affirmative action for the rich. It is totally and completely unfair for those Australians who simply cannot afford to buy their university degrees. We must not have a bar of it. It is not in the interest of quality education or fairness to have a standard of entry for battling Australians and a lower standard for those who can swap a cheque for a degree.Many students in Australia rely on the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, HECS, which defers their payment of university fees until they enter the work force. However, under this government people who use HECS simply because they cannot afford up-front fees are being shafted down the queue to make way for students who are able to afford up-front fees but are in fact less qualified. The Australian dream of a local kid going to the local high school, studying hard, getting good marks and going on to complete university study is becoming more and more distant. This year more than 80,000 students around Australia will sit for their HSC. This is a most difficult time for all those students. The pressure of study now is combined with having to work out what university or TAFE course they wish to enrol in after school or what career path they want to undertake. Every year we hear the success stories of our brilliant students who get their first choice of university degrees through hard work and study. These students are great achievers and they should be congratulated for their hard work and for their dedication. We also repeatedly hear the heartbreaking stories of students who have studied hard all year and only narrowly missed out on the university course of their choice. Along with all the pressures of the HSC, these students will now have an added worry; that is, even though they may have scored just under the required UAI for their first choice university course, someone who missed out also but is able to pay their way into the degree, regardless of who got the lower mark, will have the jump on them. The minister today would not rule out the situation of these students who paid up-front for their first year entry then taking a government funded position in second or third year through HECS. I ask him: why not?Consider this situation where two students apply for the same degree with a cut-off UAI of 90. One student—we will call him Dave—gets 89.50 and narrowly misses out, while the other student, Campbell, gets 86 but buys his way into the university course. The next year Dave applies again and is refused, while Campbell gets offered a government funded HECS plan for the remainder of his studies. This plan could have been given to Dave, who originally beat Campbell in the HSC. I wonder how many of the 80,000 school students who are preparing for the HSC this year will miss out on their first choice of university course. I also wonder how many of these students will have their place at university taken by someone who scored a few marks less but had a few more zeros in their family bank account. This will be a new heartbreaking reality for HSC students, and this is something else they will have to worry about. I also want to remind the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs that many of these HSC students will be first-time voters at the next election. I can guarantee you that these voters will remember which government made studying for the HSC that much harder, which government cut university funding by $1 billion over four years. They will remember which government increased HECS fees, which government in the 2000-01 budget gave the lowest funding in four years to new education initiatives. But, most of all, these students will remember which government through spending cuts sacrificed their university place to a richer but less qualified student. After a few more years of the Howard government I can see quality education becoming only more and more unaffordable for the thousands of people in my electorate who rely on a fully funded education system. Within this system each person should have access to fair and equal education. It is time for this government to wake up and realise where they are sending this country in terms of education.The minister sits there quite happily knowing that there is a $3 billion educational deficit because of government cuts. Students are now paying $1 billion more across Australia because of increased HECS; $60 million taken from public schools through the EBA; cuts to student assistance of more than $500 million; and universities are now lowering their entrance marks for rich students. The minister will not be sitting there for too much longer. Australians are now surely realising what the government is doing and the damage it has done to education.This government by these rules is holding this country back and slowly creating a divisive education system in which a select few will continue to prosper while other Australians will continue to be denied access to our universities and to a quality higher education system. This is not the education system I want, and most Australians do not want an education system like this. The voters in Australia are not fools. They can see what the coalition is all about, and they can see what this government's education policy is all about. It is simply not good enough, and the people will not wear it.20:55:0018903Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I wish to support the views which are being expressed by my colleague the member for Prospect, and I want in my contribution on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 to pay particular attention to the attitude of this government to higher education and its impact on regional and remote areas. From my point of view what has happened here has been an absolute dereliction of duty by this government in relation to regional universities.In 1998, or thereabouts, an initial bout of funding was received by the Northern Territory University, based in Darwin. It was seen as providing an opportunity for the residents of the Northern Territory to achieve a reasonable higher education degree from a university which had hitherto run courses as an agent of the University of Queensland. It was seen that having the ability to be able to run your own arts degree or your own economics degree, develop a business school and have your own law degree was a way of attracting students from the Northern Territory to that university. I well recall the arguments and the views which were put by the then Northern Territory government about the way in which the then Labor government—from memory the Minister for Employment, Education and Training then was John Dawkins—had been tardy in providing these resources.It is of interest that in the 12 years that have passed we have seen effectively the rise and decline of the Northern Territory University. I worked at the precursor to the Northern Territory University, lecturing and tutoring in a number of subjects, one of which was politics. At that point it was possible at that university to do a major in politics and a major in Australian history. Under the regime of Dr Kemp it is no longer possible at the Northern Territory University to do English as part of an arts degree. You can no longer do an English major. You can no longer do a major, or even a minor, in political science. You can no longer do a major or a minor in physics. You can no longer do a major or a minor in maths. You can no longer do a major—but you can do a minor—in anthropology. There is no major or minor in archaeology. And you cannot do a minor or a major in Australian history, ancient history or modern history. I am a humanities graduate. My interest at university was history and politics. I did a double major in history and a major in politics. I could not have achieved that outcome at the Northern Territory University. If you want to be a specialist maths teacher in the Northern Territory you cannot do the maths degree in the Northern Territory. Let us say that you want to be one of those teachers of which we know there is a shortage in Australian high schools—a specialist maths and physics teacher. You cannot do that degree at the Northern Territory University. You can do an education degree, but you cannot do a degree in arts specialising in physics and maths—or indeed in history or English—so that you can go out and teach the children of the Northern Territory so that they can then get access to the university by studying English, maths, physics and, dare I say, history. It seems to me that a funny sort of priority is being attached to education if at this university you cannot get these degrees which would be, I suggest, the mainstay of a general degree in most other universities. Of course this has happened because of the way in which Dr Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, has dealt with higher education in this country.My view is that the federal government's ignorance of the facts of life as they impact upon regional Australia has meant that higher education policies are really kicking people in the bush in the guts. Instead of a university that was growing—growing with the expectations of the Northern Territory community—we now have one that is shrinking and one that, if I think the minister had his way, would possibly disappear altogether. When this university was first created there was an expectation that we would see it grow with the Territory, but instead we are seeing it diminish day by day as a direct result of the policies of the Howard government. As I said, you can study education at the Northern Territory University but, if you want to be a specialist teacher in English, history, maths or physics, don't bother turning up to enrol.If you live in the bush, you have made the wrong lifestyle choice as far as this government is concerned because it seems that you no longer have the right to adequate remote area or distance education. That is the other implication of the way in which funds have been cut from the Northern Territory University's budget. A combination of Dr Kemp's policies, his party's abysmal ignorance of the way we live in the Northern Territory and in the bush generally and the supine CLP administration in Darwin have all but killed off any hope that we could have of a tertiary institution serving the real educational needs of the people of the Territory. The funding cuts that Dr Kemp announced after the last election ignored the fact that, if you want a small university to remain viable, you do not start a process of amputation. You back it to the hilt to show that you have confidence in regional Australia. The Northern Territory University has severe problems right now. It is almost at crisis point, if it is not there already. The responsibility for this rot rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Dr Kemp. Its fate puts a lie to Mr Howard's claim about caring for regional Australia and makes a joke of the Country Liberal Party's claim to represent the interests of Territorians.Indeed, if I could go into the archives and bring out the speeches and expose the press releases that were made at the time of the discussion about the Northern Territory being funded by the Commonwealth, you would see a drastic difference between the language which was used about the then Labor government with John Dawkins as the education minister and the language which is currently used—that is, the supine way in which the CLP have bent over to accommodate the interests of the Howard government and Dr Kemp at the expense of the Northern Territory community. Let there be no doubt about it: if you were to compare and contrast the way in which they approached the then Hawke government in the first instance and the way in which they approach the current Howard government over the question of higher education in the Northern Territory, you would expose the contradictions in their position and you would demonstrate very clearly that they have not been acting as advocates on behalf of the Northern Territory community. They have given in to the demands of the Howard government. We know that regional universities have been disproportionately affected by the cuts from this government, particularly those with distance education programs and regionalised campuses for which the cuts have been so destructive. I mentioned the Northern Territory University but also included of course as being affected are the University of New England, Deakin University, University of Wollongong, University of Southern Queensland, Central Queensland University and Charles Sturt University, and the list goes on. People in regional and remote Australia apparently now have no rights to access higher education, at least not the rights that you and I would expect. The Howard government not only is guilty of cutting our services but now apparently views people in remote and regional Australia as having made a lifestyle choice, as some people wishing to access IVF have found. This is code for, `You have no rights at all if we don't want you to have them.' I think that is true in relation to this government.As I have explained, once the funding cuts were announced the staff cuts began at the Northern Territory University. Courses went out the door and amalgamations proliferated. Indigenous studies were to be subsumed with foundation studies, for instance, and distance education, a significant and highly necessary support service for the people of remote Northern Australia, was gutted. These management decisions and the resulting erosion of services have precipitated a crisis of staff morale at the Northern Territory University.I am acquainted with a number of universities in Australia and I know a large number of academics. I know how, by and large, they are prepared to go the extra yard for their students and for the institutions in which they work; well beyond, I might say, the call of duty. But I have to say that it is wearing very thin, and I do not believe it will continue. Certainly, in the case of the Northern Territory, I know that they have had enough. It seems to me that when voters come to make a choice at the next federal election—certainly in the Northern Territory—they will mark down this government as a result of the way in which they have dealt with higher education in Northern Australia.We know about the enterprise bargaining agreement which is currently being debated in the universities. Certainly in the case of the Northern Territory University it is very clear that it does not have the resources it requires to meet the legitimate demands of its staff. Of course, what we will get as a result of this discussion is another cycle of staff cuts, rationalisation of courses, disappointed students and disappointed parents, and the morale around the university will again sink to new depths. I know of students who have turned up at this university on the expectation that they would be able to finish a course at the university only to discover part of the way through that a course had been axed in the third or second year. The contract they had with the university has been unable to be fulfilled because of decisions taken by the university as a direct result of the funding cuts by this government. I do not think that is fair to young Australians, and I think it is particularly unfair to those people who live in Northern Australia for whom the choices are so limited. Yet we get no apology from this government. All we get is excuses. We heard the tirade today from the minister in relation to the question of the purchase of courses by students who could not otherwise meet the entry requirements of the universities.I will come to that in a moment, but I want to make another point. We all know that this government has cut the number of postgraduate research positions. In the case of the Northern Territory University they have been cut by over 60 per cent. We have heard the arguments about why we need to be and should be a knowledge nation. Certainly from this side of politics we have a deadset commitment towards that. We have heard the arguments about why it is important for industry development purposes to have gifted Australians doing research at our universities at home in Australia and not fleeing overseas because of the abysmal way they are currently treated by the higher education system as a result of this government's policies. We know all the arguments about why it is important to have postgraduate research at our universities. Yet in the case of the Northern Territory University—a small university—they have all but eradicated postgraduate research places. I fear the day is rapidly approaching when the Northern Territory University will be unable to sustain many of the other courses it currently runs, aside from those it has already taken out of its curriculum—the ones I have already mentioned. Already it runs courses in tandem with the Open University. How long will it be before it once again becomes an agent for the University of Queensland or the University of Melbourne or Flinders University or the University of Sydney or the University of Canberra or the Australian National University, running their courses because it does not have the infrastructure to support its own courses in its own right? I fear the day is rapidly approaching when far fewer courses will be developed at the university, at least in the core areas, far fewer than those which were around in the late 1980s.Today in this House we had the sight of the minister defending lower entry standards for cashed-up students. Frankly, I think it is insulting. I understand the argument about purchasing student places and why the government believes it is appropriate to have students pay who can afford to pay. I do not accept the argument but I understand it. But I cannot understand the argument that, where in two households—one next door to the other—two people fail to have a TER of 90 for a BA Honours degree—both have 85.25 per cent—because one neighbour is rich enough to buy their way in, that person can go to university and the next-door neighbour cannot. Is that fair? I understood that the question of entry scores to universities was not only about limiting the numbers but also actually about quality. This is about getting the best students into universities. What we are seeing, as has been pointed out by the shadow minister for education, is an affirmative action program for the rich at the expense of other Australians who, because of their circumstances, are not able to bribe their way into universities. They are not able to attend these universities because the costs have increased dramatically—we already know the figures. HECS as a proportion of the funding to universities will increase by 113 per cent from 1996 to 2002 because of the cuts in government funding. So HECS has already increased, increasing the burden on the normal, everyday student who happens to get through the TER scheme and is able to get into university competitively.The government have reduced the funding in universities generally, and now they are saying to the rich kids on the block, `Don't worry about the scores, fellows. You guys and you ladies should just come up with the money and we will get you in.' But if you happen to be the son or daughter of a working class family or of a single parent family, bad luck. They are saying that you should just hop on the tram and find another job because you are not going to be allowed into university. They are saying, `If you come from an area of regional disadvantage, we will not give you easy access, but we will give you easy access if you have money in your pocket.' I think