2000-08-153917REPS1894502000-08-15—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements1894514:01:0018945Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Community Services will be absent from question time today due to ill health. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs may need to leave question time just a few minutes before it ends to attend an official engagement interstate, but he will be around for at least an hour to answer many questions from the opposition.Questions Without Notice189451894514:02:0018945Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in the light of your claim that you are delivering in full your promised $1,000 to all Australians over 60, how do you respond to Reg Holmes of Heathcote who, upon receiving his aged persons bonus cheque for just $1, wrote to me and said:It is an insult to me sending $1. The money it cost to put this letter out would be far more than $1. I am enclosing a copy of this letter with $1 for you to pass on to Mr Howard or the Treasurer.Mr Howard, how many older Australians have forwarded their $1 bonuses to you? And what are you going to do with them? I seek leave to table the $1 from Mr Holmes.Leave not granted.18945Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I made it plain yesterday that the commitments made by the government have been delivered in full, and I refer to the document entitled Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system, which outlines in detail our commitments. I am quite certain that the gentleman to whom the Leader of the Opposition referred in his question would have received from the government—and the opposition is well aware of this because it was a matter of some debate—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What did you say?ZD4Mr HOWARD—I said when I wrote to every household in Australia, including Mr Holmes's household, that I had enclosed a booklet that explained the detail. I can assure Mr Holmes that we have honoured in full those details, as referred to in my covering letter to Mr Holmes and to the other eight million or nine million households throughout Australia.1894514:04:0018945Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of any proposed changes to the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance? What would the impact of such alternative measures be on other Australians, but particularly on those in regional Australia?18945Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. After yesterday's great news on private health insurance, the Labor Party cannot wait to get in and attempt to destroy the 30 per cent rebate as, in the words of Graham Richardson, `they do not really like private health cover'. The effects of this proposed change to means test the rebate would be catastrophic. If we look between 1985 and 1996, the drop-out from private health insurance in the top 60 per cent of income earners was 18 per cent. The drop-out amongst low income earners was only three per cent. So high income earners are far more price sensitive when it comes to private health insurance. Any change of this nature would immediately lead to a drop in private health insurance which means that premiums would go up.The Labor Party for the last six months have been trying to weasel and sneak around this. They say, `Yes, we are going to keep the rebate'—wink, wink. Yet, yesterday, the shadow spokesperson on health, the member for Jagajaga, said, `We have not decided whether or not we are going to means test.' This puts an end to the deceptive behaviour of the last six months. We can really see what the Labor Party are on about when it comes to private health insurance.The honourable member asked about the effect of this. The effect is patchy because the number of people with private health insurance is actually not uniform across the country. The latest figures we have of people with private health insurance by electorate are from January 2000. But if we project by the state increase in private health insurance over the last six months we get some interesting figures. In the seat of Paterson, over 45 per cent of the population who have private health insurance are going to be disadvantaged by this change. In the seat of Bass, nearly 47 per cent of the population have private health insurance. In the seat of Dickson, 44½ per cent have private health insurance. In the seat of Griffith, 51.6 per cent of the population have private health insurance. In the seat of Kingston, 53.4 per cent of the population have private health insurance, and in the seat of Chisholm it is 55.3 per cent, which is just a bit above Jagajaga with 53.4 per cent. But the really high numbers come from Western Australia. In the seat of Stirling, 56.7 per cent of the population have private health insurance. In the seat of Swan, 54.2 per cent of the population have private health insurance. So these are the people the Labor Party are attempting to disadvantage, to undo the 4½ years of good work. We do not have a consistent message coming from the Labor Party. They are all over the place. Clearly the New South Wales right wing would like the Labor Party to take a sensible position on this. The opposition leader is clearly not able to do that. He allows his shadow minister to go around undermining a very important part of Medicare. When it comes to private health insurance it is very simple: Labor did not invent the solution, they did not support the solution, they did not want the solution, but they are never going to be allowed to dismantle this.1894614:08:0018946Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you explain why pensioners such as Ron Cherrie from Loganlea, to whom you promised $1,000 in bonuses before the last election, have received cheques for just $1? What is your response to Mr Cherrie's letter to me, which says:I know that I voted for them, now I will do everything in my power to see them fail at the next election as I am sure many older Australians will join me on a matter of principle. Prime Minister, here is a copy of Mr Cherrie's letter and his cheque for $1. Can you explain to him why your principles do not extend to honouring your GST compensation promises to older Australians? I seek leave to table the cheque.Leave not granted.18946Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The response I would make to Mr Cherrie—and indeed to the four or five other people who will be referred to as question time rolls on—is that I actually wrote to him. I wrote to him in a letter dated 20 June. It was addressed `My fellow Australian'. Had it not been for a court action I would have been able to make it a lot more personal. I would have been able to say `Dear Bill', `Dear Charlie' or `Dear Tom' , but unfortunately I was not able to do that and I had to use that time-honoured and well-respected generic salutation `My fellow Australian'. In that letter I referred to one of the many elements—would you like me to read the whole letter? It is a very good letter. I started off by explaining why it was necessary to break away from the old tax system. I spoke about the $12 billion of personal income tax cuts. And then I got to something that I would have been able to specifically draw to Mr Cherrie's attention—no doubt Mr Cherrie would have read this:Pensions and allowances will rise by four per cent on 1 July and will be guaranteed to remain two per cent above the cost of living.I then went on to say:In addition to increases in pensions and allowances, benefits for older Australians include savings bonuses, capital gains tax concessions, refundable franking credits and the abolition of provisional tax. But not content with that general explanation to Mr Cherrie, I then provided him with a very attractive booklet. And this very attractive booklet is very good. It is worth a read. UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance and the fact that the Prime Minister is waving around this document which you have specifically banned on many occasions in this House. If the Prime Minister wants to tell us how much that cost Mr Cherrie, we would be very interested to know. Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The level of interjection is much too high and I will deal very sternly with those who continue to defy standing order 55. The member for Paterson has raised a point of order that was not a valid point of order. The chair has at no time prevented people from quoting from documents, and that is precisely what I understood the Prime Minister was about to do.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—My point of order did not raise an objection to the Prime Minister quoting from the document that everyone in Australia received. My point of order was about the Prime Minister waving it around in a manner that you specifically have prohibited on other occasions and often.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson's point of order is not valid. I will deal with the Prime Minister as I deal with all other members. The member for Rankin! The member for Rankin is warned. That was an act of direct defiance of the chair.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am indeed grateful to the member for Paterson for confirming that the Labor Party accepts that everybody in Australia received this booklet. Therefore any suggestion that anybody could have been in any doubt as to their entitlement is totally destroyed by your own interjection. It is totally destroyed. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—No amount of vigorous interjection by the Leader of the Opposition at the dispatch box can alter that fact. That destroys every one of the other questions you have organised—all these people who are writing in. If everybody has this document, everybody knows directly from me what the real situation was. So let me read it. Under the heading `Financial breaks: the GST and aged pensioners'—and I have already talked about the increase in the pension—it goes on to say: Pensioners will also benefit—and this includes Mr Cherrie and it includes Mr Holmes—from a 2½ per cent increase in the income test and assets test free areas, allowing you to increase the amount of income or assets you can have before your pension is reduced. It goes on to say:Pensioners will further benefit from keeping 60 cents of every dollar of income above the free area. Under the old system it is only 50 cents.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order goes to relevance. The Prime Minister is quoting from a document distributed halfway through this year, and we were asking questions about undertakings he gave before the election. Before the election he said everybody would get the $1,000. What he is putting out now—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat, and I will rule. As the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, the Prime Minister is entirely within the standing orders and is answering the question which he was asked.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I will go on reading from the document under the heading `The aged person's savings bonus':Subject to an income test, Australians aged 60 years or over with personal income from savings, superannuation or investment will be eligible for a one-off aged persons savings bonus of a dollar for each dollar of that income. This is up to a maximum of $1,000 for a single person and $1,000 for each couple.The Leader of the Opposition will also be aware of an enormous amount of material that was circulated to Australian households before the election in 1998.1894814:16:0018948Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of progress in restoring Australia's fiscal position? Would the Treasurer comment on alternative approaches?18948Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question. The honourable member would know that, in the last five years when Labor was in office, during a period of constant economic growth, the Labor Party accumulated for this country, for this Commonwealth government, $80 billion worth of debt. They ran deficits over five years and accumulated $80 billion of debt. We must pay tribute to the finance minister at the time, who I think has the record for the greatest two-year accumulative deficits in Australian financial history: $23 billion in two years. When this government was elected we said that we would do three things. We said that we would get the budget into surplus, we would halve the ratio of debt to the economy and we would do it without increasing taxes. As it turned out, we returned the budget to surplus one year ahead of target, after two years, we have done better than halve the debt to GDP ratio and, of Labor's $80 billion of cumulative deficits, we have now repaid $50 billion. We did that without increasing taxes. We saw the extraordinary claim yesterday, reported in the Australian Financial Review,which, as I remarked, must have been going into the comedy business after interviewing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who said that, after the Labor Party has rolled back GST, abolished bracket creep, rolled back fuel excises, paid small business to collect GST, increased spending on health, increased spending on education, increased spending on training, reviewed HECS and increased spending on the regions, it was actually going to run bigger surpluses than the government. Terry McCrann in the Herald Sun today reported it like this:`Labor pledges hefty tax hikes for middle Australia' was the headline you did not see in the Australian Financial Review yesterday, even though this was the most important message out of a cosy interview with Simon Crean.Where would you get the money to cut back the taxation base, increase spending on everything and run a bigger surplus? This is where we need to go to the Labor Party platform. I ask people to remember this very carefully. The Labor Party's platform is this—this is what they put in their platform, very deliberately: they will not increase the burden of taxation on lower and middle income Australians nor seek to raise revenue beyond a proportion of GDP over the past decade. They will not seek to raise revenue beyond a proportion of GDP over the past decade. Over the past decade, the tax to GDP ratio has been 22.5 per cent, but today it is 20.8 per cent. What that means, according to their platform, is a proposal to increase tax to GDP by 1.7 per cent or $12 billion. You would need every one of those 12 billion dollars to possibly be in the ballpark of those promises yesterday: $12 billion is an increase in income tax for every Australian, $12 billion would be something like a 36c a litre increase in excise on petrol, $12 billion would be the abolition of the 30 per cent health rebate and more. No wonder we saw the Labor Party spokeswoman on health yesterday equivocating on the private health rebate of 30 per cent. Ms Macklin said that she was not able to say if Labor would keep the rebate in its current form: `We will just keep watching how it goes,' she said.`We will just keep watching how it goes'! Let me tell you how it goes: 30 per cent out to people who pay private health insurance—that is how it goes. That is how you will be watching it. Any means test on that private health insurance rebate, to save any money, to get to their $12 billion, would have to cut in on middle income earners. Thirty per cent for the average Australian family that loses their 30 per cent rebate means an increase of $700 per annum: $700 per annum every single year under Labor to take out private health insurance. Talk about a bill that will be coming to you courtesy of Beazley, Crean and Macklin! It will be $700 per annum on private health insurance, and that is before the Labor Party have got into their increase in income taxes.The Labor Party did precisely this the last time they won an election, in 1993. I am going to read now the defence in this parliament given by Mr Kim Beazley as to why after winning the 1993 election they were entitled to hike up petrol excise, take away income tax cuts and put up wholesale sales tax, because that is what they did. When he was asked to justify how when they could go through an election without mentioning any of those things they were then entitled after the election to hike petrol excise, to put up income tax and to increase wholesale sales tax, he says this in Hansard on 28 September 1993:The opposition—and that was the coalition—was incapable of getting through the flack of its GST and presenting in the public mind the fact— and this is the fact—that if a government says it will maintain the current level of taxation as a percentage of GDP, yet its forward estimates on revenue suggest that the revenue will fall, then logically that government will raise revenue somewhere down the line. That was the quote. That was the justification for the increase in the petrol excise, the increase in the wholesale sales tax and the increase in income tax—that, if the forward estimates showed taxation revenue to GDP falling and the then government promised to keep it constant, that government was entitled to increase revenue down the track. And what do we find they do at the ALP conference?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—The same thing.CT4Mr COSTELLO—They make the same promise. When the Leader of the Opposition came in here blustering after the 1993 election he was saying, `You weren't clever enough to catch us.' That is what he said: `The opposition was incapable of getting through the flack of its GST.' Well, we are clever enough to catch you this time. You are making the same promise. We know from your statements to this House you think that promise justifies an increase in wholesale sales tax, an increase in income tax and an increase in petroleum excise. The Labor Party did it once; they are planning to do it again. The reason they will not come clean on any policy is if they did it is a $700 bill on private health insurance; it is an increase in income tax. The Labor Party are right back where they always were.1894914:25:0018949Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you explain why the government has refused Mr Merv Eastaughffe of Arana Hills in Queensland the maximum $2,000 self-funded retirees supplementary bonus simply because he worked for the Electoral Commission on the referendum and council elections and earned less than $1,500 last financial year? Prime Minister, do you think it is fair that Mr Eastaughffe should be denied his savings bonus because of his occasional participation in a worthy civic service?18950Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will come to some other parts of the honourable member for Griffith's question, but let us get this right. Is the honourable member for Griffith saying that our tax package should have been even more generous? What absolute hypocrisy! The Labor Party vote against every element of our package, and then they have got the nerve to get up there and say it ought to be more generous.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has been here long enough to know that the only reason I have not recognised him is in his interest. The Leader of the Opposition is still waiting, and so am I.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order that goes to relevance. We are not asking him questions about our particular propositions; we are asking him about his promises—$2,000 he promised this person, and he got nothing.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister's answer was entirely in order, or I would have intervened.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I will say again—in case the Leader of the Opposition did not get it—the thrust of the question coming from the member for Griffith is that our taxation package should have been even more generous. Yet the Labor Party voted against it. Don't you remember what you did? Don't you remember that you lined up on the other side and you voted against this? On top of that, you have got Simon Crean saying he is going to have a bigger surplus. How do justify all of that? In relation to promises that were made before the election in 1998, I might remind the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Griffith that the gentleman you referred to in your question would have received from the government in August of 1998, before the election, a document which on page 58 spelt out in minute detail the circumstances of the aged persons retirement bonus.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind members, particularly those on my left in this instance, that if I need to take action I will, and that will mean they have voluntarily chosen to remove themselves from the House and deny their electors representation. 1895014:29:0018950Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer provide the House with an update on the implementation of the new tax system? What has been the reaction of the business and general community to the proposed roll back of the GST base?18950Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Riverina for her question. I can inform the House that registrations in respect of the new tax system have now substantially exceeded those which were forecast by the government. The government originally estimated that 2.1 million people would register for Australian business numbers. To date, there have been 2.6 million registrations. The government originally estimated that there would be 1.4 million businesses registered and to date there have been two million. That shows widespread acceptance of the new taxation system—notwithstanding all of the doom predictions of some in this House, whom I will not name—and that the government's registration machinery was well handled and on track. If I may interpose there, one of the indications of the acceptance of the new taxation system is that the goods and services tax now has bipartisan support in this chamber, with both parties committed, if they were elected at the next election, to keeping it. I welcome the Australian Labor Party's commitment to keeping the goods and services tax and recognition of the wisdom of the government's leadership role in putting it in place.