that is abhorrent, and it shows dramatically where this government is coming from in relation to higher education. (Time expired)21:16:0018906Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise to participate in this important debate on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 and to support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Dobell. I commence by acknowledging that an appropriately targeted and funded education policy is the best investment a nation can make in its own future—a view which is obviously not shared by the current government. The Bills Digest states that the purpose of this bill is to:adjust grants for funding year 2001 for price movements;set the maximum grants available for funding year 2002;vary the maxima for operating grants for 1999-2001 to reflect revised estimates for the Higher Education Contribution Scheme; andprovide additional funding for measures announced in the 2000-01 Budget concerning research programs and university places for students on bonded medical scholarships. This so-called initiative must be viewed with total cynicism, because the Howard government, especially with Dr Kemp as minister, has been relentless in its obsession to reduce education spending to the disgraceful levels we experience today. Indeed, we could be forgiven for believing that this government and this minister have set about deliberately dumbing down this nation to almost Third World standards. I use the term `dumbing down' advisedly, because Dr Kemp will undoubtedly be regarded by history as the Don Quixote of Australian politics. His total paranoia regarding education unions would provide a major challenge for even the most gifted psychiatrist. In fact, it is rumoured that there is enough material for a full-blown, 500-participant psychiatrist convention inside the minister's head every day. The mind boggles at the thought of this minister seeking to dumb our educational standards down to his distorted level.The member for Dobell, our spokesman on higher education, has estimated that there is now a $3 billion education deficit because of the cuts that the Howard government has made since 1996. Almost $1 billion has been cut from universities. There have been cuts in funding for vocational education and training of $240 million. There have been HECS charges which have stripped away almost $1 billion from students. The enrolment benchmark adjustment has so far cut about $60 million from federal funding to public schools right across the country, and that continues to grow. There have also been cuts to student assistance of more than $500 million. Universities in regional areas have lost almost $171 million from their budgets. It is these universities that are the real drivers of development in regional communities. Regional universities give local kids and mature age students their best opportunity to study for a degree and to get the skills they need to gain the high quality jobs of the future. The Howard-Kemp cuts of $171 million from our regional universities will deny students in regional communities the chance to study for a degree. This massive reduction in funding will deny regional communities opportunities for economic development and new jobs.La Trobe University in Bendigo has felt the impact of the Howard-Kemp cuts most severely. La Trobe Bendigo's budget from the Commonwealth government has been reduced by almost $2 million over the past four years. This faculty—and I emphasise the word `faculty'—had a total income in 1999 of $35.6 million: $26.7 million came from Commonwealth grants and the balance came from other areas generated by La Trobe Bendigo's initiatives, including fees of $2.4 million from full fee paying, predominantly international, students, which is an increase of almost $350,000 over the previous year. Other locally generated income has increased by $800,000 since last year.La Trobe University Bendigo is responsible for $18.1 million being placed in Bendigo's economy each year in salaries and wages, and a further $8.9 million comes from maintenance and repairs, materials and equipment, and other administrative overheads. This is a total of $27 million injected directly into Bendigo's economy. In addition to these factors, there are various business operations associated with the faculty. Together with the multiplier effect of the personal consumption of 3,600 students and 432 staff—which makes it one of the region's largest employers—La Trobe University Bendigo estimates that it makes a financial impact on the economy of the Bendigo region of approximately $130 million per year.The Howard-Kemp cuts to universities have cost central Victoria almost $3.5 million. Bendigo's problems are worsened by internal transfers of dollars—and control—to La Trobe University's Bundoora campus. The reason for this is obvious: La Trobe University Bundoora is attempting to alleviate the budget problems caused by the Howard-Kemp cuts by extracting almost $3 million per year from La Trobe Bendigo's budget. The effect of this is severely hampering La Trobe Bendigo's ability to continue to provide its excellent service. This loss of over $3 million each year limits the Bendigo faculty's ability to provide its excellent range of courses and services and results in a deskilling of administrative support and a substantial stripping of much needed and valuable assets. This is all a direct result of the Howard-Kemp plan for education. La Trobe University Bendigo has recently appointed a Regional Advisory Committee consisting of prominent Bendigo community representatives and successful business leaders. Mr Gordon McKern is the group's chairman. I know that Mr McKern and indeed all of the other committee members have La Trobe Bendigo's interest at heart and indeed the wider Bendigo region's interest at heart. They commence their task at a crucial stage of the university's development. I know that this move will lead to improved communications, which is a matter of much concern to the faculty staff and student body. I wish the new committee well in their deliberations.At a time when the concerns of regional Australia are at the forefront, the university must take the opportunities available through the strong regional presence that La Trobe Bendigo has enjoyed for many years to better serve the region and its own long-term interests. The Bendigo faculty should not be regarded as an asset to be raided and bled to resolve short-term problems at other La Trobe University campuses. I call on Professor Osborne, the Vice-Chancellor, to outline his strategy for the positive development of the Bendigo faculty. I know the Bendigo community is watching with great interest the developments at the Bendigo university.Education is always a priority for Labor but, as these figures show, it is certainly no priority for the Howard government. Labor's plan for Australia to become a knowledge nation is vital if we are to keep pace with other countries. This can take place only in a country which is lifting its national investment in education, training and research. Australia will never be the knowledge nation whilst Dr Kemp continues to preside over our fund-starved institutions and continues to blame the education unions for his own shortcomings. Shortly I will highlight some of the Labor Party's policy commitments that will offer a better deal for university and school education. I will highlight some of the commitments the opposition leader, Mr Beazley, has announced as part of Labor's strategy of developing Australia as a knowledge nation. But first I want to draw the attention of the House to the effects the GST has on tertiary students, present and past. The GST punishes tertiary students, especially country tertiary students. Bendigo is a university city. As I have said, the university is vital to the region's economy and education. However, the GST makes education dearer for all. The GST especially punishes regional tertiary students.The federal education department has confirmed that there will be an increase of 5.4 per cent in HECS repayments in the financial year 2000-01. This is thanks to inflation and especially the inflation explosion caused by the introduction of the GST on 1 July. Nearly one million Australian students past and present have HECS debts and they will be worse off because of this. The government will rake off an extra $323 million this financial year because of this. The National Union of Students has estimated that the GST will increase the HECS debt in 2001 of an arts student by $433, of an architecture student by $616 and of a law student by $720. University graduates who find employment after graduating will be paying not only the HECS repayment but the extra burden of the GST on top of it. This GST burden will eat heavily into the tax cuts that the government boasts will offset the effects of the GST. The government claimed education would be GST free, but this is not true. And there was no mention of this GST burden on students during the 1998 election campaign.The GST is discriminatory. It affects HECS repayments. It is not paid on up-front fees. It penalises students who are not well-off enough to pay up-front fees and who must defer fee repayments under HECS. As honourable members would know, students paying up-front fees are eligible for a 25 per cent discount on their fees. This GST burden targets country students. They are less well-off than their city counterparts and they are more likely to have to defer payments and use HECS. I wish to refer to the case of La Trobe University and its city and country campuses. Sixty-six per cent of its city students who are subject to tertiary fees defer their payments, but 76 per cent of its country students, including those at Bendigo, find it necessary to defer payment. So the GST burden fails on more country students than on city students. It hits students from the Bendigo district more than it hits city students. I turn now to the exciting commitments that the Labor Party has announced to date as part of its strategy to develop Australia as a knowledge nation. Honourable members are aware that the opposition leader, Kim Beazley, outlined Labor's direction in education policy at the ALP national conference held recently in Hobart. He set out that Labor in office would substantially increase public investment in our tertiary institutions, school education, and research and development. I believe this all adds up to bringing in new energy in education policy making so that our universities, research institutions and schools can play a vital role to help Australia meet the challenge of the third millennium and the IT revolution.Let us start with the research commitments. When in government Labor will double the number of research fellowships available to Australian researchers. This means the number of Commonwealth funded fellowships available at our universities and cooperative research centres will increase from the current 390 to 780 over the next three to five years. Labor will double the number of early career researchers supported at any one time from 165 to 330 by the end of three years. The number of mid-career researchers supported at any one time will double from 150 to 300 by the end of five years. The number of outstanding researchers—people with established reputations and unusually high research ability—funded at any one time will increase from 75 to 150 by the end of five years.Labor will also create a prestigious new fellowship to attract expatriate researchers back to Australia and to stop our best and brightest leaving our shores. We will create a substantial number of these new fellowships worth $200,000 per year for five years, including salary and research costs. These fellowships will recognise that our future as a knowledge nation will depend on keeping our best minds in Australia to create the industries, the economy and the society of the future. As the opposition leader said in Hobart, Labor believe that, while it is beneficial to Australia for our best brains to spend time overseas and to bring back their knowledge and experience, too many are having to go overseas simply because of the lack of opportunities in Australia.So far I have been referring to the peak of what has become the education pyramid. The base of the pyramid is the schools. It is essential that the nation's education system has a firm foundation. That is why I want to refer in particular to the importance of the concept of education priority zones announced by Labor in Hobart. Country youths suffer serious disadvantages in comparison with city kids. Fewer of them finish their secondary education and fewer of them go on to tertiary education. The inequity of opportunity between country and city, like the inequity between the poor and the wealthy, has to be tackled. We need to see more country kids finish their secondary education and we need to see more country kids taking on tertiary education. The two are linked.Labor's program of establishing education priority zones will make the Commonwealth an active partner with schools and local communities in dealing with problems holding back young Australians, particularly those in country and regional Australia. This program means setting up priority zones in areas of social and economic need and getting funds and resources to areas where they can make a difference. In each zone, which is to be selected in partnership with state and territory governments, the Commonwealth will work with local communities to develop a local plan. This will include looking at the literacy and numeracy needs of students, at how many complete their schooling, at how performance can be improved and of how the improvements can be documented. There will be specific Commonwealth initiatives to help meet the local needs. These may include employing specialist remedial literacy and numeracy teachers, providing mentors and work experience, and funding extra professional development for teachers. What a contrast there is between this positive approach of Labor and the negative anti-state education mentality of the federal education minister. In 1996, Dr Kemp brought in the enrolment benchmark adjustment or EBA scheme, which takes money from the state schools when the proportion of private enrolments increases, even when the public system is growing. The scheme is discriminatory. Labor will abolish it and will channel those funds back into public schools. Over the past three years the EBA has taken more than $60 million from government schools around Australia, while those same schools have enrolled more than 26,000 extra students. The EBA is inequitable and unjust and has aroused unnecessary divisions between state and private schools. Even many private schools, which are the supposed beneficiaries of the Howard government's EBA policy, privately oppose it on the grounds that it has provoked resentment towards private schools from the community. Everybody knows about Dr Kemp's obsession with the extremes of economic rationalism and his dislike for the public education system. When Liberal politicians like Dr Kemp think of education, they think only of the elite grammar schools. The state schools, the Catholic and non-Catholic parish schools barely exist as far as the would-be blue blood Liberals such as the education minister are concerned. But it is the state schools and the parish schools that make up the real world—the world of most Australian kids—not the world that the conservatives like to think of, inhabited by only the rich. Australia needs a national education policy that is not just a shield for the privileged but a pathway along which the nation can advance together towards a common goal. That goal is not only prosperity but also fairness in the IT age, ensuring that the community as a whole and not just the lucky few shares in the fruits of technological advance in the third millennium. We need a Commonwealth government that will raise the standards of our schools and the opportunities of youth across the board. Labor's pledge to abolish the EBA is part of our plan to make the knowledge nation a fairer nation. Labor wants to help raise the standards in all our schools. That is why it is important that Labor is committed in government to establishing the concept of the learning gateway. This is an information site on the Internet that teachers, parents and students can use for professional development and curriculum content as well as links to overseas and domestic education information. Parents will be able to use this gateway to obtain access to a wide range of information on their child's performance. This will include what is in their child's curriculum as well as information on assessment criteria and sample tests. Teachers will have access through the web site to professional development advice, information on interesting new teaching ideas, curriculum resources and other material. Students will be able to use the learning gateway to gain access to information for use at home and at school to assist them with essay writing and problem solving and to complete self tests. The gateway will also provide after-hours access online for teachers' advice on a variety of subjects. The learning gateway will also provide high-quality online content relevant to vocational education and training courses, adult and community education, and tertiary education. It will help adult education students find the right course and make it easier to enrol and complete their studies with distinction. In addition to these education measures announced recently, Labor will also implement two new programs designed to improve the quality of teaching in our schools. As previously outlined by our education spokesperson, Michael Lee, a Beazley Labor government will establish two programs to improve the quality of teaching. Firstly, Labor's teacher development contracts will be a partnership between the federal government and teachers who share a commitment to improving student results by lifting teacher quality. Teachers forced to teach outside their areas of expertise will be the first to be offered the new contracts. In some states, through no fault of their own, almost 25 per cent of people teaching maths and science are simply not qualified to do so. The shortages are most obvious in country towns. Secondly, a federal Labor government will also offer teacher excellence scholarships to high achieving school leavers to study education with a focus on areas of undersupply—currently maths, science and IT. Labor will strive to ensure that, by 2010, nine out of 10 young people leave their teens with a year 12 qualification or its equivalent and to ensure that all Australians achieve some kind of formal education or training qualification. As more youths complete their secondary education, more will take on the challenges of higher education. It is only a Labor government that will provide an equality of education for all. 21:35:0018911Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—It is my pleasure to be speaking on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. In the context of the debate we are having, it is a good thing that, in Australia at the moment, both sides of politics are starting to focus on the importance of education—indeed, Independents and other groups are also interested in this issue. But what we need is a constructive and positive approach to the issues. I am afraid that I have been very disappointed with the performance of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in this matter, especially in question time. The minister knows a lot about