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was geared up from 1 July to handle 100,000 calls per day, but over the period from 1 July to 10 July 2000 it received only 15,000 calls—many fewer than it expected. It conducted a survey of price changes in 1,500 retail outlets and reported that 80 per cent of the products surveyed showed price ranges within the range estimated and that 97 per cent showed price changes of less than 10 per cent. About one-third of prices did not change as a result of the new tax system. I think members of the House would welcome that too, because you will recall that some people predicted everything would go up by 10 per cent or more. I will not go into who made those predictions. The reporting of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was accurate, unlike some other price surveys that were put out at the time. Somebody in this House who put out a price survey—or, should I say, half a price survey—at the time said that it was not his responsibility to put out the full information. He had only a responsibility to put out those prices that had gone up. That was of course the member for Melbourne.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—Seeing as he interjects, I could actually refer to his price survey and some of the comments that were made about it. I think the best comment about his price survey was made by a radio commentator who, on 20 July 2000, said:The story that needs to be talked about today is the prices survey of the Labor Party and opposition consumer affairs spokesman, Lindsay Tanner, regarded as one of the bright young things.He would want to look a bit brighter than he did yesterday. That commentator continued:Lindsay Tanner has released parts of the eight months survey only and of course in doing that he got caught. What the Labor Party has simply got to concede is that so far prices have not gone up all that much. I mean, it is always important in politics to be right with the facts. I mean, naturally, if you are going to lie to people you will get into trouble, and it is always going to be the same. And so the Liberals had a field day with Labor last night.Do you know which radio commentator said that? Mr Graham Richardson on 2GB on 20 July. Notwithstanding attempts by some in the Labor Party to put out false facts, as caught out by Richo, the price changes have gone very well. I think members would be aware that there is a proposal to actually roll back the GST. I think the whole of Australia was listening to the Hobart conference waiting for the words `roll back' to come out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition. We waited in vain. But small business and business generally have some views on roll-back. Rob Bastian from COSBOA said:Roll-back would increase— DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—He likes our proposal.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He likes your proposal, does he? Good. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cites Rob Bastian as supporting his proposal—Rob Bastian who, on 13 July, said:Roll-back would increase complexity, increase supervision and means increased fear.That is a wonderful endorsement! One of the Labor Party people said, `We are not here to represent small business.' Oh, we did not know how serious you were about that promise. Mr Bastian said:The uncertainty about roll-back has to be addressed. Mr Beazley is taking the usual political stand to keep his powder dry, but that position is not going to help. It is becoming an albatross around his neck.This is the person whom the Deputy Leader of the Opposition cites as his main supporter on roll-back. We would hate to see your opponents, old son, if he is your main supporter. The last thing that the small business council of Australia want, after all the effort and hard work they have put into it, is to have roll-back and more changes. They do not want any more changes. Phil Naylor from the Australian Retailers Association said:I do not think anyone would be really impressed with having to gear up for a new GST. We would like them to explain what they are proposing. We can't see any way you can fiddle with the GST that would make it less complex.Della was right. That is precisely what Della advised them. The reason you do not hear anything about roll-back is that they are in absolute confusion. They have no idea where they are going, let alone how they are going to fund it. They know that the moment they announce their roll-back, with all of its attendant costs, people are going to want to know what their new income tax rises are going to be. This would have to be the worst policy opposition that Australia has seen. They have no policy, no commitment and no credibility and they are going nowhere.1895214:36:0018952Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you explain why the government gave thousands of pensioners the run-around after they were incorrectly assessed on their bonus payments by forcing them to apply for a reassessment through the Australian Taxation Office? Why were pensioners forced to complete tax returns until the end of last week when you changed your policy and directed Centrelink to reassess the claims? In light of this backflip, will you do the decent thing and reimburse accountancy fees and any other costs incurred by pensioners who were forced to comply with the original ill-conceived policy and will you personally inform all those directly affected that the rules have changed again?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 144. The member has made her argument and given her speech. Perhaps we could move to the next question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paramatta does not have a point of order. I listened carefully to the member for Fowler's question. While it was lengthier than the average question, it was not a lengthy question by the standard sometimes exhibited in past parliaments.18952Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The member for Fowler refers to a situation where, because of the very understandable practice of people—not because their circumstances haven't changed—not providing, because there is no need for them to do so, up-to-date information to Centrelink, the consequence was that many people were in fact entitled to greater benefits than what they had received from Centrelink, based—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—Hang on! Mr Speaker, I do treat this, unlike some of the others, as a quite serious question, and I am endeavouring to give it a courteous response.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is entitled to be heard without interruption.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The situation arose because many of the records held by Centrelink were out of date, and, as a result of them being out of date, people were not getting as much as they were entitled to. What the government decided to do was to institute the simplest and easiest approach to ensure that people got their full entitlements. So, far from being condemned, I would have thought the government should be praised for that. 1895214:39:0018952Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House of how, after six weeks, the ACCC, the consumer watchdog, is making sure Australians continue to get the full benefits of the new tax system, especially for consumers in the electorate of Moreton.18953Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Moreton for his question and for his interest in this matter. Queensland Motorways runs a number of tollways in and around Brisbane, including, I understand, the Logan Motorway and the Southern Brisbane bypass. On 1 July, Queensland Motorways raised the tolls at Kuraby, Loganlea and Stapleton Road by between 11.4 per cent and 20 per cent, with an average increase of 13 per cent. Queensland Motorways claimed in public notices, `The modifications to the price will reflect the introduction of the Commonwealth government's 10 per cent GST and minor rounding of coinage.'After receiving complaints from many consumers, as well as the member for Moreton and a number of other members, the ACCC investigated the matter. As it turns out, Queensland Motorways were misleading consumers. Perhaps I should add here who owns Queensland Motorways. It is not a privately owned company; in fact, Queensland Motorways is owned by the Queensland Labor government. After investigation, the ACCC found that the Queensland Labor government had previously refused to increase prices and tried to use the introduction of the GST to hide certain other price increases for consumers. The ACCC caught them out. As compensation for misleading consumers, from midnight tonight there will be no tolls for 24 hours. This is a timely toll-free day because I understand that tomorrow is Brisbane's royal national show day. So it is a toll-free day for some families going out to the show.Why has the Labor Party been involved in misleading consumers? Why is that the case? Why has the Queensland state government tried to hide increases behind the GST when other toll roads did not try to do it at the end of the day when it applied to consumers? It seems to be the case that, every which way, the Labor Party tries to hide its true policies. In this case, consumers have caught the Queensland state Labor government out, and they will get the benefits of that from midnight tonight.1895314:37:0018953Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you stand by your election guarantee that no petrol pump price will rise as a result of the GST? If so, how do you explain the comments of the AAA's Lauchlan McIntosh this morning that 1½c a litre of the recent increases is because of the GST, and the comments of Shell's Mr Vincent Cosgrove, who said that petrol prices during the month of July increased as a result of the GST, which is 1½c, and as a result of the increasing oil prices? That is 1½c due to your GST. 18953Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The commitment made before the election was that the price of petrol need not rise as a result of the GST.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order!ZD4Mr HOWARD—In monitoring movements in petrol prices, I prefer to rely on the assessments made by the ACCC. The ACCC monitored petrol prices in the week preceding the introduction of the new tax system and compared them with price rises after 1 July. I would have thought that, if you were endeavouring to assess the impact of the GST, it is the movements immediately after the introduction of the GST that would be relevant.The survey of approximately 4,000 service stations across Australia found that on average the major capital city price of unleaded petrol actually fell by 0.4c a litre following the introduction of the GST. Let me repeat that: the survey of approximately 4,000 service stations across Australia found that on average the major capital city price of unleaded petrol actually fell by 0.4c a litre. I heard what Mr McIntosh had to say, and I can respond only by referring to a survey carried out by the ACCC which disclosed that there was in fact a fall of 0.4c a litre in the days following the introduction of the goods and services tax. According to the Shell web site, the refinery price of petrol has increased subsequently by more than 6c a litre since 30 June. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has referred to the Australian Automobile Association press release by Mr McIntosh. The ACCC appears not to have taken into account exchange rate effects. The Australian dollar has depreciated by more than two per cent since the end of June. There have also been lags in the flowthrough of oil price changes to Australian petrol prices and also the retail discounting cycle. I do not accept the claims made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I study remarks made by Mr Lauchlan McIntosh and the AAA. I do not give them any greater credence than that. When it comes to surveying price movements in Australia I prefer to rely on the ACCC, and the latest information from the ACCC is that in the days following the introduction of the GST the price of petrol actually fell.1895414:47:0018954Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House of the progress made in implementing the government's innovative Employee Entitlement Support Scheme? Are you aware of alternative schemes? If so, are these schemes viable?18954Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I can assure you that there are no alternative schemes. The Labor Party never had a scheme when they were in government. In fact, so uninterested were they in the plight of workers in this situation that they did not even collect the statistics. They were truly the forgotten people. They were in fact hidden away, never of any interest to the Labor Party in government. The government has acted decisively to extend the social welfare safety net to provide assistance to workers who find themselves out of a job and out of their entitlements. I am pleased to inform the House that, since the commencement of the scheme on 1 January, $747,151 has been paid out to 214 successful claimants. This is 214 more people helped by this government than were ever contemplated for help when Labor were in office.The Labor Party might be interested to know that we have had 2,000 former employees from 189 companies make a claim for assistance. I would hope that they would be interested to know this because under our scheme we are prepared to help these workers. The Labor Party have a deliberate campaign to ensure that no state government in the country on the Labor side is prepared to help these workers. This is one of the most disgraceful, cynical exploitations of the needs of workers for party political interests that we have ever seen in this country. This matter was on at the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party and, instead of having a debate about the needs of workers, they deliberately set out to gag debate because they did not want to be seen to be opposed to the interests of workers. Not only was I listening but also I heard an explanation for your disgraceful conduct from the man who likes to tell all—none other than John Della Bosca. What he said reveals the utter cynicism of you people. He said:We cannot allow the Peter Reith scheme to be let off the hook for what it is. We cannot allow accidentally to endorse that scheme. We cannot allow accidentally to in any way or sense create a view that Labor governments in the state jurisdictions would be cooperating with the scheme.In other words, bad luck to the workers. It would be an embarrassment for the Labor Party to in any way be associated with a measure that actually helps workers. You are so concerned about your political interests that, when it comes to supporting workers, what does John Della Bosca say? He makes it pretty clear. He says that it would be an embarrassment for the Labor Party if anybody supported a scheme to help workers, so they will gag debate and sweep under the carpet the concerns of workers who have missed out because it is inconvenient for the Labor Party. When you look to Queensland, the gag is on there as well. I have a letter here from the office of the Premier dated 11 July to a worker who is with a business called the Cooroy Private Hospital. He is asking, `Is the state government prepared to help us?' What does the Queensland government say? It says that it is considering this request and will make a decision as quickly as possible. Labor have a policy to encourage the state governments to dupe people into thinking they might have a chance when John Della Bosca has made it quite clear that they got the fix in so no worker gets the help they need. We are proud of the fact that we saw a need and were prepared to help workers. It is a sad indictment on the Labor Party. You are run by the union bosses. I met a group of Victorian workers who could not understand why they supported the Labor Party's election in the state of Victoria, because when they were in need the state Labor government, at your request, was not prepared to pay a dollar to help them. It is a disgrace to the Labor Party.1895514:52:0018955Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I ask my question again of the Prime Minister, and refer to his previous answer in which he said his commitment to the Australian people was that the price of petrol need not rise due to the GST. Prime Minister, didn't you say in an address to the nation on 13 August 1998:The GST will not increase the price of petrol for ordinary motorists.Prime Minister, whom should we believe—the John Howard of today or the John Howard who made that promise before the last election?18955Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Need not or will not. According to the ACCC, did not.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I seek leave to table the transcript of the Prime Minister's address to the nation.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be heard in just a moment. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sought to table I could not even hear above the cacophony of sound on my right. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the right to be heard in silence, as does every other member of this place.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I seek leave to table three documents: first, a transcript of the address to the nation from the Prime Minister in which he says it will not rise; second, a note from Liberal campaign headquarters titled `Petrol prices' where they said there will be no increase in the price of petrol; and, third, a press release from the lovely Treasurer, press release No. 92, saying it will not lead to an increase.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Is leave granted?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Leave is not granted.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leave is not granted.1895514:55:0018955Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Government member—Lovely man; lovely person.CU4Mrs GALLUS—He is indeed a lovely minister. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hindmarsh will come to her question or resume her seat.WF6Danby, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports is warned.CU4Mrs GALLUS—Is the minister aware of recent comments endorsing the Commonwealth government's policy for government schools? What is the minister's response to these comments?18956Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Hindmarsh for her question. I am aware of positive comments recently made about the government's schools policies. These comments relate to a school in the electorate of Isaacs, one Lyndhurst College. Lyndhurst College is a beneficiary of a number of Howard government school policies.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned. BT4Dr KEMP—Lyndhurst College is an example of a school which has benefited enormously from the Howard government's commitment to the 70 per cent of school leavers who do not go on direct from school to university. The college has been the beneficiary of Commonwealth funded job placement officers under the ASTF; it has been a beneficiary of the Jobs Pathway Program; it has been part of a cluster under the full-service schools initiative; and it has received Commonwealth Vocational Education in Schools funds. As a result of these funds and the leadership of the principal and teachers at the school, the retention rates at that school have improved greatly. Indeed, a recent visitor to the school was so impressed that he wrote an article for the Melbourne Age. I quote from the article:Lyndhurst Secondary College now has a year 12 retention rate of 80 per cent and a tertiary entrance rate of 62 per cent ... It is a great example of what can be achieved when schools, government and communities work together to solve a problem.Now who said that? Who do you think said that? It was the Leader of the Opposition. It was none other than the Leader of the Opposition. He was so enthused with the consequences of government policies for Lyndhurst College that he called a press conference. But, unable to contain himself, he went out and told the press, `Schools like this and the programs in these schools are the building blocks of the knowledge nation.' So he is not only frantically downloading policies from Tony Blair; he is frantically downloading policies from us because he is so devoid of knowledge about what is happening in this country, he is so devoid of awareness of what government policies are doing for tens of thousands of students in schools around Australia. But when he finally gets to a school and finds out what is happening he calls a press conference to endorse the government's policies and to say that these are leading to the building blocks of the knowledge nation.This is the Leader of the Opposition who, as we know, has had no interest in education since he was minister for education. He said to his biographer these very truthful words: `When I was minister for education I thought there was less to do in this portfolio than in any other portfolio I had had.' We are just waiting now to see if he can get himself over the hump, whether he can go along with a policy which he should know works for young people—the literacy assessment and literacy benchmarks—and whether he has the strength to stand up to the education unions. I think we will be waiting a long time. But he is welcome to all our good policies. Forget Tony Blair: our policies are way ahead of anything that you will find in the United Kingdom.1895615:00:0018956Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you recall telling the House on 25 November last year in relation to petrol prices and the GST: ... when you equalise out the tax arrangements, you get the same amount of revenue ... The excise comes down and the 10 per cent goes back up. It is the same amount of tax. Treasurer, isn't it true that the government is raising more tax from each litre of fuel today than it was two months ago?18957Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—No. The government has dramatically reduced excise on petrol and diesel by several billion dollars. Not only have we reduced the excise on petrol itself by 6.7c a litre but, if you happen to be a long distance haulier—that is, on interstate haulage—you pay 24c a litre less in diesel; if you happen to be in medium sized trucks between 4.5 tonnes and 20 tonnes, you get diesel fuel grants; if you happen to be in rail, you get a full refund of the diesel fuel excise which you never had before; and if you happen to be in marine, you get full rebate of the diesel excise which you never had before. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. My question specifically related to the amount of revenue the government raised from petrol excise. I made no reference to diesel whatsoever. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—And tax.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Tax generally—GST and excise on petrol. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I noted the question as it was asked of the Treasurer. I thought the Treasurer was asked a question about fuel prices— Opposition members—Petrol.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—and the relationship between GST and tax and the total tax collection. I will listen to the Treasurer's answer but I did not deem his answer to be out of order from what I had heard.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The first point I made was that excises on petrol and on diesel had fallen. The excise has fallen by about 2.4 billion and the tax collected on the industry as a whole has also fallen. It has fallen not only because of those cuts but also because everybody in that industry now gets a full rebate of all input taxes, which they never had before. The overall takeout of the petrol and diesel industry has reduced.I know that the honourable member for Hunter would try to make a political point of this. I would refer the House to an interview he did on 2NM with Chris Lewis on 24 July 2000 when he said: Well, my point is this: petrol prices have been an issue for decades. At every election they become an election issue, but after the election the problem remains no matter who wins.That is what he said on Hunter radio. This is one of the most cynical campaigns I have ever seen. I will just make the point that, in March 1983 when the Labor Party came to office, petrol excise—wait for it—was 6.1c a litre, but when the Labor Party left office in 1996 petrol excise was 33c a litre. It went from 6c to 33c. This is the only government that has not increased petrol excise other than by indexation, and the indexation that is applied is the indexation which was legislated for 17 years ago by a Labor Party. So when the Labor Party comes in, petrol excise is at 6c; it legislates to increase it; it legislates indexation; and it goes out with petrol at 33c. This government does not increase the petrol excise. It reduces the excise by 6.7c; it gives rebates on diesel; and it takes tax off the overall industry. The Labor Party today is going to try to run an MPI on petrol because, as the member for Hunter said, `We can always make it an election issue but we know that thereafter nothing will ever be done about it.' DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Why don't you answer the question, you fraud.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, you must not have heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's accusation of the Treasurer being a fraud. We ask for it to be withdrawn. Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The term used by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard by me. It is not a term that this chair feels ought to be used in the parliament, but the Leader of the Opposition's comment—that I also overheard—about it being exchanged by both sides is a valid one. I have heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition use the term more frequently than most and I have not required him to withdraw it in the past. I would, however, on this occasion ask him and other members to resist the use of what I would deem to be a term that is not unparliamentary but inappropriate, particularly the reference to `you fraud'. Fraudulent policies may be referred to but I think it is uncharitable to refer to an individual in that way. I therefore issue that comment to both sides of the House.1895815:06:0018958Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on recent developments regarding the refugee problem on the West Timor border? What steps is the Australian government taking to assist with a resolution of this problem?18958Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Wentworth for his question and the interest he shows in the situation in East and West Timor, which I know many members are interested in. The government is understandably deeply concerned over recent militia attacks, including the killing of two peacekeepers on the East and West Timor border. Indonesia has the ultimate responsibility for ending the incursions into East Timor, and our government continues to urge the Indonesian government and TNI in particular to redouble their efforts and take all necessary steps to end militia activity in West Timor. We have made numerous representations to the government of Indonesia along these lines; indeed on 29 July I spoke to Indonesian Foreign Minister Alwi Shihab about precisely that. Resolution of the border security situation partly depends on resolving the refugee camps issue. We welcome the Indonesian government's proposal to close the refugee camps as a step in the right direction. Importantly, Indonesia has acknowledged that dealing effectively with the camps is fundamental to solving the problem of militia activity. We are giving a high priority to discussions with the Indonesian government, the UN and other members of the international community to explore the difficult practical steps needed to implement Indonesia's proposal. The government of Indonesia must provide effective security to ensure that there is no militia intimidation and that there is unimpeded access to camps for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and a credible registration process. It is crucial that the refugees are able to exercise their choice on resettlement in Indonesia or repatriation to East Timor, free of any intimidation.Australia is of course ready to offer constructive assistance to both Indonesia and to East Timor. We have already provided $7½ million to assist people in camps and facilitate their return to East Timor. We are prepared to do considerably more. 1895815:07:0018958Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen today's Shell petrol price survey that shows unleaded petrol prices in Kalgoorlie at 104.9c a litre, at Swan Hill at 102.9c a litre, at Armidale at 101.2c a litre and at Adelaide at 97c a litre? In light of these record prices, isn't it true that the government is raising more tax from each litre of petrol today than it was two months ago?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I believe that question was already answered by the former answer. I will hear from the member for Paterson, if he wishes to raise a point of order.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—With respect, there was a question asked about excise that was collected on petrol, and of course the Treasurer included diesel in that. This is a specific question about petrol being sold at the pump at a number of places throughout Australia. It is about petrol only, and it indicates that the government is therefore, with the GST and the excise, collecting more tax.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson may not advance an argument.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, the standing orders are very clear. Even if the question was identical, they do not say it cannot be asked again. Standing order 146 says:A question fully answered cannot be asked again.There is no way that anybody could interpret what the Treasurer said as fully answering—or in any way answering—the question: is the government raising more tax from each litre of petrol today than it was two months ago? He actually did not refer to that at all, and we would like to hear the answer. But the member's question also raises a number of other important examples of the regional implications of this question that need to be responded to by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I consider it a matter of gross disorder for the Speaker to be denied the opportunity to be heard in the parliament by members interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business has made a valid point of order. I will check the Hansard. I thought that the question asked by the member for Hunter was whether or not the total amount of revenue being collected was increasing. In the absence of an accurate Hansard record in front of me, I will allow the question to stand.18959Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—This continues an opportunistic line of questioning from the other side of the House. Their interest in matters rural is very touching, and I will come to that in a moment. But the first point I want to make is to reinforce what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have said, which is that our overall take on excise is down by about $2.2 billion. Let's emphasise that again: the government are reducing taxes on fuel by about $2.2 billion. Add to that the $500 million that we are putting into ensuring that the introduction of the GST does not introduce further inequalities between country and city prices, and you can see that the government have a story here they can be proud of. Let me make one point here, firstly. It is an important one and it is this: no-one rejoices in the fact that right across the globe at the moment, as a result of high crude oil prices, petrol prices are very high. It is worth noting that we have seen a 47 per cent increase in the price of crude in recent months; but, despite that, in fact the price of petrol in Australia is the fourth lowest in the world. Compare that with the report of some English farmers I met a little while ago, for example: it is about half what it is in that country.The particular point that the member raised that needs addressing is that he clearly sought to imply that country motorists were somehow worse off as a result of our policy approach. The fact of the matter is that the Australia-wide differential has narrowed. It is considerably narrower now than it was 12 months ago, as a result of the government's policies. Indeed, the most superficial glance across a whole range of centres in rural and regional Australia will show that the differential has continued to narrow. It has narrowed more since the introduction of the new taxation arrangements.The fact of the matter is that, unlike those opposite, we are reducing the collection of excise. You never, for example, made the excise or, in this case, the GST on business petrol rebatable. We have; it is rebatable under us. But you want to roll that back; you want to roll back our excise reforms. You are about, as the shadow spokesman for Treasury matters has made quite plain, reintroducing the old indirect taxation mix on fuel. That is what he said. He supports the old mix. He wants to go back to the days of the ALP, under whom we saw a 500 per cent increase in excise. It is opportunism exposed. The fact of the matter is that you are about rolling back our taxation reductions on fuel—and they are reductions, in answer to your question—because you will not be able to meet the commitments that you have so irresponsibly made.1896015:16:0018960Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, could you inform the House how the Job Network is helping the long-term unemployed to find work, what progress has been made and are there any alternative approaches?18960Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Petrie for her question. I note that in her electorate unemployment has come down from over 11 per cent some years back to just 5.6 per cent now. That is a great improvement, but I want to assure the member for Petrie that the government is certainly not resting on its laurels.The government's principal program for helping long-term unemployed people is intensive assistance under the Job Network. Mr Speaker, if you compare intensive assistance employment outcome rates with outcomes under the former government's Working Nation program, intensive assistance is actually 30 per cent better at helping long-term unemployed than Working Nation programs. Intensive assistance is 50 per cent better at helping very long-term unemployed people than Working Nation programs. The consistent falls in the number of long-term unemployed people under this government show that the government's programs are working.There are 185,000 long-term unemployed Australians now. Of course, that is still too many, but it is down 20 per cent since March 1996 and it is down 50 per cent from July 1993. Who was the minister for employment then, I wonder. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for employment when long-term unemployment peaked at its all-time high of 350,000—and what does he know about jobs now that he did not know then when he was the minister?If you look at the Labor Party's conference, there are two proposals for dealing with unemployment. The first is to abolish Work for the Dole, despite its proven success. The second is to establish a Clayton's Job Network which destroys everything about that great scheme, except its name, despite its proven success. There were over one million Australians unemployed when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for employment. I noticed that at the recent Labor Party conference the unionist John Coombes eulogised, or attempted to eulogise, the Leader of the Opposition as, in his own words, `a very adequate leader'. He described the Leader of the Opposition as `a very adequate leader'. But when it comes to unemployment, the Leader of the Opposition is a proven professional failure. 1896015:19:0018960Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, is it not true, as reported in today's Herald Sun under the headline `Bank GST Levy' that all of the major banks—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Holt, the member for Fowler and the member for Swan are all warned.HH4Mr JENKINS—have built a GST increase into their latest interest rate hike? Treasurer, do you claim that there is no link between rising interest rates and the GST?18960Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—We will give the benefit of the doubt and say that the question involved a thorough misunderstanding—no doubt written by somebody else, but showing a thorough misunderstanding. In relation to banks, banks are input taxed. That is, banks do not charge GST on their outputs, and they are not entitled to claim input tax credits as a consequence. I do not know if the Labor Party policy is to do a different one under its GST. I do not know if the Labor Party proposes to have a different treatment under its GST. But I do know that the Labor Party was opposed to bringing banks fully into the GST system. Some of the banks say that, as a result of that, in order to defend their profit margins, they intend to recover 0.02 per cent on mortgages.From my own point of view, I think that the banks can protect their profit margins in all sorts of other areas, including the fact that all of the banks have had a reduction in company tax from 36 per cent to 34 per cent, and all of the banks will have a further cut in company tax from 34 per cent to 30 per cent on 1 July. I also think that the banks have had other advantages, including the abolition of non-callable deposits. But if you were a banker and you said, notwithstanding those tax cuts, you wanted to protect your profit line as a result of input taxation, you could be looking at an increase of 0.02 per cent or, as one of the banks did, 0.01 per cent. The cost of that on the average loan is $2 a month. Let's get this in perspective. At 0.02 per cent, it would be $2 a month, and at 0.01 per cent it would be $1 a month. As part of this tax reform on the other side, not only have I referred to the cuts in company tax but also, of course, financial institutions duty is going to be abolished in totality.Government members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—No, on 1 July 2001, and it would have been earlier if the Labor Party had not succeeded in blocking the change in the Senate. In addition to the abolition of the financial institutions duty—which will outweigh by a considerable amount a dollar a month on the average mortgage, I would have thought—as a result of tax changes, the bank account debits tax will be abolished. Again, there is delay, and we can say that the Labor Party was successful in the Senate in again delaying the abolition of the bank account debits tax.DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—No, I am sorry. There would not have needed to be a deal with the Democrats if the Labor Party had not voted against every single tax reform. It is all very nice of the Labor Party to say that this is a consequence of the Australian Democrats. Let us make this clear: the Australian Democrat vote would not have been required in the Senate if the Labor Party had not been voting against it. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of financial institutions duty. Do I have to make that clear? The Labor Party opposed the abolition of the bank account debits tax. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of stamp duties on shares. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of stamp duties on mortgages. The only reason Democrat votes became necessary in the Senate, need I remind the Australian Labor Party, is that the Labor Party voted against every bill and opposed the income tax cuts. After voting against the goods and services tax, they now support it. I asked the question yesterday: is there any party in this parliament who wants to repeal the GST? It is an amazing way to quieten the opposition. The Labor Party think it is a trick question. Do you propose to abolish the GST? They think, `Trick question. Don't answer that question.' Is it yes or is it no? The Labor Party voted against GST, now they are in favour of it. It was only because they voted against the GST and tax reform that the deal with the Democrats—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—We did not.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, he did not. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said he didn't vote against tax reform. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will not respond to interjections.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Good heavens. He didn't vote against tax reform.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will not respond to interjections.