higher education because he is a former academic. He also knows that there is a difference between a valid argument on the issues and abuse of your opponent. When the minister comes into the House and talks about education issues, in general we have seen him talk a very small amount about what he is trying to do or what his perspective is and deliver a great deal of talk attacking the Labor Party or indeed anybody else who disagrees with him. It is one thing to argue against someone on the basis of valid arguments on the policies, the philosophy or the approach; it is entirely a different matter to abuse other people simply because they have a different view. The example that the minister actually sets is a very poor example for people who are entering higher education, because it ties in with the general point that I want to make. What is the essential element of higher education as distinct from education at school? The point about higher education, university education in particular, is that we try to educate people not merely to learn facts and figures but to actually put forward a case and to argue, on the basis of the facts and figures and on the basis of theories and philosophies, the point of view which they want to put forward.The minister, in his approach to this House on education issues, does not actually give a very good example to students in higher education, because he does not argue the point but tends to abuse his opponents. I would appeal to the minister—because I know he is capable of much better—that in this House, when discussing education issues, we should focus on the constructive debate about the issues and not on the abuse of one's opponents. Having said that, I repeat again that it is good that we are going to have a debate on education issues, and maybe it will be an important topic coming up to the general election.But higher education, as I said, differs from school education in this respect: what are we trying to do in universities and colleges; what is the ideal that we are trying to put forward through these institutions? Are these ideals being met at the moment? I suspect that they are not—because there are many people graduating with university degrees who are not taught to think, argue or present a point of view and are not taught, in other words, the value of the pursuit of knowledge: they do not have a thirst or a hunger for knowledge. They graduate from universities, and colleges very often, with a degree behind them, with some knowledge of computers or the IT revolution but with very little in the way of clear thinking, logical thinking and an understanding of theories and facts or the ability to put things together to present a coherent argument. It is rather sad when people graduate not from high school but even from university and do not have those capacities.One of the reasons that this has happened is that, in many ways, the universities have become like production lines in factories. They have become like production lines in factories to push out graduates in all sorts of fields, because the more numbers they put out, the more rewarded they are, one way or the other—either by the students, by the government or by the community. But what about the question of standards? What about the question of values in education?The minister is very proud of focusing on literacy and numeracy in primary schools. That is as it should be; that is an important thing. But education does not end with literacy and numeracy in primary schools. Education involves more than this: other values, especially when you get to university. What is the minister doing to promote those values—for example, the value of research? Look at what is happening with research. The government put out a paper on research in 1999 called `Knowledge and innovation: a policy statement on research and research training'. It trumpeted the idea that it was going to do a hell of a lot of things for research. Unfortunately for the government, the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee felt that the paper was totally inadequate. The reason was that they felt that, in fact, the amount of money being spent on research and the amount committed to research was totally insufficient for the goals which that paper presented. The Parliamentary Library has done some research in this matter, and in the Bills Digest there are a couple of excellent tables, and I refer in particular to table 3, on higher education research programs, 1996 to 2002. I want to make a couple of comments about those. I wonder whether, with the permission of the minister, we could include this table in Hansard.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Table 3: Higher Education Research Programs, 1996 to 2002(10) (constant 2000 prices) Type of Grant1996$m1997$m1998$m1999$m2000$m2001$m2002$mResearch Grants (incl. Small and Large Grants)130.1134.0126.7132.2133.2132.3132.3Australian Postgraduate Awards81.787.477.877.580.981.380.9International Research Exchange1.42.62.62.6Research Fellowships28.930.228.427.527.427.427.4Special Research Centres and Key Centres19.319.418.020.625.120.520.5Research Infrastructure100.599.8123.8117.0102.4104.486.0High-Performance Computing and Comms.6.412.620.3International Postgrad. Research Scholarships16.216.215.115.216.216.216.2Collaborative Research Grants19.927.4SPIRT45.251.256.858.458.3Research Evaluation (a)0.70.70.70.90.70.70.7Grants-in-aids to Learned Academies (a)1.61.61.61.61.61.61.6Anglo-Australian Telescope Board (a)3.63.63.63.73.73.73.7Grant in Aid to ANZAAS (a)0.00.00.00.0Unallocated/To be allocated funds2.92.80.01.94.13.6TOTAL RESEARCH411.9435.7461.1448.7452.4453.2433.7(a) These programs are not funded under the Higher Education Funding Act 1988, but from annual appropriations on a financial year basis.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—If you look at the actual figures for funding for total research, these are rounded to year 2000 figures and you will see something very interesting. They go up, even in the first couple of years of the Howard government; but then we start to see a slowdown and, by the year 2002, we see that the figure is $433.7 million, which is in fact the lowest figure since 1996. So we have had an increase, as it should have been, for education in terms of research. But, if you look at the figures, the amount is $411.9 in 1996; $435.7 in 1997; $461.1 in 1998; $448.7 in 1999—it is going down now; $452.4 in 2000, a slight increase; $453.2 in 2001; and a whopping drop to $433.7 in 2002. So we are actually going to have a reduction in research funding.How can the minister talk about his commitment to education and research, including higher education research, when we have this drop? Why did the minister allow this to happen in the budget? Is the minister going to answer these questions in parliament or is he simply going to get up and abuse people because they raise these issues? What does the minister have to say about this table from the Parliamentary Library in relation to the research? Does he have an analysis of this? I hope the minister will come and actually respond to this bill and give us some account of what is happening in the area of research.As I said before, I am very happy to see a debate in relation to education. The government made a commitment in this knowledge and innovation paper to the principle of research. Let us see some dollars, let us see some commitment to these principles—or does he expect PhD students, post-doctoral students and others, when trying to teach in universities with increased class sizes, to do research without there being sufficient funding for it? Is this what he is saying? I hope not because you really do need to back your vision with resources when it comes to research in a whole range of areas.Speaking about tertiary education, especially university education, we have a situation where the minister has taken a significant amount out of the system in terms of total investment. The minister keeps denying this, but the figures cannot be denied. This has actually happened. I will tell you what else has happened as a result of this. The minister thinks that he can maintain a certain level of university positions while taking out this $1 billion from higher education. But if this is going to happen, what will happen? What will happen is that class sizes will get bigger and bigger. In some subjects, in some universities, you cannot even get inside the doors of the lecture theatres. There are so many students enrolled in the lectures that, if they all turn up, they do not fit. This is true. I know this because I have a daughter at university and I know what is happening there.What else is happening? Let us contemplate the tutorial system. Tutorials used to be where you had a group of students numbering 12 to 15, 17 at the absolute most. The tutor used to know the students, used to interact with the students, used to ask them questions and used to encourage debate. What happens now? Tutorials get to 22, 23, 24 people, more in some cases, and half of the students do not even bother to turn up because nobody pays much attention to them. They are discouraged. The interest is not there.What is happening to our universities? I have raised this matter with the minister privately. His attitude is, `Oh well, it'll be all right.' But it will not be all right; it will not be all right without action. The vice-chancellors have made the point that there cannot be even a marginal increase in the salaries of academics—and, after all, academics have to have some increase in their salaries just like everyone else to keep up with things. The universities are told, `Well, you have to fund this increase in salaries from your own resources. You cannot actually get another grant from the government. Oh no, never mind that.' So what happens? As I said, fewer tutors are employed, tutorials get larger, the number of lectures is cut so the number of people going to the lectures has to increase and the actual quality of both lectures and tutorials in universities goes down.We do not want this. This is not the quality that we need in higher education. This is not just a factory production process. We need our students in universities to be able to get into the pursuit of knowledge. We need them to be able to get into debate with some understanding. They cannot do this if there is a situation in which universities are too crowded in terms of room and teachers available. Why don't we do something about this? In this matter the minister cannot say, `Well, you know, budget resources are just too limited.' The situation is that the federal government has been able to find money in the budget for all sorts of wild schemes, but somehow it cannot find enough money to fund what is one of the most important sectors in our nation: higher and university education.I referred before to research. What is happening with research—this has been pointed out by a number of people in this debate—means that many of our best researchers, many of our best professors, many of our best lecturers are simply leaving the country; they are going overseas. They are doing this not only because the salaries offered are better but also because the conditions offered are better. You cannot expect a person to do double the number of lectures and tutorials they would do in other comparative countries and then also the research on top. It is just not possible, and people give up. They say, `Oh well, here's an offer from America, here's an offer from Britain, here's an offer from Europe, here's an offer from an Asian country'—offers for reasonable conditions at universities and for reasonable research provisions, including research assistance for these professors and these people doing key research. I am talking about across the board, not just research in the sciences but research in the humanities as well—and that, by the way, is being increasingly drastically cut by the policies of this government. I am surprised that Professor Kemp has allowed this: after all, where did he get his training? It was in political science; it was in the humanities. More than anyone else, the minister ought to know the importance of a rounded education. That means that the humanities departments in our universities ought to be properly funded as well as the science, medical and computer faculties.I am not saying that we can go back to the Oxford tradition, but at least we should require that every student get a general education in some humanities subjects so they know something about the general nature of philosophy, history, politics or these other subjects. Very often people graduate from universities and know nothing about the general humanities approach, and that is a pity. As Dr Kemp knows, this kind of rounded education is very important. What about a vision for that, Dr Kemp? What about a vision for that in your tertiary education or higher education policy, instead of, as I said before, mere verbal abuse of those who disagree with you or want to raise other issues?I am very concerned that the value of higher education in terms of its contribution not only to the cultural and social development of a society but also to the economic development of a society is not sufficiently appreciated by the minister and the government. A report was recently released by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, one of the most reputable organisations in Australia in this kind of research. What did they say? In the report which is entitled Returns to Investment in Higher Education, they said that in fact higher education provides a very rich reward for society for every person who goes through and achieves a degree in higher education, especially a good degree. The average rate of return is the equivalent of 15 per cent per graduate per year. This is a great investment by this country. Leaving aside the cultural arguments, the social arguments and the arguments about the improvement of society and the individual, education of this kind is a great investment in economic terms. When the Treasurer and the minister frame next year's budget, they ought to look at reversing these trends in research and general funding to universities and give a lot more resources—(Time expired)21:55:0018915Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I would like to congratulate the member for Calwell for his comments on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 and members on this side for their contributions to this important discussion. I rise to support the second reading amendment to this bill moved by the member for Dobell on 29 June 2000 in this House.Before the 1999 and 2000 budgets were brought down, the Treasurer commented that both budgets would emphasise education. So it was with interest that I set out to see the emphasis on education in the budgets, but the story that I found was very different from the sentiments of an alleged emphasis on education. Since 1996, almost $1 billion has been cut from universities, almost $240 million has been cut from vocational education and training, HECS charges have increased—as you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio—and differentials have increased between courses. Almost $1 billion has been taken from students, plus there have been cuts to students of more than half a billion dollars. The EBA has cut some $60 million from federal funding of public schools. Indeed, the proportion of federal funding going to public schools has dropped between 1996 and 2003 from 41.5 per cent to 32.2 per cent. It has been estimated that there is a deficit in education of some $3 billion because of the Howard-Kemp cuts. What of research and development, which was so ably discussed by the previous speaker? The evidence is quite clear: Australia is the only advanced Western country where private business research and development is falling both in real and nominal forms. Public research is declining because of the butchery of this government and its cuts to higher education. There is a common call from prominent persons in Australia involved in research and development for Australia to lift its investment in research and development.Earlier in the debate, my colleague the shadow minister, Michael Lee, pointed out the size of cuts to regional universities totalling $171 million. For instance, at James Cook University, there are cuts of $16 million; Newcastle, $27 million; Charles Sturt, $21 million; Wollongong, $18 million; Southern Cross, $11 million; Deakin, $25 million; New England, $18 million; Ballarat, $4 million; Central Queensland, $13 million; the University of Southern Queensland, $16 million; and our own Australian Maritime College in Tasmania, $2 million. So far since 1996 we have had massive cuts in funding to public schools, TAFE and universities in both operating grants and research and development. There have been increased costs to students for HECS, a reduction in student assistance and on top of that a new tax.On top of the new tax again, we have a minister with a blueprint to totally deregulate universities and undermine public education from primary to tertiary levels. When we turned to the budget in the light of the Treasurer's prediction that it would be a health and education budget, like we did in 1999, what did we find? Eleven lines in the Treasurer's speech devoted to education. What of the substance of the commitment in the budget? We had only an extra $17 million—that is, $17 million across the whole area of education for new education initiatives in 2000-01. Forward estimates from 2000 to 2004 contain only $62.1 million, which averages out to 86c per person per year.There is no grand plan for education and the nation here—11 bland lines in the Treasurer's speech and a few to no initiatives in either spending or programs. You have to look elsewhere for that, and fortunately that belongs with this side of the House in the blueprint of the Knowledge Nation. This practical, responsible plan is premised on the essential importance of education and training to the social, economic and personal needs of Australians.What is this government's view? Take for example the issue raised earlier by the member for Dobell concerning current HECS debts to graduates. More than one million students who are still paying off their HECS debts are going to be hit by an unfair retrospective slug because of the GST inflation spike—a spike we are already beginning to feel. HECS debts are increased by the CPI which means that in this year HECS debts will be indexed by the full inflation spike. On current estimates, that will cost the average student $700 because this government has not discounted the CPI increase by the GST inflation spike. In all, nearly $200 million will be ripped off students with HECS debts because of the unfair retrospective tax slug of this government. It is a spike in every sense of the word, I would suggest.Minister Kemp, of course, tried to deny all this. He threw figures about claiming that students with HECS debts of $20,000 were better off because of low inflation—forgetting that until 1997 it was impossible to have a debt as high as $20,000 in the first place—or claiming that a graduate on $28,000 would be some $762 better off because of the new tax cuts. He was forgetting as usual to point out that until 1997 such a student would be making no repayments whatsoever—that is until the coalition reduced the payment threshold. What is the result of Minister Kemp's obsession with the user-pays principle? This year's graduates have to cope with a doubling of HECS charges every year, much earlier repayments of that debt, an increase of the HECS debt of up to $700 because of the GST inflation spike being included in the CPI this year, and GST increases on a range of goods and of course services. A Kemp $762 tax cut will quickly disappear in the light of much higher debt repayments and higher costs of goods and services because of the GST. I mentioned earlier the fact that, given the PM's promise of an education budget in 1999, and the Treasurer's promise of a health and education budget this time around, one could be excused for being puzzled—puzzled because there is absolutely no proof in this pudding that education receives much priority at all under this government. What we tend to have is a minister at odds with nearly every educational institution and professional body going, a minister increasingly isolated within educational communities that he is there to work with, a minister high on expectation and standards but low on practice and delivery. He is quick to blame but slow to take responsibility himself. If it is not the AEU causing problems, it is the National Union of Students, the National Tertiary Education Union or even the Vice-Chancellors Committee.In October 1999, Minister Kemp acknowledged a crisis in higher education. It was there in black and white in his cabinet submission, and indeed you might remember this. Let me refresh our memories on this because it is directly relevant to this bill. In his own submission, Dr Kemp admits, `Universities are currently in a difficult financial position.' He said, `Already eight institutions appear to be operating at deficit and some regional campuses are at risk.' He also said, `There are higher student-staff ratios and less frequent lecture and tutorial contact.' Again, he said, `Universities have outdated technology and, as a result, universities are progressively less capable of delivering what governments want, industry needs and the community expects.' There is, in Minister Kemp's words, `a perception of declining quality'. This is not our side saying this; this is the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. This is in light of this government starving universities of funds since the savage $840 million cuts in 1996 and all the additional slices and cuts ever since.What is this minister's response to his own claims about higher education? What is his blueprint contained in this budget? Nothing. A few titbits of programs but nothing of substance. Why? In his own submission to cabinet, Minister Kemp claimed:Demand for higher education in Qld, NSW, WA and Vic is unlikely to be met.The minister also submitted:There is no capacity to reduce huge regional disparities in participation, and that people from “affluent capital city suburbs are 5 times more likely to go to University” than people from the least affluent areas.He goes on to say:Universities are currently in a difficult financial position.So where is the plan to tackle this situation? Where is the funding to at least restore pre-1996-97 Commonwealth funding of higher education? There is a plan but it is not given any effect in this budget except through omission. The minister has a plan—it is in black and white and it is in the Kemp submission to cabinet. What he seeks to do after creating a crisis is to exploit that crisis—the solution is deregulation of fees. He has a voucher system with no guaranteed minimum amount of funding for institutions and the introduction of a student loan scheme with a real rate of interest.Kim Beazley and Michael Lee offer the knowledge nationas a comprehensive blueprint for the future. The government has no stated plan except for the Kemp submission. This budget suggests that it is still on the cards because it does nothing to address the serious deficiencies outlined by the minister in his cabinet submission. I assume that this is still the case, unless these deficiencies have been magically overcome. The Kemp anti-higher education plan does come to light however, particularly in the machinations of the Kemp-Reith two per cent funding stick—or carrot as it is sometimes referred to—forcing universities to implement workplace reforms. The two per cent represents in essence nothing more than $259 million in conditional funding for university salaries. I do not think this minister can really appreciate what is happening in regional Australia concerning higher education. His obsession with deregulation and cutting funds to public education has had a dramatic effect in my electorate in particular and in Tasmania as a whole. You see, our university is a state university. It stands alone and is definitely not a sandstone university. It tries to offer access to higher education throughout the state with campuses in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie. It has long grappled with cost cutting in the face of an urgent need to lift retention rates into higher education. There is a need—and the University of Tasmania has attempted to meet this in an environment of dwindling Commonwealth support, particularly since 1996. I understand from Professor Don McNicol, the Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of Tasmania, that after the university's annual education profiles discussion with the Commonwealth and on the university's own analysis and the Commonwealth's projections of the university's financial position, the following points can be made: there will be no net growth in student places over the period and income from the Commonwealth will be static. Expenditure is also projected to be static, dependent on the outcome of the current enterprise bargaining round, which may mean that the university will need to absorb the level of salary increases in excess of the level of indexation in its grant and which will make current staffing levels unsustainable. Related to this, the university is uncertain whether, after the next enterprise bargaining round is complete, it would be eligible for the two per cent available from the Commonwealth for compliance with Minister Kemp's requirements for industrial outcomes. Participation rates in higher education remain a critical issue for the state and it will be difficult, as Professor McNicol points out, to achieve significant outcomes in a no growth funding environment.In the time remaining I would like to offer some lessons to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs on Tasmania and higher education issues. Low participation rates correlate closely to socioeconomic factors. That is a fact. Participation is unlikely to be increased under present government policy with subsidised student places capped and opportunities for expansion through fees only. These mechanisms assume excess demand. The Tasmanian problem is to create demand for higher education with the purpose of improving economic and social conditions. A prerequisite is an adequate supply of government subsidised places. From 1990 to 1996, funded places at the University of Tasmania increased from 7,745 to 9,205 and the state participation increased from 2.1 per cent to 2.5 per cent. The growth was achieved despite relatively low student demand measured by the number of applicants. In other words—and it is very important that this lesson be learned—the improvement in participation rates was supply led rather than market led. Higher education participation rates in Tasmania remain significantly below the national averages for all ages—in Tasmania, 2.5 per cent, yet for Australia, 3.2 per cent; for younger people between 15 and 19 years, 7.9 per cent in Tasmania and 10.7 per cent for the nation; and for 20 to 24 years, 13.9 per cent in Tasmania and 15 per cent for the nation. The pattern is similar for vocational education and training. An additional 3,300 places would bring the Tasmania higher participation rate to the national average, including 1,690 places to bridge the gap for 15- to 29-year-olds. North West Tasmania in my electorate of Braddon is especially disadvantaged with a participation rate approximately half that for the northern and southern regions. There are opportunities to strengthen demand from the following key groups of potential students: able school leavers in the north and north-west of the state who do not seek to continue with further education or training and people aged 25 years and over including those with VET qualifications. One of the major problems we have is that it is not easy to leave home to study, particularly on the north-west coast. After doing one year at the study centre at Burnie, students are required to move away from home. As I have mentioned in this place many times before, that could mean up to an additional $10,000 per student per year on top of the normal costs for university education. Where is the support for those students?In terms of research and development, the precise impact of the government's white paper is far from clear, but the university's estimate is that `18 per cent of the Commonwealth operating grant is at stake'. These funds will depend on the university maintaining its relative research performance. Changes to the research performance index will most advantage those universities able to increase industry support. Clearly location will be a factor and in Tasmania access to industry funds is limited. Government policy is understandably to increase industry support for research, but the particular mechanisms chosen may disadvantage regionally based institutions such as the University of Tasmania. The university is concentrating its research efforts into four main themes. The university is well placed to develop further research that will stimulate the state economy, particularly in the theme areas, and aspects of the emerging information economy. The university's contribution occurs through staff expertise, research training, infrastructure and research management skills. These elements have been built up over many years and provide Tasmania with important social capital. They need to be supported, not threatened through cuts. In terms of staffing, from 1996 to 1999 a combination of Commonwealth operating grant cuts and cost increases forced staff numbers at the University of Tasmania down by 145.6 full-time positions or 9.6 per cent. The reduction of academic staff numbers was 96.5 FTE positions or 13.6 per cent. These figures exclude casual staff numbers, which increased by 29 FTE positions or 14.8 per cent over the same period. There is consequentially very real pressure on courses. Smaller courses are under threat and in larger courses student staff ratios are frequently above 25 to one and in some instances are up to 33 to one. The distribution of staff resources is a management issue but complicated by multiple operating campuses. Further loss of staff positions will be very difficult to manage. Job losses are simply inevitable unless salary increases are tied to increased revenue, provided through performance contracts or grant supplication. There is little or no light in this bill to brighten the way of the University of Tasmania.Finally, I would like to commend the provision of extra funding of $1.446 million in 2001 and $2.891 million in 2002 for 100 new places a year for medical students on bonded scholarships. It was a Labor initiative in 1998—it was criticised by Minister Kemp as unconstitutional—and contained in this budget under `education' because of the advocacy of the health minister, not the education minister. But this should not surprise us, should it?22:15:0018919O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—In the time remaining to me in this debate before the adjournment tonight, I would just like to make a few comments on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 that we are now debating. There cannot be a more critical issue for Australia than the issue of educating our work force for the challenges of this century. We know that the cutting edge for economies in this new millennium will be their capacity to innovate, to adopt new technologies, their capacity to change their production cultures, and the capacity of the work force to acquire new skills. Of course, that depends very much on having an educational infrastructure which is world class. Sadly, in the last decade here in Australia, and particularly over the last five years, we have seen some very ominous signs emerging in the funding of that educational infrastructure. Coincidentally, that has occurred at the times that we have seen conservative governments come to power in my home state of Victoria and Liberal and National Party governments come to power at the national level. Under the guise of reducing budget deficits, they have issued an ideological agenda which has seen their nation sold short and quite unprepared for the challenges of this new millennium: the economic challenges, the social challenges, the environmental challenges and, for people in rural and regional Australia, the challenge of coming to terms with some very deep-seated problems that beset those communities.I can recall when I was elected as the member for Corio in 1993 that the Geelong community was very proud of its educational assets. It was a community that, over a long period of time, had heavily invested in public and private education, to the point where we had an educational infrastructure second to none as far as regional and urban communities in Australia were concerned. Then we saw the beginnings of a development that has seen education in Geelong suffer considerably. First it was an assault on the primary and secondary educational infrastructures by the Kennett government. Then came the assault on the TAFE and tertiary educational infrastructure by the Howard coalition government. But it was not only that: the cutbacks that were sponsored by the state Liberal government and the federal Liberal government cut deeply into early childhood development and into every learning situation. And so we have now a particular record as far as the education and the training of its community is concerned of which Australia cannot be proud. We have seen over those years cuts to education across the board—I refer here to TAFE, to universities and to secondary schools—from Commonwealth sources in the region of $3 billion. Those cuts in the tertiary sector have been in the order of $1 billion. The universities that have borne a considerable burden in this regard have been the regional universities of Australia—those very good universities that have served the needs of rural and regional Australia over the past 20 years. In many instances, it is those regional universities that provide a very essential research link between the local economic base and the tertiary education base. These regional universities have suffered cuts in the order of $171 million. I think we would all argue that any government coming to power can quite legitimately pursue its own educational agenda. But, when that educational agenda enters the ideological zone and operates against the national interest, that is the time when the Australian community has a great cause for concern.In my own locality we have a university—Deakin University—of world renown. This particular regional university has, on a couple of occasions, won the University of the Year award. It took the challenge that was put to it by Labor in government. It has restructured its financial affairs and its curriculum and it is now a world leader in distance education, a world leader in research in many areas and a world leader in integrating university programs into workplaces not only in its own community, not only in Australia, but throughout the world.The Geelong community is very proud of the efforts of the academics at Deakin University, and it is proud of the achievements of many of its students. But the community is concerned about the future of its university, and it is a concern that has been echoed in rural and regional Australia, as many communities view with dismay the curtailing of many of the courses that are being offered by their regional campuses and the declining numbers of students attending those courses. The university administrators have had to make some very difficult choices with regard to what sorts of courses they keep and what sorts of courses they offer. Invariably when those choices are made it is the communities in rural and regional Australia that have suffered the most from the cutbacks by the Liberal and National parties. The Labor Party appreciates quite deeply that the future of this nation will come off the back of its research and development effort, its capacity to innovate and the adaptability of its work force.I was at a function on Saturday night. I did not see the honourable member for Corangamite there. I see he is in the chamber tonight. I usually run into him at some of these functions. The function was the Vietnam veterans' annual dinner. And, of course, we all know the problems that the Vietnam veterans community has experienced down through the years. I was interested to speak to the wife of the president of the Geelong Vietnam Veterans Association about her return to education. I do not think she would mind me saying this. In her working career she had occupied many jobs in support of her family but had decided to go back to the Gordon TAFE to do her VCE. She spoke of how she was enjoying that experience, and she was musing about where this would lead her. She was full of hope and expectation about where it might take her in personal terms and in terms of supporting the education of her own children. Here she was extending her own educational opportunity with the objective in mind of further supporting her own children's education. She could see—as many working people see—that the key to their future economic opportunity lies in education and training, the very areas that have been slashed and burned by this very conservative and short-sighted government. CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—That's rubbish, and you know it.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—It is not rubbish. The honourable members opposite always arc up when the truth is told. It is an extraordinary situation where the honourable members opposite can come in here on the back of an ideological obsession, justify emasculating the education and training effort of our higher educational institutions and then claim in some paltry way that this is looking after the future of Australia. It is tortured logic. If you want to mount that argument you will be the lonely ones in that intellectual castle because, as you know—and the honourable member for Corangamite knows this, because he is on the board of a very good educational institution in our region—the cutting-edge for the rural sector over the next 15 to 20 years is going to be the capacity of farmers to adapt to change, the capacity to upskill and the capacity of the sector to engage in meaningful research and development, and these are the very areas that you have driven the boot into. That is strange logic. Then again, I accept the tortured logic by which the coalition comes to some of these decisions. I accept it, but the Australian people do not. The Australian people want opportunity, and they want a future for their country. They will not cop the sorts of short-sighted cuts that we have had to education on the basis of some ideological obsession that is trotted out by a leader who has no perception of where this country should be heading in the new millennium. Mr Deputy Speaker, I did happen to go to—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Mr Speaker.