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I have been in this parliament for three years and what has absolutely escaped me is that the Labor Party supported tax reform. All that time they were secretly in favour of the GST. All that time they were secretly in favour of surplus budgets; they were just voting against every savings measure. They would not know whether they were coming or going. If they had had their way, we would not be abolishing the financial institutions duty or the bank account debits tax, which will more than outweigh input taxation. If the honourable member for Scullin really is against input taxation with GST on financial institutions, as part of his roll-back he can announce where he actually stands, we will cost it for him and we will work out how much income tax rise would be required to pay it.1896215:25:0018962Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister inform the House of the success of the government's agriculture policies, particularly in relation to export performance for Wannon and other parts of rural Australia? Is the minister aware of alternative policies in this area?18962Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Wannon for his interest in agriculture, particularly agricultural exports from Victoria. Obviously, there have been tremendous benefits and many advances for agriculture as a result of this government's policies over recent times. A billion dollars worth of cuts in taxation on agricultural performance have already produced significant benefits for Australian farmers. Employment growth in agriculture has been quite significant over recent times, and in several states agriculture is the biggest creator of new jobs. Agriculture is certainly benefiting from the policies put in place by this government.In relation to exports, again the performance of agriculture has been outstanding. Latest figures show farm production at around $29 billion, with $23 billion worth of exports. Rural exports over the first four months of the year 2000 have totalled almost $8 billion, and that is 11 per cent up on the same time last year. Wool exports are up by 31 per cent, and quite a few of those would be from the electorate of the honourable member. Meat is up eight per cent, and other rural products are up 13 per cent. We achieved $1.3 billion worth of wine exports last year—another example of extraordinary growth. The live sheep trade, which ended in 1989 under the previous government, has now resumed. The trial shipments have been successful and that trade will now prosper and obviously provide significant benefits for regional Australia. The government's $24 million pork industry restructuring program has led to a remarkable turnaround in that industry with record exports, and I might add that imports have been down very substantially in the last few months.It is a particularly appropriate time for the honourable member to ask whether there are any alternative agricultural policies around, because we have just had the once in a parliament experience of the opposition having their convention in Hobart. So if there were any alternative policies around, you would expect we would have heard something of them in the last few weeks. But I have searched high and low through the web sites and all the other published material that came out of the Labor Party conference and I cannot find any reference at all to an agriculture policy. We are having a knowledge nation, but there is no reference to any knowledge as far as agriculture is concerned. The honourable member for Corio did not even get a slot in the speaking times to tell us anything about agriculture. He had to sit there while the Leader of the Opposition was talking about tax increases and all these other things, but there was not a mention of what is going on in agriculture. I heard the Treasurer comment earlier about how the word `roll-back' was missing from the agenda of the ALP conference. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—No, it wasn't.GT4Mr TRUSS—The Deputy Leader said that it wasn't missing. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will not respond to interjections.GT4Mr TRUSS—I want to assure the House that roll-back was not missing from the ALP conference. When it came to agriculture policy, Labor never ever had much but it got rolled back even further, rolled back right to oblivion. Roll-back is alive and well when it comes to the Labor Party's approach to agriculture. There were no policies. There will be no policies. That is why agriculture is so dependent upon having a coalition government for its prosperity into the future.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice189631896315:30:0018963Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I wish to add to an answer. In answer to the member for Griffith, I referred to the document Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system which was circulated in August 1998 before the election. I referred to page 58; it was actually page 11 of the document that was given to every household. I would not want to mislead the member for Griffith.Personal Explanations1896315:30:0018963Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne may proceed.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—During question time the Treasurer alleged that I had not released all the results of Labor's prices survey. That statement is untrue.15:31:0018963Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson may proceed.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—In question time yesterday, in question time today and in various locations outside this place the Minister for Employment Services continues to knowingly and deliberately misrepresent Labor's position on Work for the Dole and Job Network. Labor is not abolishing either of those.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson must indicate where she has been personally misrepresented. The member for Dickson will resume her seat. She is obliged to indicate where she has been personally misrepresented.Documents189631896310000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 52 of 1999-2000 and reports Nos 1 to 4 of 2000-01 entitled: 1999-2000—No. 52—Financial statement audit—Control structures as part of the audits of financial statements of major Commonwealth agencies for the period ended 30 June 2000; 2000-01—No. 1—Performance audit—Commonwealth assistance to the agrifood industry, No. 2—Performance audit—Drug evaluation by the Therapeutic Goods Administration—Follow-up audit—Department of Health and Aged Care Therapeutic Goods Administration; No. 3—Performance audit—Environmental management of Commonwealth land—Follow-up audit—Department of Defence; and No. 4—Audit activity report—January to June 2000—Summary of outcomes.Ordered that the reports be printed.Documents1896415:32:0018964Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Government response to the Productivity Commission Report on the Impact of Competition Policy Reforms on Rural and Regional Australia.Energy Research and Development Corporation Report for period 1 July to 15 December 1999.Judge Advocate General Report for period 1 January to 31 December 1999.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance189641896410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hunter proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to deliver on its election promise that the GST will not lead to an increase in petrol prices.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:33:0018964Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—During question time today, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were at their sleight of hand best. I deliberately excluded the Deputy Prime Minister from that statement because his contribution, when asked a question during question time, was not even worth noting. But the Treasurer once again, as he has done on numerous occasions in this place, passed up the opportunity to answer a very simple question. That very simple question went something like this: is the government raising today more revenue from petrol excise and taxes that it was two months ago? Every consumer in this country knows, as we know on this side, the answer to that question is yes. But what did the Treasurer choose to do? He attempted to aggregate revenues from diesel with petrol in a sleight of hand attempt to mislead the Australian people.Let me turn to the Prime Minister, who I suggest should be the main target in respect of this matter of public importance today. Let us go back to 12 April this year when I asked the Prime Minister a question with regard to petrol. I asked the Prime Minister on that occasion how he expected to meet his pre-election promise that the GST would not force petrol prices to rise and, in particular, I asked him how he planned to meet that promise in Parramatta. While delivering my question on that occasion, I made the point that, on that day at the Mobil service station on the corner of Victoria Road and Macarthur Avenue in North Parramatta, unleaded petrol was 84.9c a litre. I ask members on both sides of the House what they suspect might be the price of petrol today at that same service station in North Parramatta. Would they expect it to be still 84.9c a litre? That is what the Prime Minister would have us believe, according to his answer during question time today. The answer of course is no. Is it 86.9c a litre? No. Is it 90.9c a litre? The answer again is no. The price of unleaded fuel at that same service station—the one I referred to on 12 April this year when petrol was at 84.9c a litre—is today at 94.9c a litre. Yet the Prime Minister wants us to believe that the GST has had no impact on the price of fuel. It is now 10c higher, yet he refuses to answer these simple questions. In that same question time in response to a later question on the same issue the Prime Minister said, `Why don't you come back and ask me after 1 July?' Here we are, Prime Minister, well after 1 July and we are putting the simple question to you: how is it you have not been able to meet your election promise? I can only suspect that his answer on that occasion was founded on two things. The first was hope—hope that between that date and 1 July the price of world crude oil would fall enough to make the obvious impact of the GST on petrol prices less obvious. The second was that he had in mind a secret plan—a secret plan that was going to surprise us all, a secret plan that was going to put the critics of his pre-election promise on the canvass. Before I go to the PM's secret weapon, let me remind the House why he found it necessary to foreshadow a new initiative with respect to the keeping of his pre-election promise. Having promised that the price of petrol would not rise as a result of the GST, the Prime Minister committed to a reduction of 7c a litre in the price of petrol. He had worked out at that time that for prices up to 77c per litre the arithmetic was such that the 7c reduction would have ensured that petrol need not rise as a result of the introduction of the GST. As I indicated, that theory was okay for prices up to 77c per litre. But for prices beyond 77c per litre the arithmetic changed significantly, and the Prime Minister was left with no choice but to concede that a 7c reduction in the excise on fuel would not be sufficient to meet his pre-election promise. I remember the lead-up to 30 June very well. We were all waiting with great expectation. The great question was: would he lift the ante to 7.5c per litre reduction in petrol excise, would he go to 8c, would he go to 8.5c, would he go to 9c? Expectations were very high. But surprise, surprise! The Treasurer came—no, I will not say that the Treasurer came into this place. He did not do that at all.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—He went to Paris.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I think he was in Paris at the time. Instead, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of Thursday, 22 June, the Minister for Finance and Administration sneaked out into one of the courtyards in the gaze of the media and announced that the reduction, having conceded that a 7c reduction was not sufficient, would not be 9c per litre at all, that it would not be 8.5c, that it would not be 8c, and that it would not even be 7c. The minister for finance announced that the reduction in fuel excise, to our surprise, would be 6.7c per litre, having conceded that a 7c reduction was not sufficient. You have to ask the question: how could this possibly be? The minister for finance explained on that day that the government had suddenly discovered some embedded wholesale sales tax savings that the major oil companies should be passing on to consumers. They were savings that the ACCC had not identified in its GST pricing guidelines and savings that the major oil companies were quick to denounce, and they produced independent modelling soon after that date that proved inconclusively that there were not significant embedded wholesale sales tax savings to be passed on. So the question then is: where does this leave the petrol consumer? It leaves the petrol consumer the victim of the Prime Minister's broken promise—a promise he now attempts to run away from, a promise he now attempts to amend to `need not rise' instead of `will not rise'. The commitment was clear that the GST would not cause petrol prices to rise, and it is a commitment that he has repeated on a number of occasions in this place. Where does that leave the consumer? It leaves the consumer in an electorate like mine paying at best, in the better towns where competition is most fierce, around 97c per litre. But where does it leave other consumers in further flung areas around the country? Where does it leave consumers in Queenstown in the electorate of Lyons, who are paying $1.04 per litre? Where does it leave consumers in Launceston in the electorate of Bass, who are paying $1.03 per litre today? How does it affect consumers in Middlemount in the electorate of Capricornia, who are paying $1.09 per litre today? Yes, I can see the adviser noting them down so he can check them later. That is helpful. Where does it leave consumers in Nguiu in the electorate of the Northern Territory, who are paying $1.20 per litre today? IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—One dollar and sixty cents. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—You changed the town and I forgot to change the price. I thank you for your support—$1.60 per litre. None of those consumers either in my electorate or in the marginal electorates on the other side have any doubt at all why they are paying so much for their fuel. They know that one of the major factors at play here is the impact of the GST on petrol.What is the GST on petrol? It is a tax on a tax. What has the government done? It has introduced a GST which layers over an existing fuel excise. What does the GST do? The GST causes inflation to rise. What happens when inflation rises? Petrol excise, which is linked to the CPI, also rises. What happens when petrol excise rises? The GST, which lies on top of the petrol excise, also rises. So the GST is a tax on a tax, spiralling upwards. We all know that as the CPI continues to spike and then increase less rapidly petrol excise will continue to rise, as will the impact of the GST. So the Treasurer's answer during question time today should have been a simple yes. The facts are obvious. But instead he sought to attempt to aggregate revenue taken from petrol with revenue taken from diesel excise.That was not the only announcement that came from the minister for finance on 22 June. The other was some clarification on the government's so-called fuel grants scheme. This is the other initiative taken in a desperate attempt to fulfil the pre-election commitment that petrol prices would not rise. This is the $500 million scheme that will go to people in certain areas—and there are a number of anomalies concerned with that, which have been highlighted here before—where consumers will get a 1c rebate or in some cases a 2c rebate. But we know, and the evidence is already there, that that $500 million of taxpayers' money will do no more than line the pockets of the major oil companies.There is a history of deceit from beginning to end. The government continue to try to run from the questions during question time when they should be conceding that there is a revenue windfall with respect to petrol prices as a result of the introduction of the GST. They should be admitting as much to the Australian consumer, who knows only too well the impact of the GST on petrol. During question time today the Treasurer raised another matter, that is, Labor's commitment to petrol prices. Labor has got a number of commitments to petrol prices. Again, I am happy to concede that history will show that political parties of all persuasions have, at a number of elections over decades now, made commitments to improve not only the fluctuations in the price of petrol but also the differential that exists between city and country prices. Labor still is committed to doing so, in great contrast to the government which is taking this windfall.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—How?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The minister at the table, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, asked me a very simple question: how? Firstly, by taking the exact opposite approach to that taken by those who sit opposite. The approach by those who sit opposite is to take $500 million of taxpayers' money and hand it to the major oil companies. The $500 million fuel grants scheme largely goes straight to the major oil companies because they largely run, whether directly or by commission agency, the service stations in this country. Secondly, the government repeatedly endeavour not to curtail the power of the major oil companies—which is the biggest problem in the petrol market—and wind back their ability to manipulate prices and take excessive profits wherever and whenever they can, but to give them more power by deregulating the petrol industry at the retail level. We take a different approach. Firstly, we start from the foundation that the GST is inherently unfair as it applies to petrol. Secondly, we think that power needs to be curtailed. Thirdly, we think there needs to be greater competition not only at the retail level of the petrol industry but also at the wholesale level where the major oil companies have absolute control. I have got a few views on how that can be done. Firstly, introduce more competition at the wholesale level by giving service station operators the opportunity to shop around for their fuel instead of being tied to an exclusive arrangement with one particular major oil company. The minister at the table might explain to me why the price of fuel in Muswellbrook in my electorate is consistently lower than it is in Singleton, closer to Newcastle, and Scone, above it, further from Newcastle. It is simply because there is greater competition in Muswellbrook as a result of the entry of Woolworths to the retail market. I suggest to him the best thing he could do is support a proposition to introduce more competition at the wholesale level as well.DK6Hockey, Joe, MP8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—No, that is not what you want. You want to take prices surveillance out in readiness for the arrival of the GST and then concoct figures, as the PM did today, to suggest that it is ridiculous—ask any consumer—to suggest that petrol prices have fallen as a result of the GST. No-one will have that. (Time expired)15:48:0018967Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I am going to go to the parliamentary shop steward and ask that the member for Hunter be given a raise. I think he deserves a raise because he had the good fortune to come into this House after the introduction of the GST, introduce a matter of public importance on the GST and get up in this House and explain the Labor Party's position. What we just heard from the member for Hunter is a major policy statement on the application of tax to fuel. If I heard correctly—and we will check Hansard—the member for Hunter pledged that the Labor Party will abolish the $500 million fuel grants scheme to rural and remote Australia. I asked the member for Hunter what the problem was with the current scheme. He said, `The first thing that we would do is get rid of the $500 million fuel grants scheme to rural and regional Australia.' That was the first thing he said. The member for Hunter pledged it. The Leader of the Opposition was sitting at the table and said nothing. Finally, at last, we have got a snapshot of roll-back. That snapshot of roll-back is that rural and regional Australia will be $500 million worse off because the 1c and 2c a litre subsidy going out to them that started on 1 July ends if the Labor Party ever comes into government. Thank you, I say to the member for Hunter, because you have just given us a snapshot of what roll-back means.We know the member for Hunter is genuine in circumstances such as this because, as the Treasurer pointed out in question time, when the member for Hunter was interviewed on Hunter Valley 2NM with Chris Lewis on 24 July, the member for Hunter said:My pledge to my party—`My party'; that is, the Labor Party—is this: that petrol prices have been an issue for decades. At every election they become an election issue. But after the election the problem remains no matter who wins.There is one clear, unequivocal point about petrol prices, and it is this: the most significant impact on petrol prices and the volatility of petrol prices is the volatility of world crude oil. That has the biggest impact on world petrol prices. If you look at the petrol price out of Singapore, which is our main source, you will see that it was $22 a barrel in February last year. Today it is more than $60 a barrel. So, from February 1999 to today, the price of a barrel of unleaded petrol out of Singapore has risen from $22 a barrel to $60 a barrel—and the Labor Party pretends that it has had absolutely no impact whatsoever at the pump!If you take what the member for Hunter just said—and he said it in front of his colleagues and he said it in front of the Leader of the Opposition—the Labor Party are in fact going to roll back the $500 million subsidy, the 1c and 2c a litre subsidy that is going to people in rural and remote Australia. He pledged that here in this House, in Hansard, and that is a taste of roll-back.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—You already said that.