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Oh, it is Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I understand. The member for Corio will continue his speech in the time that remains.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Mr Speaker, I am under intense provocation from the member for Corangamite, who I am surprised can come into this House to justify a cut of $25 million to Deakin University, a cut of $171 million to regional universities, a cut of $1 billion to higher education throughout this country and then have the gall to sit on the board of an educational institution and claim that he has the education and training of the rural sector at heart. I find that a little bit hard to cop.I did attend recently the opening of the Autogen gene chip microarray laboratory at Deakin University. This is a joint venture between the private sector and a company owned by Joseph Gutnick. I know the honourable member for Corangamite barracks for Geelong and Melbourne, so he is obviously a good friend of the president of the Melbourne Football Club. I am very pleased that Joe Gutnick and his company have invested with Deakin University in this state-of-the-art exciting new gene technology. It is an indication of the great potential that this university has in developing these new technologies. But the university cannot do it with an obstructive government. It cannot do it with a short-sighted government. It cannot do it with a government that is hell-bent on foisting its own ideological obsessions on the Australian people and denying them the real educational opportunities they so much desire.Adjournment1892110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1892122:30:0018921Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise to bring to the attention of the parliament an issue that has a direct and daily impact on every Australian family. I am referring to the fact that the fuel efficiency of the Australian vehicle fleet is at the bottom of the list for OECD countries. According to recent figures, Australia's national average fuel consumption for new passenger vehicles is 8.9 litres per 100 kilometres. By comparison the Italian NAFC figure was 6.8 litres per 100 kilometres, the UK figure was 7.4 litres per 100 kilometres and the New Zealand figure was 8.5 litres per 100 kilometres. There is no doubt that these figures reflect the lifestyles of these different countries and the ages of their cars, but the fact that Australia is at the bottom of the list presents a serious challenge to our manufacturers and governments.According to the NRMA in a submission made to a recent government inquiry, virtually no improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency has occurred over the past seven years. In fact, according to recent reports, the original FJ Holden had a better fuel consumption than present models. It is clear from the statements of the federal government that there is a complete lack of understanding of the seriousness of this matter, just as there is a profound lack of understanding of what needs to be done to change the situation. The effect of this unacceptable wastefulness, compounded by the GST, is that Australian families are now forced to spend a record proportion of their incomes on transport. For example, according to a recent Sydney Morning Herald story, the average Sydney household spent $6,127 on transport in 1998-99, up $1,300 from the previous year, with the growth mainly caused by increasing petrol prices. Simply blaming rising oil prices for these increases, as the government has done, without considering the impact of poor vehicle fuel economy ignores a large part of the problem. The miserable fuel economy of Australia's transport sector has a synergistic effect on numerous economic and environmental problems. Poor fuel economy adds to our growing balance of payments deficit because we are forced to import increasing amounts of oil. At current prices, we are importing more than $2 billion of oil annually. Poor fuel economy increases urban air pollution because inefficient vehicles consume more fuel and release larger volumes of air pollutants. Poor fuel economy adds to Australia's already excessive emissions of greenhouse gases because of the high fuel consumption of inefficient vehicle engines.Senator Hill recently tried to explain the increase of 16.5 per cent in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 1998 as being the result of economic growth. This is despite Australia's Kyoto commitment to cutting emissions to eight per cent above 1990 levels by 2008 or, at the latest, by 2012. Apparently most of the increase has come from transport—that is, cars and trucks—and yet the Minister for the Environment and Heritage has made no statement about the measures the government intends to take to reduce these emissions. All he is reported as saying is, `It's a reminder that the challenge is a difficult challenge.'We already know that, Minister, and we also know that there is a significant opportunity for improvement. As Professor Ian Lowe, one of the government's more trenchant critics, has repeatedly warned, Australian industry lags the rest of the developed world by about 25 per cent in energy efficiency. Is the minister aware that the United States government's Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles scheme requires that American automobile manufacturers develop and have ready for market mid-size cars that get 34 kilometre per litre or 80 miles per gallon by 2004? Such a vehicle would be about four times as efficient as today's comparable Australian made cars.While Sydney commuters struggle with a saturated public transport system and the NSW Labor government spends millions trying to deal with ever growing demand, not one cent of federal funding has been made available by this government for improving rail based public transport. The federal government's motivation for this policy appears to be the belief that all transport should be privately owned and road based. Apparently government should withdraw from the provision of public transport. Under this policy, building roads with taxpayers' money for the uncharged use of road freight operators does not seem to be a misuse of public funds, just as handing out billions in diesel fuel cash grants is seen as a fair way to spend other road users' fuel excise. It is extraordinary that in 2000 we have a government that is so short-sighted and so deaf to the warning of experts who say that the world is on the verge of long-term fuel shortages. Instead of squandering billions on fuel rebate handouts the government should be investing in the research and development needed to produce the new generation of vehicles that will make significantly more efficient use of available fuel supplies. (Time expired)1892222:35:0018922Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Michael Connolly is a talented and entrepreneurial artist. He is married to Jo and has two children. Michael learnt his art from tradition his father and others gave to him. He is a descendent of the Kullilla people from the Thargomindah/Eulo region of south western Queensland. Michael has achieved great things from his art and has showcased his art in ways which have found new audiences. He sells his wares at the markets each weekend and through that has provided a home for his family. He has developed a large following of people who appreciate his talent and the way that he has made his art so accessible. Michael Connolly has shown the way to reconcile and build understanding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians by involving all people in his art. A couple of years ago Michael had an ambition to extend this approach by offering tours out west so people could immerse themselves further in his culture. Michael, like so many others, sought assistance from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, but they said that they would not back this kind of individual initiative. Michael believes that ATSIC only back communities. He also says that many Aboriginal Australians have little faith in ATSIC after too many years of maintaining the system rather than sponsoring people who could provide the lead for other Aboriginal Australians to stand firmly and proudly on their own two feet. Michael believes that ATSIC are in fact part of the problem facing the reconciliation process. He has been fighting ATSIC's rejection of his submission for assistance. While he has fought ATSIC, he has been unsuccessful or refused assistance in his case against ATSIC at every appeal level. Michael has reapplied three times for help from ATSIC. He knows how much he has spent fighting for his chance, his start from ATSIC, so he is confident that he is right when he estimates ATSIC have spent $120,000 fighting his application for $35,000.Aboriginal tradition teaches respect for elders. Recently Michael told me he spoke to one elder, Nan Rogers. They decided there were a lot of Aboriginal small business operators like Michael who had also missed out on assistance from ATSIC. Michael contacted the Sydney Morning Herald to place an ad. The ad read in part:Have you been refused business funding by ATSIC? Do you believe, like me, that ATSIC's funds are not going where they should? Then I would like to speak to you. It's about time we take a stand and be heard.The Sydney Morning Herald refused to take the small $300 ad, saying it was too political—even with authorisation. The SMH did not even see the news value in this ad. It was not politically correct; it was rocking the boat; it was criticising ATSIC. Michael is not alone, but he needs to make links with others he believes have also been let down by ATSIC. He has a supporter in Stuart Brown, formerly of Doomadgee. Stuart brought his family down to live in Brisbane because his people in Doomadgee never seemed to get the money which was desperately needed for medical supplies and education. The email I have from Michael and Jo Connolly reads:It is the same old scenario—the money isn't going where it should be going. The Commissioners just have to go. It is ludicrous that these greedy bastards are getting $160,000 plus per annum and their own people are starving.These matters are serious. Australians never begrudge giving a hand to those who need it and, philosophically, this nation has always believed at the very least in equality of opportunity, giving those who need it the chance to get a start. That is why we fund education, housing and welfare. It is all evidence of that. Michael Connolly may, in fact, have better luck going through regular, non-ATSIC channels than through ATSIC itself. That would, of course, be ironic for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of ATSIC alike. What should unite all Australians is concern that extensive funds set aside to assist Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Australians are simply not finding their way there, but no-one really seems to question it. Some have, but for the wrong reasons. I question it because those of us who want to see a united Australia free of racial divides and helping those who need a hand wonder if ATSIC is in fact perpetuating the problems it claims to be trying to fix.It is simply not good enough to just keep the system going. All Australians of all cultural heritages want and deserve results from the system. Michael Connolly is a results oriented bloke. As he says, `Isn't this country about getting a fair go and reward for hard work?' Michael reckons that if he looks after his wife and kids he is showing the way for other Aboriginal Australians to also feel confident about making their own way. Michael Connolley is not going to give up, and I applaud him for his approach. 1892422:39:0018924Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I want to take a few minutes to speak about the committee's inquiry and the Age Counts report brought down today. I probably have to do this in instalments because there is so much to say about it. It is a comprehensive report, but I wanted to make a few basic points. I think it is very frustrating for people in this country who are 40 and over who have been unemployed for some time to find that the government has taken so long to respond to this pressing unemployment issue. Over two years ago Labor did some research on this. We have around the country organisations like Don't Overlook Mature Employment. They know what the issue is, and this is such a frustratingly belated response for those Australians who have been taking an unfair share of the consequences of economic restructuring in this country. Many of the problems facing those people have been clearly understood by so many of us for so long, and for this government to say `We will take over a year to do a report and, in the meantime, we will put in place $3 million for a pilot program to find out if the mature age unemployed face greater obstacles to finding work than the rest of us' I think is a bit of an insult to these people.What these people need is action, and I welcome some of the recommendations in this report. I welcome and Labor welcomes the emphasis on early intervention. In other words, it is a bit of an endorsement of our Workforce 2010—although I am sure it is not meant to be—where we say that we should put more effort into identifying sectors and workers at risk, we should work with those workers and sectors at risk, and we should require Centrelink, as the report says, to actually be available to these people at risk before they become unemployed. Labor endorses this proposal; in fact, it is something we said back in 1998 in our own 45-plus report, What government needs to do.We also welcome the emphasis on training initiatives, especially mature age training apprenticeships. We welcome the recommendation on wage subsidies, and we hope this government will not take too long to respond to the crying need that we see in people who are at a very vulnerable time in their lives, when they find themselves, having banked on a job for a long time, now without the required means to meet mortgage repayments and to meet school and education payments for teenage and university student children, and often at a stage when their own parents are quite elderly and frail.One of the things this report draws attention to—and I think it is a very welcome comment—is the way in which a tax credit scheme could be reintroduced for people on benefits—an earned income tax credit scheme spread over the financial year for those in casual and part-time work. Labor has consistently drawn attention to the need to look at the interaction between the taxation system and the social security system to encourage people from welfare into work. It is good to see this committee at least acknowledging that this is an important issue. Another thing is that, if you talk to people who have been retrenched for some time, they talk about the way in which they have to run down their superannuation. They have to draw on their superannuation until they are eligible to receive income support. In other words, there is quite a policy contradiction here. They are forced to sacrifice their retirement savings without the future opportunity to add to those retirement savings if they do not, in fact, find full-time work again. So, to the extent that the committee and its report have recognised this, Labor welcomes it. Again, it was something that we drew attention to two years ago. We also drew attention to the way in which it cost nothing for the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to actually draw attention to what a good idea it is to have a balanced work force and to say, `It is great to have flexible, innovative, mobile young people; it is also important to have balance at the other end of the scale.' There is an economic benefit in having mature age employees, and this committee has come to that same conclusion. (Time expired)1892522:45:0018925Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—The issues that capture our attention, whether as individuals or as a nation, do not always appear in the guise of good news stories. Today I rise to try to correct that balance by relating an episode which could have involved people from numerous electorates represented in this chamber. I would like to tell you the story of a group of young outback schoolkids who decided they would like to go to the Paralympics in Sydney this October. More than 40 students aged between five and 12 at the Tibooburra Outback School of the Air started raising money by selling personalised pavers to potential sponsors. Just for the record, Tibooburra is a small but resilient town of about 150 people located 345 kilometres north of Broken Hill in New South Wales and 150 kilometres from Cameron's Corner, where the South Australian and Queensland borders meet. Needless to say, these kids do not get to the city very often, if ever.The students had been selling personalised pavers at $25 each and had raised almost $1,500, despite the challenges posed by their extremely remote location and tiny population base. Two weeks ago, I was lucky enough to have been invited to mention their fundraising efforts during an interview on 2UE with Alan Jones. It is at this point that our story departs from the slightly mundane and enters the realm of the slightly incredible because the response from this brief conversation with Mr Jones was as unexpected as it was tremendous. Within hours, contributions that totalled more than $12,000 started to flood in, alongside offers of free harbour cruises. In fact, one gentleman who has a harbour cruise business quite willingly borrowed a second boat and offered that free of charge to the students from Tibooburra. There were also offers of billet accommodation on Sydney's North Shore, bus travel and even a share of two separate lottery winnings. The extent of the kindness also included money from a New Zealand couple and the adoption of the school by a major disabled organisation, the New South Wales branch of Disabilities Australia. The adoption was organised at a stop-work meeting held immediately after the radio interview and was offered on the theme that the disabled people wanted to help the `abled' people attend the Paralympic Games.The students, aged five to 12, had been raising their own money to pay for their trip, and there has been an enormous amount of work done by the parents of these students. From the money raised, even the youngsters who could not have originally afforded the trip have joined the entourage thanks to the $12,000 raised—and I understand that today it has gone up to $14,000 following a contribution by the South Dubbo Rotary Club of $2,300 after their `destination outback' trip through Tibooburra. Another example was an elderly Sydney couple who offered $5,000 from a recent Keno win to the remote students. A New Zealand pair holidaying in Australia also sent money, and a recently widowed woman sent $200 for a paver in memory of her late husband. Another humble Sydney worker will send $310 from a recent small lottery win, with numerous metropolitan bowling clubs having indicated that they are passing the hat around for the cause with great success.Needless to say, the staff and students at the school—along with me—are overwhelmed by the response of the public. They were very emotional when they contacted my office to report the avalanche of unexpected support and kindness. They are almost speechless at the extent of the generosity people have shown towards the kids and the considerable efforts people have made to contact the school and make a contribution. In fact, the contributions have been so great that they have been able to offer other schools of the air in Broken Hill and Port Augusta the ability for their students to join their entourage.It is a genuinely terrific reflection on the generosity of our fellow citizens and their willingness to help when given the opportunity, and I think it is important to remember that this side of human nature rarely gets as much attention as our somewhat less savoury side. Just consider what a collection of kind gestures has brought to children who did not really know whether they would get to the Paralympic Games or not. Some of these kids have never seen the sea, very few have ever been to Sydney and they are just beside themselves with excitement at the prospect of doing both and attending the Paralympics into the bargain. The mayor of the Paralympic village has also agreed to entertain the children should time permit. People throughout the state and beyond who gave up something to give some outback kids the experience of a lifetime should be roundly congratulated. One elderly widow sent $200 because her late husband was from the bush and she wanted to give a little something back. If she could see the smiles of those kids and hear the youthful jubilation in the desert air of Tibooburra, she would know that she had more than succeeded.1892622:49:0018926Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I would like to talk tonight about a meeting that I held in my electorate last Wednesday night to discuss the government's defence review. We had a good turn-up of local residents, a number of RSL executives and secretaries and serving defence personnel. A large number of defence personnel are based in my electorate, particularly through the rifle range and close to the Williamstown Dockyards, Fort Gellibrand and a number of other sites. The meeting was also attended by a large number of defence industry workers.The debate was pretty lively, and there were many questions asked about what we actually want our defence forces to be able to do and what we are prepared to pay for them to do. All applauded the initiative of having this local meeting and obviously all attended because they care greatly about our defence forces and the future of Australia's defence security. They all shared the view that it was important for us to have a much wider debate within the community and to educate the community about our defence needs and choices. I must say that there were a range of contradictory views on a number of issues, particularly on national service and conscription, the value of a coastguard and the relative risk that is posed by some of our regional neighbours.There was broad agreement on one very important aspect of defence policy that has not even been raised in the discussion paper that has been prepared by the government, and that is the question of the role that Australia's defence industries play in our defence policy. Clearly, this is a big issue for us because Tenix—or the Williamstown Dockyards, as many people probably still know it—is a major employer in my electorate. The Anzac frigates are built in Gellibrand, and they account for many hundreds of jobs in my electorate. In addition to the many hundreds of jobs provided by Tenix directly, for every person employed directly by Tenix there are something like three to four times that number employed in support roles and defence related positions: engineering, maintenance, parts provisions and other specialist jobs which are provided by contractors and other suppliers.The essential points sought to be made by this meeting were that it is false in accounting terms to look at the money spent in defence industries purely as a cost to our defence budget. We must also in some way factor in the value of the jobs and the impact that those jobs have on a region, let alone the country as a whole. We cannot ignore the value of the apprenticeships that have been provided through the defence industries over many years in the past and the value that flows to the community in training our young people in these jobs and, if you like, the attractiveness of joining the services, learning skills and often then going into industry and using those skills for the benefit of the nation. The meeting was very keen to discuss the importance of having those skills kept in Australia in times of conflict because—and these comments were made by a number of speakers at this meeting—our region is changing so fast that we cannot necessarily rely on being provided with these skills from other allies.One elderly gentleman told a great story about when he had worked in the Newport Railway yards. They were not a defence industry, but he remembered how during World War II they produced tank parts because they could apply the skills they had learnt in producing our trains. The value of having that knowledge in our country meant that we were not relying on other nations that we were not able to get our supplies from. There was broad agreement on that very important issue for our community. It was urged that the government consider the important role of defence industries when they take account of the public consultation that flows from the defence review. There was also broad agreement on the need for us to provide decent conditions in the armed forces. Of particular concern were the comments that there was no provision for reservists to be provided with job security if they agreed to go off into armed service and returned. There were also no long-term incentives, if you like, for reservists who served over many years. Serious issues were raised about the spirits of those within the forces. A number of people discussed the disillusionment, the lack of opportunities and the fact that decisions were being made at the top levels by people who were not serving members or who had not been serving members. There was concern about people being sent to jobs for which they were not skilled and concern about our capacity to maintain equipment and personnel.Obviously the budget is stretched far too far and we need to make some difficult choices if we are not prepared to increase our defence budget. Time is short tonight. These comments will be put into a full submission which I will provide to the review, but I hope the government will take account of the views that have been expressed seriously by the community at this meeting. (Time expired)1892723:00:0018927Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I rise tonight to inform the House of the tremendous work of one of my local schools, Richmond High School, in supporting the annual SIDS appeal, the fundraising and awareness campaign for the prevention of sudden infant death syndrome. Richmond High School's record in supporting the annual appeal for the SIDS cause is simply outstanding. Over the past 11 years, the school has quite rightly won widespread community acclaim for the zeal and commitment it has brought to the task and for its extraordinary achievements in fundraising. Each year since SIDS Red Nose Day was introduced in 1989, Richmond High School have rolled their sleeves up in support. Since that time they have raised over $150,000 for this most worthwhile cause. Last year's impressive record of $35,000 was surpassed with the incredible result of $50,000 this year. This is money that will be used in the ongoing fight to reduce the tragic loss of young lives to SIDS.SIDS remains the most common specific cause of death of babies between one month and 12 months in Australia. Between 1979 and 1996, SIDS claimed 7,372 young lives, or an average of 410 a year. The majority of these SIDS deaths occurred in babies under three months of age. Australia has, sadly, the sixth highest rate of SIDS in the world behind New Zealand, France, USA, Switzerland and Germany. The trauma and anguish of the suffering families could not even begin to be measured by these tragic statistics. The national prevention campaign begun in the early 1990s has fortunately begun to have an impact on these figures. The total number of deaths fell from 380 in 1990 to 182 in 1996—still 182 too many. No doubt the $150,000 raised by Richmond High School has contributed to that national prevention campaign. Not only have Richmond High School been able to make such a generous financial contribution to this cause but they have substantially raised the level of local community awareness of SIDS. Their passion for the cause has drawn the support of many other individuals and organisations in the Hawkesbury community. Another beneficial outcome has been the development of an ongoing school culture which incorporates charity and community links in the regular program of the school. For students at Richmond High School, involvement in the local community and volunteer support for charitable works are part and parcel of school life. This involvement generates an approach to life which will last well beyond their years at school. It is a heartening example of the way our school system can develop positive attitudes in our young people's formative years. The other impressive aspect of this work is that it is largely driven by the students themselves through the student representative council with the guidance of a couple of key members of staff. Under the leadership of the SRC, the volunteer base includes not only a large committed team of students but many members of the local community and local community organisations. Particular credit is due to the principal, Mr Ken Gill; Mrs Pat Pilgrim, who has put so much effort into coordinating the school's Red Nose Day events for many years; and the school student representative council. The work of the leaders of the student body has been simply outstanding, particularly the work of school captains Alaina Gorham and Damian Northen and vice-captains Georgina Wheadon and Chris Brennan. However, without widespread student involvement the school's success would not have been possible.Over the years, I have observed the activities of the volunteer team I have been amazed by their creativity and energy. An imaginative range of fundraising activities has enabled them to involve a large cross-section of the community, resulting in the extraordinary success of their endeavours. The SIDS appeal has benefited greatly from the commitment and energy of Richmond High School over the years. The students, the parents and the staff of Richmond High School can be justifiably proud of their tremendous record of achievement. They are a great example to the broader community. My sincere congratulations to everyone involved.23:00:0018928House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices18928The following notice was given:MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr Mossfield to move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the importance of the construction of the Western Sydney Orbital Road System to the economic and social development of Western Sydney;(2) acknowledges the importance of road transport access that diminishes interference with road users in local communities;(3) recognises that in heavily developed regions such as Western Sydney, the speedy access by road transport to local business developments is vital in assisting productivity and business growth;(4) notes the policy commitment of successive governments to build the Western Sydney Orbital Road System;(5) acknowledges that only minimum funding has ever been set aside for the building of the Western Sydney Orbital Road System and that conditions of construction have included the building of a second airport at Badgerys Creek; and(6) calls on the federal Government to listen to and act upon the many calls from affected residents, business groups, business development committees, local government spokespersons and other interested parties in Western Sydney and urgently provide sufficient funding to enable the NSW Government to combine in partnership with the Commonwealth to commence immediate construction of the whole Western Sydney Orbital Road System.Answers to Questions in Writing18929The following answers to questions were circulated:18929(Question No. 1433)143318929Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 12 April 2000:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1071 (Hansard, 17 February 2000, page 13751), did the 16 redundancies at the Wynnum office occur at the same time.(2) What distinction is made between the 7 bona fide and 9 non-bona fide redundancies.(3) Who made the decision to offer either bona fide or non-bona fide redundancies.(4) On what basis were the 9 employees offered the non-bona fide redundancy.(5) Has the Wynnum office recruited new staff since May 1999; if so, have any of those new staff been employed to perform the same duties as those 9 non-bona fide redundant employees.(6) Was a decision made to make the 9 non-bona fide employees bona fide redundancies.(7) Was any ruling or advice sought from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the manner in which the 9 non-bona fide redundancies were to be treated; if so, what was that ruling/advice.(8) When were the 9 non-bona fide redundancy employees advised that their redundancies would be treated as non-bona fide.18929Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. The voluntary redundancies took place over the period May 1998 to July 1999. (2) Redundancies in Centrelink are determined in accordance with the 1999-2002 Centrelink Development Agreement (page 88). Fourteen of the 16 were offered voluntary redundancies in accordance with the criteria: “The services of the employee cannot be effectively used because of technological or other changes in the work methods of Centrelink or changes in the nature, extent or organisation of the functions of Centrelink” (point 2, section 36). This criteria defines a `non-bona fide' redundancy. A bona fide redundancy is where the officer's position is excess to requirements or the officer's position has been moved to another locality and the officer is unwilling to move. In the case of the Wynnum CSC, only two of the 16 redundancies met the latter criteria. The remainder were offered as non-bona fide redundancies. In preparing this further advice, investigations at the area level have indicated that there was an error in the original breakdown in the classification of bona and non-bona fide redundancies at Wynnum as advised in my response to question no 1071. However, all staff were provided with a correct written estimate of their final payments, including taxation liability, prior to their accepting the redundancy. (3) The Area Manager, Brisbane. (4) See answer to question 2. (5) Yes. In the period from 1 January 1998, 22 staff have been recruited to the Wynnum/Capalaba CSC, seven of these since May 1999. These staff are performing the work of those staff who accepted non-bona fide redundancies as well as of other staff who exited Centrelink during this period for other reasons. (6) It was the intention that the 14 redundancies offered to officers be non-bona fide redundancies and no decision was made to change them. (7) Advice was sought from the Australian Taxation Office which in part stated “In the situation covered by paragraph (b), the job is still there and the employee will be replaced by another employee to do the work. The situation therefore does not meet the criteria to qualify as a bona fide redundancy”. (8) All CSO's were advised by the CSC Manager or Assistant Manager that the basis of the redundancy offer was paragraph (b) `not adapting well to change' and therefore non-bona fide. In all cases these discussions took place before the officers accepted redundancy offers.18930(Question No. 1484)148418930McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 May 2000: (1) Have representatives of his Department been requested to advise the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in respect to matters relating to mandatory sentencing and, in particular, Australia's compliance with international conventions in respect to that matter; if so, when was it arranged for those representatives to brief the committee. (2) Has the briefing been cancelled or postponed; if so, why.18930Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade requested representatives of my Department to brief the Committee on mandatory sentencing on 13 April 2000. (2) I am advised that the Department was told on that day that the briefing was cancelled. The reason for the cancellation would have to be sought from the Committee.18930(Question No. 1487)148718930Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 May 2000: (1) In response to my question without notice (Hansard, 12 April 2000, page 15119) regarding transparency in wholesale petrol pricing, did he say that when the recommendation of the ACCC was put to the Australian Senate to deregulate the petroleum industry at the retail level, it was opposed by a political party which was more interested in keeping up differential rates for rural and regional people than in acting on that recommendation and bringing the differential down; if so, was the legislation to which he referred the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998. (2) If so, (a) did that legislation pass the House of Representatives on 11 March 1999, (b) was it introduced to the Senate on 22 March 1999 and (c) does it remain on the Senate Notice Paper under Government Business, undebated and not voted on; if so, does he stand by his statement in response to my question; if not, (d) to which legislation was he referring and (e) how was it opposed by the Senate.18930Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Hansard (12 April 2000, page 15119) contains an accurate record of my response to your question without notice. The legislation to which I was referring was the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998. (2) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes: Following the return from the 1999 winter recess, the Government held extensive negotiations with the non-Government parties in the Senate on its reform package and associated Repeal Bill. The non-Government parties would not agree to the passage of the Repeal Bill at that time. At the same time the Government sought to implement part of the reform package through a temporary increase in BP's quota under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act — by way of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.2). In September 1999 Labor and the Democrats combined to disallow these Regulations, making reference to their desire to retain the Sites Act for at least another two years. As a result of the non-Government parties' decision to oppose the reform package and associated Repeal Bill and their vote to disallow regulations associated with the deregulation of the petroleum industry at the retail level, the Government has decided not to proceed with the Repeal Bill until the major participants in the industry agree on the petroleum reform package.18930(Question No. 1488)148818930Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 May 2000: On selling their homes, will the owners of mobile homes or manufactured homes be treated in the same way as other home owners in that the price of their home will be GST free. 18931Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The sale of a mobile home or a manufactured home used for residential accommodation will not be subject to GST if it is sold by an individual who is not engaged in the enterprise of selling mobile homes or manufactured homes. This is how the majority of used mobile homes and established manufactured homes are expected to be sold. Established