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I will say it again. And I will say it again because if the member for Hunter and other members of the Labor Party actually make a slip and come into this House and give us some idea of what roll-back means, I say, `Great,' because it is time for those over there to tell the truth. It is time for the Labor Party to start telling the truth. It would have been easy to dismiss this MPI as yet another groundhog day. Here we go again. Another MPI from the Labor Party on the GST. Here we go again. There is one big difference between all of the other MPIs I have done and today: on 1 July the GST started; on 1 July the GST came in, with a raft of other tax reforms that delivered income tax cuts, that delivered higher pensions and that delivered better family benefit payments. On 1 July we abolished the excise, put in place a GST. On 1 July every business in Australia registered for the GST and got 10 per cent cheaper petrol. Every business, every small business in Australia, got 10 per cent cheaper petrol on 1 July. UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—What about the consumers?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I will tell you about consumers—businesses supply consumers. In the ideal world that the member for Paterson would create the government would be the only supplier of goods and services to consumers—the old socialist rhetoric coming to the fore again, bubbling to the surface. It is a bit like oil in water: it always comes to the surface. In this case, the fact is if business gets it cheaper, consumers get it cheaper. That is how it is delivered. That is how a capitalist economy runs. Business gets it cheaper, price exploitation laws, ACCC powers: consumers get it cheaper—a market economy. Isn't that great? Don't we think that is terrific? That is what we want. That is the sort of capitalist democracy that most Australians want, and that is certainly what those of us on this side of the House find ourselves increasingly trying to protect—protect it from you, the Labor Party. We are trying to protect it from the Labor Party. That is what we are trying to do.If you are really talking about petrol prices I want to know what roll-back means when it comes to the application of the GST to petrol. I want to know if it means the abolition of the diesel fuel subsidy—24c a litre—which started on 1 July. We heard from the member for Hunter today that it means the abolition of the 1c and 2c a litre subsidy for rural and regional Australia. What does it mean for businesses, all of those businesses out there that get 10 per cent cheaper petrol as a result of the introduction of the GST? What does it mean for those businesses? I will tell you what it means for those businesses: roll-back means that those businesses are going to have to pay more for petrol. Roll-back for those businesses means that they are going to pass on higher costs to consumers. That is what roll-back means.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—GST hasn't given them cheaper petrol.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Paterson will have his turn in a little while.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Thanks to the member for Hunter we have got a snapshot of what roll-back means for petrol prices under the Labor Party. They have already pledged in this House today to increase petrol prices in rural and remote Australia by 1c and 2c a litre. They said it: abolishing $500 million, which the member for Hunter claims goes directly to the fuel companies.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—That's the second time you have run that argument.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Well, it is a damn good argument, and I will keep running it. And I will tell you why I will keep running it: because it was a slip.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—It wasn't a slip.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It wasn't a slip? Here I was thinking that for a brief second that Labor had unveiled the curtains on roll-back. I even gave the member for Hunter the benefit of the doubt, and he says across the chamber, `There's no slip. We're just going to abolish it'—$500 million for rural and remote Australia. The member for Hunter has pledged today in the House in front of his leader that they are going to abolish it.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Hunter has had his turn.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—We are going to come back to this. I feel it coming back over the next few days. I can feel it coming back. Wait a second: question time on Wednesday, question time Thursday. And we have got another two weeks in two weeks time. There is all of next year. We have got a few question times there, a few question times to remind the member for Hunter of his pledge in this House before the Australian people, before his colleagues, to abolish the $500 million subsidy. That is courageous politics! And here I was thinking the member for Hunter had a bright career. Here I was thinking that surely Labor caucus would have to accept the advice of the right wing and start putting some right wingers other than just the Victorians into one of their economic portfolios. Here I am thinking, `Gee whiz, the New South Wales Right goes down to the national conference—did you hear this?—and says, "Hang on a sec, all the economic portfolios are occupied by Victorians. They are occupied by Simon Crean, they are occupied by Stephen Conroy, they are occupied by Kelvin Thomson, they are occupied by Lindsay Tanner. We want to put up one of the right wing from New South Wales."' They put up someone from the right wing of New South Wales; they put up the member for Hunter. Now the member for Hunter is expressing economic policy for the Labor Party. I say, `Good on you, Joel. We're there with you buddy. Fight on. We're there with you buddy.'8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Thirteen times, and five minutes to go.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister will address his remarks through the chair, and the member for Hunter will be silent.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It has taken a hell of a lot of MPIs to find out what roll-back is. It has taken a hell of a lot of debate in this House to get a bit of a picture. It has taken a hell of a lot of time, a lot of rhetoric, a lot of newspaper columns and a lot of hours on talkback radio, but now we are starting to get a picture of roll-back. Now we are starting to get a feel for what it really means.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—The door's just opening.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It has opened a little. The door has been left a little ajar. It was an innocent question. I was sitting right here. How many questions have I asked generally across the chamber? I sit in this chair and I ask a little question of Simon Crean and I ask a little question of Lindsay Tanner. I ask a whole lot of little questions and there is a little bit of niggling and we never get an answer. Today I pull the one-armed bandit and bingo: I won. It all came down. Now I do not have the arms to carry all the coins—$500 million worth of subsidy in coins.I would like to thank the member for Hunter for his very generous contribution to this MPI. I think it was genuine; I think the member for Hunter is a pretty genuine guy. It is a legitimate question that the Attorney-General asks: `What has the member for Hunter to say about the surpluses?' We want to know. Do you agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the surpluses are going to get bigger? We know what he means by `roll-back'.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPDK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Does the member for Hunter agree that the Labor Party can deliver higher surpluses?10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Hunter is pushing it uphill.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—He has already pushed and pushed, Mr Deputy Speaker. Keep pushing, Mr Fitzgibbon! We are waiting for Michael Costello to stand outside with a baseball bat. It already has a notch on it for Della Bosca for telling the truth and now it is going to have a notch on it for Fitzgibbon for telling the truth. We have another notch on the baseball bat. It is a real club—it is a big weighty club—and it says, `Anyone who tells the truth, I am going to hit you.' It is a nasty baseball bat because there is a tradition in the Labor Party that if you tell the truth you get caught. In the Labor Party if you tell the truth you get sacked. You get rewarded for telling a fib.We had the member for Melbourne running around after 1 July saying, `Here is my price survey. It is Armageddon, isn't it? It is terrible out there. There is blood everywhere.' He did not get sacked after it was discovered that he was not telling the whole truth. No, he is still sitting there on the front bench. But Della Bosca comes along and tells the truth and he gets sacked as president of the Labor Party. We are going to watch with interest what happens to the member for Hunter because today he has told the truth. The Labor Party are going to abolish the $500 million subsidy for rural and regional Australia in the form of a 1c and 2c per litre subsidy on every petrol station, on every litre sold in rural and regional Australia, and I say to the member for Hunter: thank you, old mate. 16:03:0018970Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Having listened to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation all I can say is that, while he may be a good after-dinner speaker, when he comes into a debate here he either has not read the matter before us or refuses to address it. The copy of the MPI that I have is titled `The failure of the government to deliver on its election promise that the GST will not lead to an increase in petrol prices'. You can interpret that in two ways: it can be a debate about petrol prices or it can be a debate about election promises. Having sat through question time today, I would like to take the tack about election promises.We know that we have a Prime Minister who cannot utter the words, `I am sorry.' So on behalf of the people of this parliament who want to apologise to the people of Australia, I want to say that I am sorry. I want to say that I am sorry to all those pensioners out there who thought they were going to get $1,000 because they had seen the Prime Minister on television say, `You are all going to get $1,000.' I want to apologise to all those independent retirees who thought they were going to get $2,000. Particularly, I would like to apologise to all of those people in Australia who thought that the price of petrol was not going to rise because they had been assured by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this nation that the GST would not increase the price of petrol—not once and not twice, but many times in this House.As a matter of fact, the Treasurer is on record last November as trying to explain that you take a certain amount of excise away, you put a certain amount of GST on and the price stays the same. We all know that—the shadow Treasurer mentioned that in question time today. But we all know that in the stealth of night, while the Treasurer indeed was in Paris, 6.7c went off and 8.2c went on. We all know that since 1 July, as petrol prices have increased and therefore the GST component of petrol has increased, the price of petrol is the highest that we have seen it in living memory, particularly in most regional areas. I was particularly interested today to hear that the city-country regional difference is lower. It is lower, there is no doubt about that. I saw an article in one of the weekend Sydney papers that in, I think, Double Bay petrol on Saturday went to 107c per litre. I dare say it was pre-Olympic testing of the market or something like that. But the whole point is that today we saw a disgraceful exhibition from a Prime Minister and a Treasurer of a government that is in denial. They are in denial of promises that they made—try as much as they like to get out of it. We heard the Prime Minister say, `It does not matter whether the term was "would not" or "should not"'. He said, `It did not.' We all know that it did.The fact is that, since 1 July, petrol pricing has escalated. The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who is at the table, said in the debate today, `I will tell you why petrol pricing got dearer. Crude oil got dearer.' Maybe the minister would like to be reminded of what he said in Hansard. I have a news release from the Australian Automobile Association, which says:In releasing the latest monthly petrol price monitoring for July, the Australian Automobile Association has expressed disappointment that the Treasurer and the ACCC have not investigated petrol price rises. The latest monitoring shows that despite a fall in world oil prices of $US1 per barrel between June and July, the average July retail price in capital cities rose by about 4 cents per litre.We have just heard from the minister, the Hon. Joe Hockey, that the price of petrol is related to the escalation in the price of crude oil. The Australian Automobile Association says that the price of crude oil fell by a dollar. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer promised that petrol prices would not, should not and could not rise, but they have risen— hallelujah, brothers, hallelujah!—and the people of Australia want to know why. The word of the Prime Minister can no longer be accepted in this country because it is simply a fact—and everyone knows—that petrol prices have escalated. It has denied the principle that the minister indicated. Today in question time the Prime Minister denied that he had promised $1,000 to every pensioner. Anyone who watched the clip on television last night saw him clearly and unequivocally promise $1,000 to every pensioner—they saw him utter those words. He says, `Go back to page 58. Oh, I am sorry, it's page 11.' Why did he say that on television when he was going to have it printed in a book. He knows that the book would be read by a fraction of the people of Australia whereas what was said on television would be seen by the majority of the people of Australia. That is the power of television. Again, we come back to the integrity of the government and the honesty of the Prime Minister, and we find that not only do we have core and non-core promises; we have written and spoken promises, which is confusing to the people of Australia. What promises do you believe? I suppose you have core written promises and non-core written promises, and you have core spoken promises. It is just too confusing. Why can't they say what they mean? How can the price of petrol rise when the Prime Minister said in question time today that petrol prices did not go up? Maybe the Prime Minister should go on a tour of Australia and find out what people in regional Australia are paying. I can tell you that in Dungog which is only 70 kilometres away from Newcastle, Australia's sixth biggest city, the price of petrol is 103.9c a litre. What is the GST component on high petrol prices for the government? The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister were trying to deny today that this government is not getting a bigger tax take from petrol. We asked that question specifically about petrol. We did not want to know about businesspeople; we did not want to know about people who use diesel; we wanted to know about the ordinary punters like you and me out there who drive petrol cars and use petrol and we cannot claim it off our tax because we do not run a business. That applies to the majority of people who live in rural and regional Australia. They are hurting because of the policies of this government, and this government is denying that that is so. The Prime Minister actually denied that petrol has risen today. Let him go to rural and regional Australia and just find out. Let him go and ask the pensioners that he promised $1,000 to, who are probably driving a leaded petrol car, what they are paying for petrol. He promised them $1,000 that he did not deliver and he promised that petrol would not get dearer—and it did.Be it about the integrity of government or be it about petrol prices, this government fails on both parameters. Today the government has revealed its arrogance by ignoring what the people of Australia are trying to tell it. They are trying to tell this government that the word of the Prime Minister, be it written or spoken, be it a core or non-core promise, can no longer be relied on. Polls are taken about whether you can trust a politician, but it comes back to the leader of the government, back to the Prime Minister, and he has dodged around telling the truth in the House today. I feel ashamed at being labelled a politician who sits in the same House as he does. 16:13:0018972Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—The last comment of the member for Paterson was that he felt ashamed. It is true that members of the Labor Party should feel ashamed. Let us go through some of the history of fuel pricing in Australia. The cost of fuel in Australia is high because of the Labor government. When the Hawke government was elected in March 1983, fuel excise was just 6.155c per litre. It was twice that by March 1986 under the Labor government; three times that—18c—by the middle of 1986; four times higher by 1990 under Labor governments—it was 24c a litre then; it hit a fivefold increase in 1994 under Labor governments; and, at the time of the 1996 election, fuel excise on unleaded and diesel fuel was over 34c a litre. It is no wonder the member for Paterson felt ashamed, being a member of the Labor Party in this current parliament with that history of his predecessors. Of course, the opposition should feel ashamed for another reason. Today, in this very opportunistic debate under the MPI brought up by the opposition, they have ignored the fact that the basic cause of the high price of oil and fuel not just in Australia but in the world is high world prices. They have increased by about 47 per cent to August this year. We did not hear a word from the shadow minister, the member for Hunter, or from his cospeaker, the member for Paterson, about that basic intrinsic fact. If they want to be seen to have credibility in their concern about the cost of fuel in Australia, they first of all have to explain why the Labor Party's policies forced the price of fuel so high for the 13 years they were in government. They also have to explain why they failed in this important debate to explain that the basic cause of increased fuel prices in Australia and in the world is the increase in the world price by about 47 per cent to August this year.Why didn't they mention that? They did not mention it because they are attempting to do what they were doing before 30 June, when they were predicting the roof would fall in due to the GST in Australia and when they were opposing the GST. Before 30 June, they were distorting the facts, misrepresenting information, concealing material information and trying to cause concern. On 1 July, the sky did not fall in and they are now going to keep the GST. They are humbugs. They said before 30 June that they would not keep the GST and after 1 July they have said they will keep it but they are going to roll it back.Today we have heard the member for Hunter give an undertaking as shadow minister that the next Labor government in Australia will roll back and take from country people—and I am one of the members of this parliament who represent country people—the 1c to 2c in additional historic grant given by the Howard-Anderson government to rural people, consumers, businesses and others. Let me say this: they will not get away with it. The announcement made today by the shadow minister is that Labor intend to rip off from country people, country motorists and country consumers, the Howard-Anderson grant to rural petrol consumers in Australia of 1c to 2c, amounting to about $500 million per year. But it will not be taken from those people. People are entitled to that allowance and the Howard-Anderson government will ensure that they retain it. We will fight right through to the election to oppose the Labor Party's plan to take it from country people. They will not get away with it.Furthermore, on the opposition's roll-back position on GST, we in the coalition in city and country will be working closely together to stop the Labor Party—if they become the government—taking from businesses in Australia the input credits that we have been able to give them as part of the major tax reform in this country. In my towns—in Wangaratta, Benalla, Euroa, Wodonga, Bright, Myrtleford, Yarrawonga and Corryong—and in other places, a small business like a plumber with his ute will get about $600 or $700 a year taken off his fuel costs because all the GST in the price of fuel at the bowser in Australia will be rebated to small businesses. It is an input cost. The battlelines are drawn. We are very happy to hear the member for Hunter make these disclosures. We are also very happy to be able to tell the Australian community that in the months leading up to the election we will do all we can to stop Labor getting into power, to stop them taking the input tax credits and the fuel rebate away from small business and to stop them taking away the rebate that John Howard and John Anderson have been able to give—that is, the $500 million to country users of fuel, whether they be in business or not.Let me just say how sad it was to hear the second speaker for the Labor Party, the member for Paterson, say that he did not want to know about the fuel cost for business and small business. He actually said that today. I say that he should hang his head in shame. We have 900,000 small businesses in Australia. They are the engine room of Australia. They are all over Australia: they are in the country, in the regions and in metropolitan areas. We care about them. But this senior Labor member was backing up his shadow minister on today's MPI by saying, `We don't want to know about the cost of fuel to small businesses.' That is what he said. It is an extraordinary statement. He said, `All we want to know is what it costs for the consumer.' That is a typical example of their narrow perspective and the way in which they try to wriggle and misrepresent policies to people. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—You just made that up!XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—No, I did not. It is the truth. I think the member for Hunter should be relatively quiet this afternoon because he has threatened to take away the $500 million rebate to country people, which he will not get away with. We will not let him get away with it. But now his colleague the member for Paterson says, `We don't want to know about the cost of fuel to business.' The government want people in businesses in Australia to know that they now get an input tax rebate back on the cost of their fuel. Under the major tax reform, the small plumber, the farmer or whoever they are in country or city in Australia will now get the cost of the GST refunded as a business input as a result of the Howard-Anderson tax reforms.The member for Hunter is the spokesman for small business for the opposition on occasions, and he has an interesting perspective on small business. I often listen to him with interest. I know a bit about his background. I would have thought that he would be rejoicing and saying, `The alternative government takes the view that of all the things in tax reform we will want to respect the fact that for the first time ever businesses in Australia, small, middle and large, will get taken off their fuel the business input, that is the GST component.' But it is not so. They do not want to know about that either.The MPI today is a shabby attempt to rescue something. I listened carefully yesterday at question time and again today when the Treasurer asked the opposition to indicate their position regarding roll-back, surplus and GST. There was silence. Obviously, what has happened is that the Labor Party are desperate for strategy. They say, `We have to cobble something together. Fuel is an emotional issue. Fuel prices have gone up. We know it is mainly due to world price movements and other things, but we will get poor old Joel, the member for Hunter, and we will use him. We will whack him in the House and try to concoct this motion and this emotional argument.'The opposition have been caught out because they cannot deny the fact that fuel prices have increased—not only in Australia but also worldwide—by 47 percent up to August this year. Now do you deny that? Why didn't you say that? You have lost your credibility. If you want to come into this House and talk about reforming fuel, the Hydra-headed monster, you have to be fair dinkum. You have to put all the facts on the table, not the piecemeal stuff, not the opportunistic stuff, as you have tried to do today. It is to your eternal shame that you have done that and missed the opportunity to have a decent debate on the other issues regarding competition that we can work together on. The opposition in the Senate have got together to stop the government's further reforms with respect to fuel in Australia. There is a story to be told there which they will have to account for at the next election. The MPI is a sham. It is a cheap, opportunistic trick to try and plug into the emotion caused by high fuel prices around the world and it should be rejected out of hand. (Time expired)Miscellaneous1897410000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous18974Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:(1) the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000Trade Marks Amendment (Madrid Protocol) Bill 2000Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000Trade Practices Amendment (International Liner Cargo Shipping) Bill 2000Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Amendment Bill 2000Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000; and(2) the following order of the day, committee and delegation reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate: Procedure—Standing Committee—Report—Second Chamber: Enhancing the Main Committee—Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate.Committees18974189741897416:25:0018974Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday 28 August 2000.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 28 August 2000Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 28 August 2000. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report 34: Two Treaties tabled on 6 June 2000.The Committee determined that all statements on the report conclude by 12.50 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]2 EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS — STANDING COMMITTEE: Employee share ownership plans.The Committee determined that all statements on the report conclude by 1.10 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]3 ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION—STANDING COMMITTEE: Numbers on the run: Review of the ANAO Report No. 37 1998-99 on the Management of Tax File Numbers.The Committee determined that all statements on the report conclude by 1.20 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNoticesMr baird to move—That this House:(1) commends the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) in its recognition of the benefit of the Sydney Olympic and Paralympic Games for Australian tourism and for the $12 million four year program it has put in place to maximise the tourist potential of Australia; and (2) notes the ATC's plans to:(a) generate additional publicity for Australia by hosting additional media;(b) work with major Olympic sponsors on joint promotional programs;(c) assist with National Olympic Committees' official tour operators; and(d) work with international broadcasters who have rights to the Games.(Notice given 29 June 2000.)Time allotted — private members business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits —Mover of motion — 10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking — 5 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each[proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins, 3 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2MR Adams to move—That this House:(1) recognises Post Polio Syndrome, as thousands of Australians are now experiencing the late effects of contracting polio some 30 to 40 years after the initial infection;(2) notes that it is estimated that a minimum of 20 000 to 40 000 people had paralytic polio in Australia between the 1930's and the 1960's and it has only been recently that this syndrome has been diagnosed; (3) gives support to the Post Polio Network set up around Australia;(4) helps the establishment of assessment clinics for those that suffer from this disorder;(5) helps educate medical professionals to recognise this syndrome and encourage further research; and(6) legislates to recognise the need for post polio suffers to retire early because of chronic ill health due to past polio infection. (Notice given 12 April 2000.)Time allotted — 30 minutes.Speech time limits —Mover of motion — 10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each[proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that considerationof this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr Billson to move—That this House:(1) recognises the:(a) positive contribution needle supply and exchange programs have made to curbing the spread of infectious diseases through injecting drug use; and(b) cost to the community of needle stick injury;(2) encourages State and Territory Governments to;(a) extend the principle of reducing harm by needle supply and exchange programs to include reducing the risk to the broader community of needle stick injury from syringes discarded improperly; and(b) embrace retractable syringe technology across the health sector to reduce the risk and cost of needle stick injury to health professionals and health service consumers; and(3) calls on the Federal Government to;(a) initiate trials of retractable syringes for Government-funded needle supply and exchange programs to determine the practicality, clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of supplying retractable syringes; and(b) embrace the use of retractable syringes in the Commonwealth's own medical and allied health activities, for example Defence. (Notice given 8 June 2000.)Time allotted — remaining private members business time.Speech time limits — Mover of motion — 10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking — 10 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each.[proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Bills18976R109418976Debate resumed from 14 August, 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.16:26:0018976Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I rise today to speak on several aspects of the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. I support those elements which amend the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 in so far as they go, namely, to adjust grants for funding year 2001 for price movements and varying grants to reflect revised estimates for the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. However, I wish to challenge some of the contentions made in the minister's second reading speech. Despite the rhetoric about quality education and research, I am mindful of anecdotal information from the university sector that suggests the story is very different on the campuses. We have heard elsewhere in this debate how student-staff ratios have increased by 33 per cent in recent years, while infrastructure is suffering and the market driven approach to tertiary education has seen a devaluation of the classics and arts in our university education. Institutions now receive operating grants on the basis of their planned student load. The receipt of higher education contributions will increase by 113 per cent between 1996 and 2002, which will enable a decrease in Commonwealth funding by 12 per cent over the same period. While the Commonwealth provided an equivalent of the up-front HECS payment for each HECS-only undergraduate enrolled above a target level from 1998, this has nevertheless not eased increasing pressure on university infrastructure and resources. Funding per actual equivalent full-time student units has decreased from $13,388 to $12,499 in the last 16 years, 1983 to 1999, according to the Bills Digest. The minister speaks of the remarkable achievement in increasing undergraduate places by 35,000, reflecting this government's policy of making higher education more accessible to all Australians. But quantity alone will not deliver Australia the clever, new economy people that we need. It certainly will not deliver the teachers, the writers, the artists, the musicians, the anthropologists or the journalists that a civilised society as opposed to a smart society requires.In my electorate there are two universities, the University of Sydney, Orange Campus, and Charles Sturt University, Bathurst. Both deny that the government has maintained funding as is claimed. The universities need growth and there is no funding guaranteeing this. For instance, Charles Sturt University needs to expand its campus in Dubbo but has to fund within its current student number intake. As well, extra resources for academic salaries have to be found from within current funding. Salaries are not supplemented. The universities had to meet increased salary expectations—in Sydney University's case about 17 percent and for other universities around 12 percent.I am told that in the past five years salary increases have accounted for 25 per cent of the increase in university expenditure at a time when student undergraduate numbers have increased, as the minister says by 35,000. You cannot cram more and more people onto a bus without crowding, reducing the quality of the trip and frustrating all aboard, especially when there is no attempt to improve the conditions or the motor to get the thing to where you want to go. I heard contributions to this debate outlining the ridiculous size of some tutorial groups and I can vouch for that from information I have received from students I know. We are losing academics overseas, and there is little incentive to attract top people when the emphasis is on quantity of graduate output, not quality. Indeed, as figures this week suggest, the UAI intake is set significantly lower for cashed-up students compared with those who can only afford an education under HECS. This is a gradual undermining of quality in order to generate quantity at the expense of our nation's knowledge stock.This bill is also supposedly providing additional funding for research. I note the comments of the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee which state that the OECD figures on which the government based its knowledge and innovation policy statement last year were outdated and that there is a need for major additional investment in research. The AVCC claims that Australia's higher education research and development expenditure is falling. But I note that the research paper on this bill shows that, in 1998 figures, the higher education research and development expenditure to GDP ratio has increased marginally from 0.43 in 1996 to 0.44 in 1999 and compares more than favourably with Germany, USA, France and Canada. But there is no reason to be complacent. Those other countries enjoy a huge comparative advantage in economic muscle. If we do not want to be marooned on an island between the developed and underdeveloped nations, we must take the research and development lead of a smaller nation like Finland which has a research to GDP ratio approaching 0.6. To the extent this bill improves research funding it is to be welcomed, but I suggest we need to be far bolder and, again, not wait for the market to pick up the tab. I now want to comment briefly on another aspect of this bill as it pertains to the regional health package. As we know, there is a wide difference between regions in the ratio of general practitioners to population. Whereas there are about 125 GPs per 100,000 population in capital cities, there are 95 GPs or thereabouts per 100,000 in small rural areas. The difficulties of attracting doctors to rural towns are well documented. In recent times in my own town of Molong, there was much concern when one of the two GPs left town. After the local community banded together and discussed the issues, the shire council agreed to invest ratepayers' money in the doctors' surgery, which is rented out to the new doctor. The community, like that at Condobolin and more and more in other places around regional Australia, is having to invest its own money into the infrastructure needed to attract doctors to a town, if they are lucky enough to find a doctor. The irony in this case is that the doctor who came to town left another rural community further west, and I doubt that vacancy has been filled.It is encouraging to see $32.4 million allocated for the 100 bonded scholarships of $20,000 per year for students who make a commitment to practise in rural areas for six years. The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, under which this bill is framed, will be responsible for $14.8 million of this amount. The hope in all of this is that, after five years, there will be an additional 500 medical students who will eventually be practising in rural areas, studying at Australian universities—a bold plan, a bold hope, but I have real doubts it will come true. I note that the Australian Medical Association has withdrawn its support for this scholarship scheme. Having initially supported and, in fact, pressed the government to introduce just such a scheme, the AMA is now a strong critic. According to Dr Shane Sondergild, speaking for the AMA on ABC AM on 31 July, students would be `crazy' to sign up for periods up to 18 years, not just the six years of the bond. Dr Sondergild says students would have to sign up for six years when they are students, with six years study ahead of them followed by possibly another six years worth of training on top of that. If the student reneges, they are penalised from obtaining a provider number, as Dr Sondergild says, for 12 years. Who would accept a deal like that? A few months earlier, in May, the then President of the AMA, Dr David Brand, warned: You could be a very old person before you finish this. To commit somebody to something that far in advance wasn't how we saw it happening. The government, through the department, argues that the scheme is deliberately designed to keep doctors in rural areas for many years. First Assistant Secretary to the Department of Health and Aged Care, Bob Wells, told the Sydney Morning Herald, `The more exposure people have to rural practice the longer they will stay.' That is a very bold statement from Mr Wells, because doctors alone in a rural community are not going to stay there for very long without the sort of infrastructure, including nursing support, around them. It may be all very well to say that doctors would stay in a rural community, providing there is the back-up of locums, access to local hospitals and education opportunities for the kids, but to just boldly state rural exposure is enough to keep doctors in the country is wildly optimistic. I have long stated that the only way to ensure experienced doctors are made available to rural communities is through the allocation of Medicare provider numbers to communities of viable patient catchments. The minister argues that this is unconstitutional and that doctors cannot be conscripted. I suggest that it is simply the marketplace in operation. There is no compulsion on any doctor to go to Molong or Wellington or Condobolin or wherever a vacancy exists, but that is where the Medicare provider number is located if a doctor wishes to relocate. Under such a plan, there are a finite number of Medicare provider numbers, with a certain number held for allocation to communities. After, for instance, six or 10 years, the doctor could move wherever he or she chooses with a Medicare provider number, and another number is allocated to that community if an already number-provided doctor is not available to fill the vacancy. Surely, this is a simpler and more cost-effective way of ensuring that we have doctors in rural communities, for isn't the bond scheme a form of conscription anyway? It is a very imprecise way of delivering doctors to the bush given the long time frame involved in actually seeing a doctor on the ground. That time delay alone will not address the rural doctors' shortage crisis which is a now problem, not a 12 years down the track one.By the way, while we are dreaming up schemes to get doctors into the bush, what about the shortage of nurses and physiotherapists? Surely a bonded scholarship scheme for nurses, physiotherapists and those who are allocated community provider numbers, along with a package of incentives such as zone allowances, makes more sense in the short term than these doctor scholarships. Despite these strong reservations about the direction tertiary education is headed in this country and the flaws in this particular bonded scholarship scheme, it would be churlish of me to reject the bill. However, I note the opposition's second reading amendment, and I support its sentiments.16:38:0018979Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—In summing up this legislation, I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to the debate on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 and I also table a replacement explanatory memorandum. It simply contains a little more information than did the earlier memorandum. Some weeks have passed since the commencement of this debate in respect of this legislation, during which time the Labor Party has held its annual conference in Hobart. This is where we were promised real policy from the Australian Labor Party, but in fact we got only slogans—no detail, nothing for regional Australia. Given Labor's talk about a knowledge nation, it is important for the shadow minister and other speakers to be knowledgeable about this legislation, for a start. If the shadow minister wants to talk about knowledge, let us start by separating fact from fiction. To do so I will deal with each of his claims individually while at the same time informing the House.The shadow minister claims that $1 billion has been cut from university operating grants. The amount available for total operating grants increased in real terms between 1996 and 2000 from around $5 billion to just over $5.1 billion. Funding, including HECS, per fully