manufactured or demountable housing comes within the definition of residential premises and will be input taxed on sale if it is affixed to land. Supplies of demountable buildings that are not residential premises will not be subject to GST unless sold in the course of an enterprise that is carried on.18931(Question No. 1495)149518931Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 9 May 2000: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Australian Conservation Foundation Report in Habitat Australia 2000 concerning the Snowy River. (2) Have water savings in the Murray-Darling generated by the expenditure of tens of millions of Natural Heritage Trust dollars been used to increase the flow of the Murray-Darling, or have they been used to allow expansion in irrigated agriculture.18931Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) Natural Heritage Trust projects with the potential to generate water savings are those funded through the Murray-Darling 2001 Program and the National Landcare Program. These projects aim at improving water use efficiency either on or off-farm. Eligible activities for Trust funding include: . improved on-farm irrigation management practices . installation of more efficient on-farm irrigation systems . refurbishment or upgrading of off-farm water delivery systems . recycling of drainage water . demonstration activities on farms and training and education courses.It is also relevant that any expansion of irrigated agriculture can only take place within the water allocations available under the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council `Cap' on diversions. Most Natural Heritage Trust projects submitted for funding by the Basin community have been dominated by issues of water quality; control of water-tables to manage salinity and associated downstream impacts; riverine corridor restoration and protection; and improved aquatic habitat. The Murray-Darling 2001 Program has recently developed a new Irrigation and Water Use Efficiency component, which has as objectives: encouraging adoption of improved irrigation management practices; improving distribution system efficiency and security of water supply to irrigators; improving the management of water reuse systems; and providing additional water for environmental flows.18931(Question No. 1504)150418931McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 May 2000: Further to the question No. 1165(Hansard, 4 April 2000, page 14697), for the 12 month period ending 30 November 1999, what runway modes of operation were used at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and for what percentage of time was each mode of operation adopted on weekends.18932Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Airservices Australia has advised that the runway mode usage distribution on weekends for the 12 month period ending 30November 1999 was as follows: SODPROPS and other over the water6.65%Mode 57.19%Mode715.94%Mode926.48%Mode1024.57%Mode120.07%Mode130.39%Mode14a18.71%18932(Question No. 1522)152218932Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 10 May 2000: (1) Further to the answer to part (2) of question No 1212 (Hansard, 9 May 2000, page 16103), why was a detailed assessment of the financial impact of handing back Employment National's (EN) Job Network 1 contracts not undertaken before the contracts were handed back. (2) Further to the answer to part (4) of question No 1212, will he provide further supporting information that the cost to EN of servicing the contracts would have been$22 million and what is the detailed breakdown of that figure. (3) Further to the answer to part (4) of question No 1212, was the financial advice tendered by EN provided to him after his decision to direct EN to hand back intensive assistance contracts; if so, why did he not seek advice before issuing that direction. (4) Further to the answer to part (8) of question No 1212, before issuing such a ministerial direction to a Government Business Enterprise (GBE) is it standard practice to seek advice from that GBE on the material effect of such a direction. (5) Did the Minister for Employment Services, the Minister's advisers or the Minister's Department, discuss his direction to EN to hand back the contracts with him, his advisers or his Department before that decision was made; if so, did he, his advisers or his Department express a view as to whether the contracts should be handed back; if so, what was that view.18932Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An assessment of the financial impact of handing back EN's Intensive Assistance (Flex 3) Job Network 1 contracts was undertaken for EN by its accounting advisers. Based on advice from EN management, that assessment assumed that EN would cease servicing Intensive Assistance clients under Job Network 1, apart from those placed in sustainable employment prior to the commencement of W2, given the large losses associated with the business. (2) EN advises that the costings are based on projections of minimum costs required to continue to service Intensive Assistance clients. The costs included a reducing profile of staff required to service ongoing Intensive Assistance clients, property, IT and telephony costs for those staff, (including appropriate adjustments to systems, and maintaining sites that would otherwise have closed) and candidate 1 extra' expenditure. The costing assumptions did not include consideration of staff retention payments for staff with short term futures in the company.18933(Question No. 1534)153418933O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 11 May 2000: (1) Does the Minister's Department administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individuals can apply for funding in Tasmania; if so, what are the programs. (2) Does the Minister's Department advertise these funding opportunities; if so, (a) what print media outlets have been used for the advertising of each of these programs and (b) were these paid advertisements.18933Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department of Family and Community Services administers funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individual can apply for funding in Tasmania. The programs administered by the Department are; the Emergency Relief Program, the Partnerships against Domestic Violence Program, the Family and Community networks Initiative, the Youth Activity Service Program, the Family Relationships Program, the Good Beginnings National Parenting Project, the Disability Services Program and the Family and Children's Services Program. (2) (a) Where new or uncommitted funding is available and if it is apparent that there is more than one possible organisation to deliver a program the funding is advertised. Within the current financial year, in Tasmania, programs have been advertised in “The Mercury”, “The Examiner”, “The Advocate”, “Tasmanian Country”, “Australian Retiree”, “The Derwent Valley Gazette”, “The Deloraine Community News”, “The Northern Midlands Community News” and “The Tasmanian Business Reporter”. (b) This advertising was paid.18933(Question No. 1556)155618933Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KernotXW4DicksonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 11 May 2000: (1) How many of the intensive assistance initial outcomes for which a provider has received a payment under the Job Network to date are (a) training outcomes and (b) paid work. (2) How many of the intensive assistance 13 week outcomes for which a provider h received a payment under the Job Network to date are (a) training outcomes and (b) paid work. (3) What portion of the total does the training outcome represent. (4) What percentage of sum spent under the Job Network is on accredited training. (5) What was the total sum spent on accredited training in the last 12 months. (6) How many long term unemployed were placed into employment in the first 19 months of the Job Network. (7) How many long term unemployed were scheduled to be placed into employment in the first 19 months of the Job Network. (8) How many job seekers were placed into employment in the first 19 months of the Job Network. (9) How many job seekers were scheduled to be placed into employment in the first 19 months of the Job Network. (10) How many job seekers in total have been placed in work in the last 12 months. (11) How many intensive assistance clients have been placed in work in the last 12 months. (12) How many non intensive assistance job seekers have been placed in work in the last 12 months. (13) How many providers missed out on contracts under Job Network 2 because their bids faded to comply with the revised GST guidelines. (14) How many Job Network sites are located within 50 metres of each other. (15) What are the-locations of these Job Network sites. (16) Counting, Job Network sites located within 50 metres of each other as one site, what is the number of sites under Job Network 2.18934Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) nil - see (2) (b) nil - see (2) (2) (a) An Intensive Assistance outcomes payment is made when a job seeker who has been placed in a job or an education/training course remains in the course for a semester or continues to receive income sufficient to result in a M or partial reduction in income support payments over a period of 13 consecutive weeks. These 13 week outcomes are referred to as interim outcomes. From 1 May 1998 to 19 May 2000, a total of 4648 interim outcomes payments were made for the placement of job seekers into education or training. (b) From 1 May 1998 to 19 May 2000, a total of 68 287 interim outcomes payments were made for the placement of job seekers into employment. The placement into a job which '4anchors' such a 13 week outcome may be eligible for a payment under Job Matching arrangements. (3) Education and training placements are 6.4 percent of interim outcomes. (4) and (5) Accredited training is not a separate service within Job Network. Job Network members are not required to account for expenditure on various forms of assistance to clients. The department cannot, therefore, report on expenditure on accredited training within Job Network. (6) In the first 19 months of Job Network operation around 165 000 Job Matching placements were for long term unemployed job seekers. (7) There was no target for the placement of long term unemployed job seekers in the first 19 months of Job Network. (8) Around 440 000 eligible Job Matching placements (potentially attracting, a Job Matching fee) were achieved in the first 19 months of Job Network operation. (9) There was no target for the placement of job seekers in the first 19 months of Job Network. (10) Approximately 293 000 eligible Job Matching placements were achieved in the 12 months to end April 2000. (11) Around 90 000 eligible Job Matching placements were made for Intensive Assistance participants in the 12 months to end April. 2000. (12) In the 12 months to end April 2000 around 203 000 eligible Job Matching placements were for job seekers who were not participating in Intensive Assistance. (13) Twenty-nine organisations were not considered for contracts to deliver Intensive Assistanceservices for the sole reason that they submitted prices all of which were below theminimum price specified in the GST related addendum to the Request for Tender. (14), (15) and (16) As at 23 May 2000, there were 2054 Job Network sites. The department records the addresses of sites; it does not measure the distance between sites.18934(Question No. 1557)155718934O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 29 May 2000: (1) What proportion of the Dairy Industry Deregulation Community Assistance Package will be allocated to Tasmania. (2) What process is in place for the application for funding under this program. (3) What process is in place for the assessment of applications.18934Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Dairy Regional Assistance Program (Dairy RAP) is but one component of the Dairy Structural Adjustment Package. Under Dairy RAP, there is no specific allocation on a state by state basis. Funding allocations will therefore be assessed nationally in the light of the numbers and types of funding requests received, the information provided by the proponents in their applications and the advice from their respective Area Consultative Committee(s). (2) Procedures for application and funding for the program are currently being developed between my department and the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. I understand that applications for the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme will take essentially the same form as those under the existing Regional Assistance Program, administered by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. (3) The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is developing, in consultation with my department, a process for consideration of applications. Initial applications will need to be lodged through Area Consultative Committees. Area Consultative Committees, which work in partnership with government, business and the community will put forward for consideration applications which demonstrate the capacity to create sustainable regional employment opportunities and/or services that lead to ongoing regional benefits.18935(Question No. 1566)156618935Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 29 May 2000: (1) Since 1 July 1999, what contracts have been signed between Centrelink and IBM. (2) What products and services were included in those contracts. (3) Which of those products and services are within the scope of Centrelink outsourcing as per the tender request. (4) Were these contracts approved by the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing (OASITO) before Centrelink's commitment. (5) Was OASITO involved in the negotiation of the contracts. (6) Who signed the contracts on behalf of Centrelink and the Commonwealth.18935Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Four agreements have been signed since 1 July 1999. These are: . Deed Number IBM/DSS/FEP1. The effective date of this deed was 5 August 1999 and is an amendment to upgrade hardware and extend the term of the then existing deed to 31 December 2000. . Deed Number IBM/DSS/MF1. The effective date of this amendment was 26 December 1999. This amendment extended the hardware lease term to 31 December 2002, incorporated the then current monthly leased software and provided additional processors, software, services and maintenance. . Deed Number IBM/DSS/MF1. The effective date of this amendment was 12 March 2000. This amendment upgraded certain items of hardware. . Agreement dated 30 September 1999 for extraction and transformation tools. (2) Deed Number IBM/DSS/FEP1Included in this Deed was mainframe hardware and Vendor Support Services for an estimated two days. It also provided for IBM to assist Centrelink in the implementation, planning and migration of the hardware.IBM/DSS/MF1 - Effective date 26 December 1999Included in this Deed was network software, mainframe software and hardware. Also included under this contract amendment was the renewal of annual maintenance charges (software subscription renewals) for existing products.Vendor Support Services were extended to 31 December 2002, and services in relation to the de-installation of chillers and associated condensor units and supporting framework from the Sydney Computer Centre were also included. IBM/DSS/MF1 - Effective date 12 March 2000Included in this Deed were hardware products.Agreement dated 30 September 1999 for extraction and transformation toolIncluded in this contract was software. (3) All these products and services are within the scope of Centrelink's Request for Tender. (4) Clearance was sought from the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing on significant acquisitions. Approval for contracts was not sought as this is not a requirement. (5) OASITO was not involved in the negotiation of the contracts. (6) The National Manager, Information and Technology Infrastructure Services, signed all four agreements on behalf of Centrelink and the Commonwealth.18936(Question No. 1570)157018936Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 29 May 2000: (1) Does the Minister support the closure of the CSIRO research facility at Prospect. (2) When did the Minister first become aware of a report into the CSIRO's Livestock Research Infrastructure. (3) When did the Minister first become aware of proposals to close the CSIRO research facility at Prospect. (4) Have there been discussions between the Minister's Department and Boral Quarries at Prospect; if so, what was the (a) date and (h) nature of the discussions. (5) Have arrangements been made in regard to the future use of the site by Boral Quarries or any other company. (6) What plans have been made for the future usage of the site. (7) Was there a $12 million upgrade of the CSIRO Prospect facility in 1995; if so, what specific areas of the site were upgraded and what was the individual cost of each area upgraded. (8) What sum of Commonwealth funding was allocated to the CSIRO research facility at Prospect in (a) 1990-91, (b) 1991-92, (c) 1992-93, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95, (f) 1995-96, (g) 1996-97, (h) 1997-98, (i) 1998-99 and (j) 1999-2000. (9) Did the Minister receive advice detailing the closure of the CSIRO's research facility at Prospect; if so, (a) on what date was the advice received and (b) did the advice state that the closure of the facility would (i) involve the loss of highly skilled research staff currently stationed at Prospect and result in the closure of the several research programs owing to the loss of key scientific expertise, (ii) at the least, incur months of disruption to research programs of national importance to the $7 billion Livestock Industry that would affect producers across Australia and (iii) cut established links between the CSIRO's Prospect facility and the animal nutrition, pig and dairy industries in the Greater Sydney region. (10) What sum of Commonwealth money has been appropriated to allow for relocation for staff and equipment, recruitment of new staff and redundancy packages for staff from the Prospect site.18936Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: (1) CSIRO's decision to close the Prospect facility flows from recommendations by a committee of senior industry representatives in a Review of Livestock Research Infrastructure commissioned in December 1999 by the Organisation's Chief Executive. CSIRO's response to this report is a matter for CSIRO. (2) CSIRO advised the Minister about the deliberations of the Review of Livestock Research Infrastructure on 14 April 2000. (3) On 14 April 2000, CSIRO advised the Minister that the Review Team was considering recommending that CSIRO's research facility at Prospect be closed. CSIRO's decision to accept the Review recommendation that the Prospect research facility be closed was communicated to the Minister on 15 May 2000. (4)(a)(b) In 1998/99 Boral initiated a State Environment Planning Policy 59 proposal for redevelopment of its site for employment and residential uses. In 1998 CSIRO lodged a proposal with Holroyd Council for the rezoning of 18 hectares of the Prospect site which was surplus to requirements. This area, about one third of the total site area, has been designated for disposal once rezoning is approved. The Boral site is adjacent to CSIRO's Prospect site and, as two adjoining owners with concurrent planning proposals, CSIRO and Boral were required to reach agreement on joint access and services to the development areas.CSIRO had a number of discussions with Boral in late 1999 and early 2000 on a possible Boral lease of a building in CSIRO's Prospect site (Building 35). This lease did not proceed. (5) No. CSIRO does not have any arrangements or agreements with Boral or any other company about the future use of CSIRO's Prospect site. (6) Other than the disposal of the 18 hectares of land surplus to requirements (see response to Q 4) CSIRO has not made any plans for the future use of the balance of the Prospect site. A property strategy is being developed by CSIRO and its equity partner, the Woolmark Company, on the future use of the balance of the site. (7) A total of $9.2 million was expended in 1994/95 on facilities at Prospect comprising: - a new facility for the McMaster Laboratory at a cost of $4.5 million - refurbishment of certain existing facilities including the library, theatrette, climate control building, post mortem facility and animal house at a total cost of $4.7 million. (8) Funding has not been specifically allocated to the Prospect site. In CSIRO funds are allocated to programs and not sites. CSIRO Animal Production has had staff located at up to nine different sites over the last decade and some programs are carried out on several of these sites. Commonwealth funding allocated to CSIRO's Division of Animal Production as a whole, is: (a) 1990-91$11.5 million (b) 1991-92$12.6 million (c) 1992-93$15.8 million (d) 1993-94$14.2 million (e) 1994-95$13.8 million (f) 1995-96$17.8 million (g) 1996-97$16.6 million (h) 1997-98$15.6 million (i) 1998-99$14.8 million (j) 1999-2000$15.5 million (9) (a) CSIRO advised the Minister in writing on 15 May 2000 of its decision to accept the Review Committee's recommendation that the Prospect site be closed. (b) (i) CSIRO advised the Minister that all staff at Prospect would be offered relocation with their jobs to other CSIRO sites and that it aims to maximise the number of staff that transfer to other locations by taking all practical measures to provide attractive relocation packages and minimise the stress of relocation. CSIRO also advised that, despite this, some staff might be unable to relocate and will instead opt for redundancy. (ii) Advice from CSIRO noted the possibility of short to medium term disruption to some research groups, possibly including the loss of work areas to CSIRO. (iii) An Implementation Team has been commissioned by CSIRO to ensure the orderly withdrawal from the Prospect site and to ensure the most appropriate relocation destinations for research groups into order to maintain and extend their industry links. (10) No additional Commonwealth money has been appropriated for this purpose. 