funded student place has also increased in real terms under this government from $11,600 in 1995 to $11,800 in 2000. This government is also partially funding student places that universities choose to provide above the number of Commonwealth fully funded places. The previous government did not fund overenrolments. Funding for overenrolled places in 1999 amounted to $49.5 million and meant a further 26,000 places for which universities received funding. Most importantly, the policies of this government have allowed universities to develop more diverse and sustainable funding bases. In 2000 it is estimated that the total revenue available to higher education institutions from all sources will be a record $9 billion, around $900 million more than was available to universities in 1995.I compliment the member for Groom for his contribution to the debate; his pride in his electorate and in the University of Southern Queensland was very evident. The University of Southern Queensland, which the member for Groom spoke about with such authority and such knowledge, is an excellent example of a university which has taken advantage of the policies of this government to become a leader at the national and international level in exporting education to the world and, in the field of distance education, winning prestigious national and international awards for excellence along the way. The shadow minister claims that the government has had a $3 billion education deficit. The shadow minister must have sent out notes to all the other speakers from the other side. I say to all of them: this claim does not stand up to scrutiny. In relation to higher education, total funding provided for university operating grants has risen in real terms during the government's term in office from $5 billion in 1996 to $5.1 billion, as I have already said, in 2000; and funding per fully funded student has increased, as I have also mentioned, from $11,600 in 1995 to $11,800 in 2000. In 2000 the government will spend $402 million more on schools than Labor did in its last year of office, and that is a 26 per cent increase. So much for the so-called slashes to education!Commonwealth spending on education is around 2.2 per cent of gross domestic product, the same as it was in 1994-95. The high level of economic growth experienced under this government means that Commonwealth expenditure on education is in fact 17 per cent higher in real terms. The Labor Party has misrepresented the realities of the Commonwealth expenditure on education by ignoring the fact that Austudy payments of around $1.25 billion have been transferred to the social security and welfare portfolio.This government has provided greater educational opportunities. It has continued to focus on providing opportunities for young people seeking their first qualification after leaving school. We are continuing to increase the number of fully funded undergraduate places. The number of these places rose from around 364,400 equivalent full-time places in 1999 to 365,920 in 2000. Since 1995 the number of fully funded undergraduates has increased by more than 19,000 equivalent full-time places. In addition, as already mentioned, this government is partially funding overenrolled student places.The shadow minister claims that the 2000 budget contained only $17 million in extra funding for education this financial year and that there is only $62 million over four years in the government's budget forward estimates. The shadow minister is quoting very selectively from the budget papers. If he had counted all new funding for education, he would see that the total is actually $271.4 million over four years—more than four times the amount quoted by the member for Dobell. The shadow minister claims that the government has cut $171 million in funding from regional universities, including $16 million from James Cook University.The aggregate total operating grant for the universities named by the shadow minister has in fact increased in real terms by $34 million between 1995 and 2000. This government provides over $1 billion and 100,000 equivalent full-time undergraduate opportunities a year to regional universities and Australian students in the region. Between 1996 and 2002 the government has allocated $140 million for physical and electronic infrastructure development in regional universities, and a further $19 million to assist regional universities seeking to make changes to their operations and electronic communications and to strengthen their regional campuses. Last year an extra 7,431 rural and isolated students accessed higher education, compared with the last year of Labor in office.The white paper on research entitled `Knowledge and Innovation' announced a regional assistance package to enable universities to strengthen their regional connections, foster a shift towards a more entrepreneurial approach, concentrate research activities into areas of strength and ensure that regional communities receive the full benefits offered by new fields of research. The package provides for a $6 million dedicated fund to support the research and research training activities of regional universities and assist their transition to the new funding system, and $10 million a year for collaborative research on issues of benefit to regional communities. On 20 July 2000 the minister announced funding of $1.6 million from the Higher Education Innovation Program for additional bandwidth for six regional universities. Those universities are James Cook University, Central Queensland University, University of Southern Queensland, Southern Cross University, the University of New England and the Northern Territory University. The shadow minister claims that we are facing a crisis in research and that public funding of research has declined. This claim cannot be supported in fact. Australia's expenditure on higher education research and development increased by 13 per cent between 1996 and 1998—just $2.6 billion. Higher education expenditure on research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product increased to 0.44 per cent in 1998 compared with 0.34 per cent in 1990. On these figures, Australia ranks fourth amongst Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in expenditure on higher education research and development as a proportion of gross domestic product—higher than the United States, Germany, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom.We have a strong base of government spending on research. The government increased funding for medical research in the 1999-2000 budget, providing an additional $614 million over six years. Funding for targeted research programs administered by the education portfolio will total $452 million this year—up from $441 million in 1999 and $411 million in 1996. The government acknowledges that, although our public sector research funding is strong, Australia has a low level of private sector expenditure. The tax changes, including reductions in capital gains tax rates announced in September last year, will improve the financial incentives for industry to invest in research. The government's white paper `Knowledge and Innovation' also encourages industry-university collaboration.The shadow minister claims that James Cook University has lost $16 million from funding cuts. I thank the member for Herbert for outlining in his speech this government's support for James Cook University. I would like to add the fact that James Cook University's operating grant has increased between 1996-2000 by some $5 million in real terms. This is largely due to funding for growth places and the new medical school. James Cook University's operating grant is now over $87 million. Since this government came to office, 670 new fully funded places have been made available to the James Cook University to 2002. After six years some 360 places will have been provided to the new medical school.This government restored the growth places previously allocated for 1997 and 1998 which were withdrawn from the university in 1997 because it did not meet its agreed undergraduate enrolment levels. In addition, this government has provided some $17 million from the capital development pool for the development of the university's Cairns campus in recognition of the strong demand in the region. The university will also receive $3 million in 2002 for a health science and sciences precinct at the Cairns campus. The precinct will increase the university's ability to offer courses in health related disciplines and will complement the activities of the new medical school being developed in Townsville. In 1998 the university was allocated $1.39 million over four years under the restructuring and rationalisation program for the development of computer network and videoconferencing facilities and information technology laboratories. This is in addition to $1.322 million to be provided in 2002 from the capital development pool for a collaborative proposal providing bandwidth access being developed by the Queensland Office of Higher Education.Turning to regional health, the shadow minister welcomed the government's initiative to fund bonded medical scholarships to put more doctors into regional Australia, but he claims that the idea has been stolen from the Labor Party policy. This begs the question: where is this policy? Also, what did the Labor Party do about regional health policy and care when it had the opportunity to do something? This government is the first to seriously address the availability of medical services in country and remote Australia. The government's $560 million country health package is the largest effort yet by an Australian government to address the rural health issues and address the historic imbalance between rural and city health. It should be noted that the package builds on the $200 million in funding that was provided two years ago. The member for Bradfield spoke of what it was like to be a general practitioner in the country and read Dr Leanne Rowe's sensitive and revealing account of her own experiences. I am pleased that he mentioned Dr Leanne Rowe. She has been of significant help to young people in Australia in as much as she has been prepared to work with me and a reference group and be part of an expert panel, in fact, advising parents and the wider community on drug education for young people in schools and, of course, on all the types of problems they encounter, and advising parents and others of how they might help.It goes without saying: the more general practitioners there are in the country, the lighter the load will be for those who currently work in rural Australia. I was disappointed that the member for Calare spoke about the here and now. Of course, the here and now is always important, and this government has taken steps to address that. But we must have a government that also has the courage to plan for the future and to succeed in having those services provided throughout the country.The shadow minister made other claims, such as the claim that indexing HECS debts for inflation is `an unfair and retrospective slug'. The fact is that an indexation factor has always been applied to a person's outstanding HECS debt on 1 June each year. The calculation is based on the movements of the all groups consumer price index. This has been the case since the inception of HECS, which of course was introduced by the Australian Labor Party. The purpose of indexation is simply to maintain the real value of the debt. In real terms, students will repay only what they borrowed and will continue to repay their HECS loan based on their capacity to repay.With the tax cuts given under the new tax system, a graduating student starting out on a salary of $28,000 will receive a tax cut of $762 per annum. It should be noted that HECS is not subject to GST. HECS repayment thresholds, which are adjusted each year to reflect changes in average weekly earnings, will also not attract the GST. In addition, student allowances such as Austudy and the youth allowance rose by four per cent from 1 July 2000, and rental assistance rose by 2.5 per cent. The government has also provided subsidies for textbook retailers to discount textbooks for students by up to eight per cent.As a government, we are concerned about all young people, whether they be in training, apprenticeships or higher education. Young people who work often earn a low income, yet they still pay their fair share of taxes. It is not right that these young people through their taxes subsidise the education of others who stand to gain lifelong benefits as a result of their participation in higher education. As was argued by the member for Bradfield, the Australian Labor Party is really claiming that those on low incomes should subsidise those who will earn higher incomes. The government considers the current HECS arrangements to be a fair and appropriate contribution by students to the cost of their education given the undoubted personal benefits they will derive, particularly higher average wages over their lifetime. The shadow minister makes the point that the students receiving non-government tax-free scholarships will not have their scholarships increased by the government. It is clearly a matter for the organisations which fund scholarships to determine the value of those scholarships. If these organisations wish to maintain the value of the awards, then it is their responsibility to index them.The shadow minister makes the claim that the government is attempting to impose pattern bargaining on universities by offering funding for salary supplementation to universities making genuine reforms to industrial and management practices, reforms that are needed to enhance the flexibility and responsiveness of universities to students and the community. One of the reasons the government has introduced the workplace reform program is to counter the pattern bargaining tactics of the National Tertiary Education Union, which is undermining the quality and efficiency of Australian universities. The effect of the industrial tactics adopted by the National Tertiary Education Union is to hinder enterprise specific bargaining, thus denying universities the opportunities to become more efficient and to generate revenue. Specifically, the National Tertiary Education Union has issued instructions mandating 19 per cent salary increases across the sector, mandating the incorporation of non-simplified industrial awards in the sector, mandating uniform workload standards across faculties which means that universities are unable to tailor conditions to the needs at the local level, mandating restrictions on contracting out and prohibiting the negotiation of redundancy and deployment provisions. In its negotiation instructions, the National Territory Education Union has insisted on compulsory standard claims and forbids agreements which either do not contain the mandatory issues or contain concessions to the employer which have been prohibited.Where an agreement does not meet the National Tertiary Education Union's directives, the national office of the union has shown itself prepared to overrule its own branches at a local level which have on occasions been prepared to adopt a more flexible approach to enterprise bargaining. For example, at the University of Southern Queensland, the local branch of the National Tertiary Education Union entered into an agreement with the university, but this was overruled and subsequently rejected on the advice of the national body. The member for Bradfield spoke about the supposed education policy of the Australian Labor Party and how it truly fails the knowledge nation test, firstly, by sacking Barry Jones and, amongst other things, deriding those who follow intellectual pursuits.It is important to understand what this bill is really all about. This bill includes a number of technical areas which reflect no change to government policy—namely, this bill updates the funding amounts of the Higher Education Funding Act to price supplementation for price movements and reflects revisions to the estimates for HECS contributions and expenditure on the workplace reform program. The bill establishes the base level of funding for universities in 2002 and provides for the relocation of unspent funds from 1999. Members will be pleased to note that the government will carry over funds of $4.7 million. They will not be lost.Further on the technical side, this bill allows for the name change of Batchelor College in the Northern Territory to the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education and amends the definition of `year to which this act applies'. Very importantly, this bill also contains a number of new measures which are substantive.As the members for Herbert, Groom and Bradfield so eloquently said, an extremely important component of this bill is part of the government's $562 million country health package. (Extension of time granted) As my colleagues said, this is the largest effort ever by an Australian government to redress the imbalance between country and metropolitan health services. This government is creating an extra 100 places for medical students a year at a cost of $32.4 million over four years, in addition to the current 10,300 medical students studying in Australian universities. These additional medical students will be committed to practise in rural Australia for six years. The reality and the good news is that in five years time there will be 500 additional medical students studying in Australian universities who will eventually practise in rural areas. The pressure then on doctors like Dr Leanne Rowe will consequently be reduced. This news is welcomed by both country and city dwellers, as the health of the nation is important to all Australians. This government is the first to recognise the needs of people living in the country and the first to take action to do something about it.This bill reflects the government's commitment to knowledge and industry. It reflects good policy and encourages university and industry collaboration across the academic, industry and community sectors by boosting funding by an additional $79 million for the Strategic Partnerships with Industry Research and Training Scheme and the Research Infrastructure Equipment and Facilities Scheme. This additional funding will provide more research opportunities for students and researchers. It will encourage research and interaction between industry and academics who, by working together, will help ensure good outcomes for students and industry and see that Australia keeps up with the rest of the world. The measures contained in this bill will help develop Australia's higher education system and create a financially responsible and viable system of education which meets the needs of students and the community as a whole. I would like to foreshadow that I will move a government amendment to this bill in the consideration in detail stage that will further increase the funding available for universities from next year. 17:01:0018983Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Just before you put the question, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence. I would like to indicate that, to assist the House, the opposition will not force this vote to a division. We will simply express our opposition on the voices and allow more time for debate during the consideration in detail stage.