18938(Question No. 1574)157418938Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 29 May 2000: (1) Will proposed changes to the South Pacific regional trade and economic cooperation agreement allow garments made in Fiji from non-Australian woven fabric to be provided duty free into Australia. (2) Does this have the potential to adversely affect Australian manufacturers in the wool weaving and conversion industries. (3) What action will the Minister take to ensure manufacturers like ADA in Bendigo are not disadvantaged by the changes.18938Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The proposed new arrangements provide for preferential access for TCF goods produced in Forum Island Countries (including Fiji), and incorporates a change in the method for utilising local area content for TCF goods. The local area content of a product is the input from Australia, New Zealand or Forum Island Countries. This new approach broadens the range of products able to be produced economically in a Forum Island Country. (2) The Minister's intention is that the proposed new scheme will not disadvantage Australian textile producers and he has instructed his Department accordingly. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources has had extensive and ongoing consultation with industry to discuss the nature of the scheme. (3) Representatives of ADA in Bendigo have been involved in the consultation process and their concerns will be taken into account in the finalisation of the new scheme.18938(Question No. 1584)158418938Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca6J4BowmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 30 May 2000: (1) What are the official figures for the total number of visitor visa applications received and the number of applications refused during each year since 1994-95 by departmental posts in (a) Albania, (b) Bangladesh, (c) Bosnia, (d) Bulgaria, (e) Burma, (f) Cambodia, (g) Chile, (h) China, (i) Colombia, (j) Croatia, (k) Czech Republic, (l) Ecuador, (m) El Salvador, (n) Ethiopia, (o) Egypt, (p) Fiji, (q) Greece, (r) Hungary, (s) India, (t) Iran, (u) Iraq, (v) Israel, (w) Jordan, (x) Laos, (y) Lebanon, (z) Lithuania, (aa) FYR Macedonia, (ab) Nepal, (ac) Pakistan, (ad) Peru, (ae) The Philippines, (af) Poland, (ag) Romania, (ah) Russia, (ai) Sri Lanka, (aj) Syria, (ak) Tonga, (al) Turkey, (am) The Ukraine, (an) Uruguay, (ao) Vietnam, (ap) Western Samoa and (aq) Yugoslavia. (2) For each post referred to in part (1), how many visa applications were (a) received and (b) rejected from applicants aged (i) between 20 and 30 years of age, (ii) between 30 and 40 years of age, (iii) between 40 and 50 years of age, (iv) between 50 and 60 years of age and (v) 60 years of age and over. (3) What are the official figures for the total number of visitor visa applications received and the number of applications refused during each year since 1994-95 by departmental posts in (a) United States and (b) United Kingdom. (4) For each post referred to in part (3), how many visa applications were (a) received and (b) rejected from applicants aged (i) between 20 and 30 years of age, (ii) between 30 and 40 years of age, (iii) between 40 and 50 years of age, (iv) between 50 and 60 years of age and (v) 60 years of age and over. (5) For each post referred to in parts (1) and (3), how many applications for visitor visas in each age group were refused on the grounds that the applicant fitted into one of the categories on the High Risk Factor List.18939Ruddock, 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 honourable member will know that the Australian Government does not have posts in all of the countries listed in his question. However, all the data available at this time is included in Table A below. Until November 1998 the Department could only report on refusals by Post, and this was not always indicative of citizenship. From that time the Department has been able to report on refusals by citizenship and accordingly I have also included data, at Table B below, on applications and refusals by citizenship for calendar years 1999 and 2000 (to 31 May). (2) Data on the age and sex of visitor visa applicants is not readily available for reporting purposes at present however systems development work is currently underway to enable data to be easily extracted and reported upon. I have asked officers of my Department to continue to advance this work and provide these statistics to the honourable member when they become available. Given the current position of the systems development, it is not possible to estimate when this information might be available. (3) The honourable member will be aware of the difficulty in making comparisons between the countries discussed in question 1 and the USA and UK. US and UK citizens are eligible, along with the nationals of 31 low risk countries worldwide, to be granted an Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) if they are not listed on the Movement Alert List. Visitor visas, including ETAs, granted to UK and USA nationals during the period requested are included in Tables A and B. (4) See (2) above. (5) Public Interest Criterion 4011 (the “risk factor”) requires any visitor visa applicant who falls within certain age and sex cohorts to demonstrate to the decision-maker that “there is very little likelihood that the applicant will remain after the expiry of any period during which the applicant might be authorised to remain after entry.”While I can state the number of visa applications rejected, the department does not record the reasons for those rejections in a way that can be accessed by the Department's reporting systems. I can, however, state that the risk factor list is not used to automatically exclude applicants. It operates simply as an “alert” to decision-makers of the potential for continued stay in Australia and requires the applicant to provide a higher level of evidence to support their claim that they are only intending to visit Australia. An applicant will be rejected where they fail to satisfy a decision-maker that a genuine visit is intended. Visitor VisasNumber of Visitor Visa Applications and Refusals by Processing Country and Program YearProgram Year 1994-95 to 1999-00 (to 30 April 00)Country1994-951994-951995-961995-961996-971996-971997-981997-981998-991998-991999-00 to date1999-00to dateApplicationsRefusalsApplicationsRefusalsApplicationsRefusalsApplicationsRefusalsApplicationsRefusalsApplicationsRefusalsBangladesh1,1134261,2172761,7244071,9644722,0204552,623636Burma (Myanmar)4991765730668176737199711106672197Cambodia, the Kingdom of6622341,3673871,9749832,2451,3661,1374791,003368Chile2,4911503,1031523,3755104,0679135,8419616,5151,534China, Peoples Republic of33,3414,34846,7445,82472,13316,69775,45319,40678,66219,34887,06715,670Egypt, Arab Republic of1,6796011,9224522,0925552,7707633,0017993,075736Fiji14,6402,41717,0113,15418,3044,40820,6814,99920,8593,97020,1852,171Greece6,0461576,259926,8791799,81714010,85731510,938343Hungary2,468712,8381113,1242403,4192493,7004223,685496India13,57777918,0761,31821,7573,13225,9264,36127,4914,39229,4073,616Iran1,5816562,4551,0442,7531,4972,5531,1852,1411,0722,056942Israel6,7891168,54121710,35137410,43542810,94837911,123464Jordan1,1033511,3385581,3886011,4767841,0054881,098488Lao Peoples Democratic Rep21537465344694460978725165766222Lebanon005,8402,2505,5312,3855,4082,3964,8141,8365,9842,741Nepal547408282021,138344222452520560Pakistan2,6029733,6201,2713,8871,3004,3761,8663,9972,3743,4011,918Philippines22,0922,84530,1743,76537,8205,78040,3456,57535,4904,12835,0037,701Poland3,5736413,7525074,4186894,6006095,7507155,714588Russian Federation6,8441,1597,8249357,7761,3628,3531,6467,6992,0606,7531,622Samoa1,8182591,860731,8794191,8153181,9741871,830249Sri Lanka4,9595439,1162,4567,7882,8406,6971,9086,8501,6387,7581,516Syria5,4561,8871,15743777934491040675635213565Tonga2,1786402,7681,0343,3789033,1681,2022,6721,1291,786554Turkey2,3234972,7248462,9831,0273,0439953,0368181,756833United Kingdom 290,788434310,669456334,179385370,408504438,621440404,847411United States of America252,099622259,819529262,103578297,990193339,677131309,374104Vietnam3,4961,0804,5431,1145,0961,3436,2671,1566,8081,5806,5321,742Yugoslavia4,8161,9084,9671,4956,3082,0576,7862,2305,5442,7425,9342,823TOTAL OFFSHORE2,646,32037,4172,940,98143,7333,155,36865,1983,076,01784,8123,088,19377,2782,860,43167,470Visitor visa numbers include ETA's for Greece, United Kingdom and United States of America.18941(Question No. 1586)158618941Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Vietnamese newspaper Lao Dong in November 1999, which alleged fraud by a Vietnamese Government official of $16 000 in Australian aid to the Vietnamese Education Department's Industry and Education Centre for the production of an ecology text book. (2) Has he made representations to the Vietnamese Government regarding the alleged fraud; if so, what. (3) Has the $16 000 been recovered; if not, what is the status of the investigation.18941Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, I am aware that on 22 November 1999 an article appeared in the Lao Dong newspaper in which two allegations of mis-use of DAP funding were made against an individual in the National Centre for Education Technology (NCET). In 1994, the Australian Embassy in Hanoi allocated US$10 000 (AU$13 937) for an Environment Education in Primary Schools project to the NCET. The funds were to develop an environmental education curriculum for primary schools. The Embassy received a receipt from NCET on 12 May 1994 for US$10 000. (2) I have no information to either support or refute allegations of misappropriation of these DAP funds and representations would be inappropriate. (3) The Embassy was advised in January 2000 that the NCET was undertaking an investigation into these allegations. No further information has been advised by the Vietnamese authorities on the state of the investigation.18941(Question No. 1591)159118941Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 1 June 2000: From discussions with Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd, what is the airline's intentions (a) for extension of its services beyond the Melbourne. Sydney and Brisbane triangle to less profitable regional routes and (b) with respect to the servicing and maintenance of its fleet within Australia by staff directly employed by the company.18941Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Virgin Blue has publicly announced that phase one of its Australian operations will focus on the Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane triangle. If Virgin is successful in the start up phase, it has expressed the intention to consider expanding services to other points in Australia, including regional points, in phases two and three in around 18 months time. (b) Virgin Blue has made a commercial decision to outsource its aircraft maintenance functions rather than directly employing aircraft maintenance staff. I understand that Virgin Blue recently announced it had contracted Jet Care Pty Ltd to carry out aircraft maintenance in Brisbane. Jet care is a Queensland based company and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Flight West Airlines.18942(Question No. 1607)160718942Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on Tuesday, 6 June 2000. (1) Did the Australian National Training Authority Ministerial Council consider the 1989 UNESCO Convention on Technical and Vocational Education at its meeting on 12 November 1999. (2) Has Australia consulted any members of the South Pacific Forum on ratification or accession since the answer to question No. 890 (Hansard, 11 October 1999, page 11293).18942Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No.18942(Question No. 1613)161318942Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 6 June 2000: (1) Did he meet his Iranian counterpart, Iran's Construction Jihad Minister, Mohammad Saeedicki in Sydney on 30 May 2000. (2) Is he able to say whether the expression `Jihad' means Holy War. (3) What was the purpose of his meeting with the Construction Jihad Minister. (4) Was he invited by the Construction Jihad Minister to visit Teheran and did he accept the invitation. (5) Did he raise Australia's concerns about human rights with the Construction Jihad Minister; if not, will he be raising these human rights issues should he visit Teheran.18942Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question's are as follows: (1) I did not meet with Mohammad Saeedicki on 30 May 2000 in Sydney. However, I did meet with the Minister for Construction Jihad, Mr Saidi Kia and his delegation during his visit to Canberra on 29 May 2000. (2) I am advised that the direct translation of `Jihad' in the Iranian language (Farsi) is `crusade'. (3) Minister Kia's portfolio is responsible for key areas of agriculture including livestock and dairy, natural resource management, fisheries and aquaculture, as well as forestry. At the meeting I had with Minister Kia we discussed opportunities relevant to my portfolio's export interests. (4) Minister Kia informally invited me to visit Iran during the meeting. I indicated that I was interested in visiting the Middle East at some time in the future. No official invitation from the Iranian Government has been received. (5) No.18943(Question No. 1614)161418943Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 2000: (1) How many persons were held in immigration detention centres throughout Australia on 6 June 2000. (2) How many persons were held in each centre. (3) How many persons have been in detention for more than (a) 9 months and (b) 18 months. (4) How many persons in detention centres have applications before the (a) Federal Court and (b) Refugee Tribunal. (5) How many persons in detention centres are eligible for (a) permanent residence and (b) a three year temporary refugee visa.18943Ruddock, 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) There were 3601 persons in immigration detention centres throughout Australia on 6 June 2000. (2) On 6 June 2000, immigration detention centres had the following populations - Woomera1421 - Curtin 957 - Port Hedland782 - Villawood 328 - Maribyrnong82 - Perth31 (3) (a) On 13 June 2000 there were 464 persons who were in detention for more than 9 months. (b) On 13 June 2000 there were 182 persons who were in detention for more than 18 months. (4) (a) Departmental systems are temporarily unable to provide details of how many persons in detention centres have applications before the Federal Court. The Department is currently modifying its Integrated Client Service System. It is planned that this information will be available by early July 2000. (b) On 15 June 2000, there were 89 persons in immigration detention who had applications before the Refugee Review Tribunal. (5) On 6 June 2000 there were 670 people in detention who were protection visa applicants and, if found to be in need of protection, eligible for grant of a Permanent Protection Visa providing they met all other applicable visa criteria. There were a further 2860 protection visa applicants in detention who, if found to be in need of protection, were eligible for grant of a Temporary Protection Visa providing they met all other applicable visa criteria.18943(Question No. 1639)163918943Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 19 June 2000: (1) Have staff of his Department located in the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) building in Northbridge, WA, been advised that they are to vacate the premises by May 2002. (2) What impact will this have on the operation of his Department in Perth. (3) How many staff members are currently located in the Northbridge office. (4) What functions do they perform. (5) Is his Department moving staff from its premises in the ATO building in Northbridge. (6) To where will staff be moving. (7) What will be the cost of the move. (8) What will be the costs of any new furnishings and ancillaries. 18944Ruddock, 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) Informal advice has been provided to my Department by ATO that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs staff will need to vacate the premises on the expiry of the sublease in May 2002. (2) Relocation would be organised to minimise disruption to clients. (3) 185 staff. (4) The Perth Office's functions include the full range of services provided by a State/Regional office. This includes client services, citizenship processing, visa processing, compliance activities, settlement activities and a range of corporate functions to support office activities. (5) My Department is not currently moving staff from its premises, but it would need to do so prior to lease expiry in May 2002. (6) No premises have been selected at this point in time. (7) Removal costs are estimated to be $60,000. (8) The costs of furnishings and ancillaries in new premises are estimated to be around $2m.