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.18984Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:02:0018984Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I move:(1) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 5 (after line 11), at the end of the Part, add:21 At the end of subsection 35(8)Add:(9) A student is and shall be taken to have been at all times, an exempt student in relation to a course of study if:(a) the student is a fee paying student; and(b) the student is a domestic student; and(c) the student is undertaking a particular undergraduate course of study; and(d) the student enrolled in that course of study with a universities admission index (UAI) which was lower than the general UAI applying at the time for enrolment in that course.Yesterday there was some considerable debate during question time and also during the second reading debate of the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 with respect to an issue which had been raised by the shadow minister. It concerned the question of fee paying students and, in particular, whether fee paying students could enrol in, for example, three-year undergraduate courses, pay full fees for the first year and then jump to HECS for the second and third years. These students could get into courses with lower marks than other students. If they used this avenue, students with lower scores could get into courses, pay full fees for the first year, and then be subsidised by the government in the second and third years of their degrees, or for even more years if their degrees were longer.This is not the intention of the government, or is it? When the shadow minister asked Minister Kemp yesterday to explain the situation, he went into one of his usual blusters against the Labor Party. He did not answer the question. Maybe we might find an answer from the minister. I am very much concerned about this matter. The minister's reply to these questions has been in the following terms: why should Australian students not be eligible for fee paying positions when international students are? That is a policy and a philosophical issue that needs to be addressed, but it is not what the question was in relation to this specific matter. When the minister said this in relation to international students, he well knows that when international students enrol for a course as fee paying students they pay for every year of that course. They do not just pay for one year; they pay for every year of that course. Therefore, if in fact the minister is saying that there ought be some equality between international students and fee paying domestic students, then he ought to plug this loophole. I asked the Parliamentary Library to do some research into this matter, and they have given me a note which said:You are seeking urgent advice as to how to exclude fee paying students changing to the higher education contributing scheme, HECS, during a course by way of amendment to the Higher Education Funding Act 1988. There is currently a bill before parliament amending the act in certain aspects. You can move an amendment to the act by proposing an additional provision to schedule 1 of the bill which amends the act. The proposed amendment would add item 19 to the bill and amend section 35 of the act. I believe that my amendment achieves a very important goal. I urge the government and the opposition to support this amendment so that we can plug this loophole which is of great importance with respect to this legislation and to the whole funding of higher education. (Extension of time granted)This matter is independent of the issue which the minister tried to make much of in his responses yesterday at question time. It is independent of the issue of whether you are going to have domestic fee paying students. The issue is: if you are going to have domestic fee paying students and if the minister is using the argument about international students, why shouldn't those domestic students be required to pay for the full course which they have enrolled in? If we do not plug this loophole, we will have considerable injustice. I think the issue can be summed up by quoting a section of the shadow minister's press statement yesterday when he referred to this matter. He said:Consider two students aiming to get into a Commerce degree which has a cutoff of 94. Jane gets 93.9 and just misses out. She can't afford to buy a place. Alistair gets 90 but buys a first-year place for around $10,000. The next year Jane applies again, and misses out again. But Alistair jumps the queue when the university offers him a government funded HECS place for the rest of his degree. A place they could have given Jane who is better qualified.That is the issue. That should not be allowed to stand on any merits argument. If a domestic student wants to be able to jump the queue in the sense of being able to pay for a full fee paying place at university, they should be required to pay for the whole course, not just the first year. If we allow the current circumstance to stand, universities are able to use this as a trick to get people to pay full fees for the first year and then promise to put them into the HECS program for the remainder of the course. This is not, I believe, philosophically justifiable. It is not what is required of international students. It certainly does not involve parity between domestic and international fee paying students and therefore it ought to be plugged in this way. I urge the House to support the amendment.17:10:0018985Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I support the member for Calwell in moving this amendment and agree with the additional provision. It goes to the issue of equity and fairness that I was talking about in my speech on the second reading in that this amendment is trying to plug the loophole which the member for Calwell has exposed. It shows that we are devaluing the quality of education at a tertiary level and we are looking at quantity and the income that will be generated by full fee paying students at the expense of those who otherwise would not be able to access the course. It is a short circuit system that rewards those with means ahead of others who have a greater claim on access to a particular course.The very moving of this amendment by the member for Calwell shows an important democratic principle at work in this House. All too often we see second reading amendments from the opposition and very little else, but this House should be where the substantive amendments to the bills are moved. Then, when defeated, perhaps the amendments should be moved on to the other house and debated there, not just have bills deferred to a result in the upper house otherwise this place will become a backwater and a bywater in the democratic process. It is a very important amendment that the member for Calwell has moved, and I support him in that. 17:12:0018985Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I begin by saying to my friend the member for Calare that, in his enthusiasm to congratulate the member for Calwell for his contribution, he said in passing that the member for Calwell had exposed this loophole and had introduced an amendment to address this. Even the member for Calwell in his contribution admitted that he was addressing an issue that the opposition raised yesterday in question time. It is an issue that has concerned us for some time, that is, the ability of full fee paying students to jump the queue by paying for their admission to a course in their first year or even pay a full fee for their first and second years and then seek to jump the queue by transferring to a HECS place. We believe that students should be able to gain entry to public places at university based on a fair, impartial system of admission, and we do not believe that the current practice allows that to take place. As to whether the honourable member for Calwell's proposal is the best way to address that, that is something which, in the 3½ hours I have had to consider his amendment, I have not been able to reach a firm conclusion on. We are obviously sympathetic to his goals, given that they correspond with our own. I have given the member for Calwell an assurance that I am very happy to continue discussions about this amendment or something similar to it. We have certainly committed the Labor Party to phase out full fee up-front fees for domestic Australian students. We think that has introduced distortions into the Australian public university system, and examples such as the information that came out yesterday in the Sydney Morning Herald give us very strong evidence that our position is correct. Why should someone who gets five marks less in their TER score be allowed to enter a course simply because they can afford the $100,000 degree? Even if you think it is fair for someone to buy their way into university, why should they then be able to transfer into a public place in their second or third year, effectively jumping the queue ahead of other students who may well have got higher marks than them in their higher school certificate or their VCE. It is for that reason that we will continue to press the government on the distortions that are caused by the changes that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has made to higher education policy. For the reasons I have explained, the opposition will not be supporting the amendment moved today. But, as I have said to the member for Calwell, we are very happy to continue discussions on the best approach to address the issue that we raised in the House yesterday.17:15:0018986Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—The government will not be supporting this amendment. Despite an article in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, this has been government policy for some time. The availability of fee paying places provides further opportunities for Australian students. It does not reduce the number of HECS places, which I think is a very important point. Students come into this country from overseas as full fee paying students. Is there any reason students from Australia should not have the same benefits, particularly as their marks will be only five apart, and no more than 25 per cent of the total places available in a given course can be offered to fee paying students? Universities must offer the same units to all students regardless of whether they are HECS or full fee paying students. There is no question that fee paying students are not qualified for the courses for which they enrol. It is not just a question of paying for a degree: no university will accept students unless they have the appropriate qualifications. The government considers this to be an important policy. It is important not to differentiate between students who were born and grew up in this country and those who come here from overseas, therefore the government will not be supporting this amendment.17:16:0018986Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—While we respect her, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs did not address a single point that we raised. The issue here is not whether there will be domestic fee paying students. The issue is whether someone with a lower score can get into a course at a university, pay the first year and then transfer for the rest of the course from full fee paying to a HECS program. That is the issue, and the parliamentary secretary has not indicated what the government's position is on this. In relation to international students, as I said in my comments, international students are required to pay for every year. That is the point. Is the government going to address this iniquity or not? The question is: is the government aware of this issue? The parliamentary secretary has not answered the point of the amendment. The amendment does not go to the issue of whether or not there ought to be domestic full fee paying students; the amendment goes to the issue of whether or not, once a person has got into a course with a lower mark than somebody else—admittedly they may be qualified—and has paid for the first year they will then be able to transfer to the public HECS for the rest of the course. This is not a course available to international students; it is something which is made available at the moment to domestic full fee paying students. It ought not be given the criterion of entry. If the government is going to talk about equality between international and domestic students in relation to this program, it must address this issue. I want to know the government's position on this important issue. Amendment negatived.Amendments (by Ms Worth)—by leave—proposed:(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 10), omit "$3,415,319,000", substitute "$3,437,721,000".(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 13), omit "$3,390,948,000", substitute "$3,413,312,000".(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 15), omit "$124,212,000", substitute "$124,754,000".(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 3 (line 18), omit "$128,350,000", substitute "$128,910,000".17:19:0018987Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—First of all, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs for rearranging the manner in which we discuss the amendments. My reason for doing this responds, in some ways, to the comments made by the member for Calare a few minutes ago about the importance of ensuring that this chamber is neither bypassed nor becomes a backwater. It is my view that it is the debates that take place in the consideration in detail stage that breathe some life back into the debates in this chamber.In the last parliament I had the privilege of being the shadow health minister. I have to say that, to the credit of the then Minister for Health and Aged Care, the current Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, he was more than happy to come into the House and participate in the debates at the consideration in detail stage. He gave as good as he got, and it certainly gave members of parliament an opportunity to ask detailed questions of the minister. It gave members of the opposition, and even the odd government backbencher, a chance to respond for five minutes, and then the minister once again stood at the dispatch box and answered new questions put time after time by members of the opposition. I wish I could say the same thing about the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Unfortunately, without criticising the parliamentary secretary—I am sure she does an excellent job in representing the interests of the minister for education—until she is appointed minister for education we will demand that someone above the parliamentary secretary comes into the House and participates in these debates.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I can assure the Minister for Aged Care that, as communications, tourism and the arts minister, I regularly was in this chamber dealing with debates at the consideration in detail stage and even adjournments. Consideration in detail gives us the chance in this chamber to put specific questions to the minister. If the minister is not at the table, then questions will be addressed to his representative. If the minister has any courage he will make sure that he is present for future considerations in detail in this House on education. I do not have the world's best memory, but I cannot remember the minister for education participating in one of the debates at the consideration in detail stage in the time that I have been shadow minister for education. I will be more than happy to compliment him if he does front some, rather than handing them over to the parliamentary secretary.The first issue I wish to raise is a matter that was dealt with by the parliamentary secretary. It is an issue that we raised in the consideration of estimates in the Main Committee. This is a very important issue, because it goes to how much money this government has allocated for new measures for education in the most recent budget. This is not new material for this debate; it is something that the parliamentary secretary raised in her summing up. Let me remind the House of the question that I put to the parliamentary secretary, because she was representing Dr Kemp. He did not bother to show his face there either. It was: Budget Paper No. 2 on page 31 says that the education portfolio in total only gets a net addition to the forward estimates of $62.1 million over the next four years. Does the parliamentary secretary challenge the claim that page 31 of Budget Paper No. 2 indicates that education only gets an extra $62.1 million?And it goes on with other comments. The parliamentary secretary is recorded in Hansard as saying:The figure of $62.4 million relates to new measures. There was $229 million in lapsing programs that the government made a conscious decision to continue. So previous funding that was made over a three- or four-year period for programs is continuing. So the total increase is $271.4 million, not $62.4 million.And she has explained there that, of that $271 million, $229 million was for programs rolled over. So she has admitted in those remarks in the estimates debate that there was only $62.4 million in this year's budget for the next four years in programs for new measures. That is what the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs representative said in the estimates debate. Yet today we have the same person, the same parliamentary secretary, coming into this House and claiming that there is a $271 million increase in funding. So I say to the parliamentary secretary: are you simply including in that total programs that you rolled over, continuing programs that already existed and that by no-one's definition could be considered new measures?17:24:0018988Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I would, firstly, say that I have spent three years in this place in opposition and, as the minister for aged care quite accurately said, it was a precedent set by Labor that parliamentary secretaries handle legislation. I know in speaking in many health debates and considerations in detail that it was actually the member for Calwell—SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Theophanous.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—exactly—who was at the dispatch box, and not—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Dr Wooldridge used to front.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—He used to front sometimes, but I also handled some of his legislation. I recall it well. You were in the same position then, just a different portfolio. I do not resile from what was said in the Main Committee, nor do I resile from what was said today. Lapsing programs are programs which have not had money in forward estimates set aside for. If the government continues those programs, then that is new money. There has been selective quoting from budget papers. I stand by what has been said.17:25:0018988Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify that. She is saying she stands by what she said in both the Main Committee and this chamber, even though they are contradictory. The only explanation for that has to be that the parliamentary secretary is arguing that $229 million of continuing programs are new measures. The parliamentary secretary knows that is not the case.17:26:0018988Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I just say to the shadow minister exactly as I have already said: it is new money for programs that had only had funding allocated up to a certain point. I actually dealt with every issue raised by the shadow minister, one point after another, in the extended summary of the debate that has already taken place.17:26:0018988Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The next issue I would like to address is another point made by the parliamentary secretary in the summing up. These clauses that we are dealing with provide the funding for the operating grants. The parliamentary secretary claimed that, rather than there being cuts of $1 billion in operating grants to universities, there had been an increase from $5 billion in 1996 to $5.1 billion in the year 2000. I ask the parliamentary secretary to look at this graph, which is an excerpt from the government's most recently released higher education funding triennium report, which goes through to the year 2002. It is quite clear, Parliamentary Secretary, if you look at the black elements in the bar chart—that is, the net Commonwealth investment in universities—you can see that is on a downward slope. The figure you quote is the black bar plus the white bar and, yes, that does increase from $5 billion to $5.1 billion. That includes HECS, as you and I both know. Since the government basically doubled HECS, the white bar has been growing, causing a reduction in the net Commonwealth investment in higher education. So I ask the parliamentary secretary if she will confirm that the government's own report figure 1.8 in the latest triennium report is accurate in that it reflects a declining investment by the federal government in higher education. Is that correct? 17:28:0018989Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I have not studied the graph up close or anything that might be said on either side of it. I stand by the summary which I have given today, in which at some stage I mentioned, quite honestly, that HECS was included.17:28:0018989Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The reason we are obsessed with this graph is that this is the clear evidence that—contrary to the government's claims that it has maintained, if not increased, funding for higher education—by doubling HECS the federal government has cut back its own investment in higher education. It is for that reason that universities are in crisis around the country. When the former Labor government introduced HECS it was not popular with students, but at least when John Dawkins was the federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training he ensured that every extra dollar raised through the introduction of HECS was extra investment in higher education in Australia. It funded a massive increase in the number of places around the country. In fact, you can see it in the early part, on the left-hand side, of this graph. There was a massive increase in funding during the Labor years, and a decline in the federal government's own investment during the years that the Howard government has been in power.If the parliamentary secretary is not prepared to challenge the government's own graphs, let me turn to the funding that the government has cut from regional universities. Many universities have suffered, including the University of Ballarat. It has lost $4 million because of the cuts this government has made to higher education across the country. If you go through all of the universities outside the capital cities—Charles Sturt University, Southern Cross University, the University of Newcastle, the University of Wollongong, Deakin University, the University of Ballarat, Central Queensland University, James Cook University, the University of Southern Queensland and the Australian Maritime College—we have funding cuts to the universities outside the capital cities totalling $171 million.Surely this government, which claims to have members representing rural and regional electorates, understands that universities are often the growth drivers in local communities. It is often the universities that provide the opportunities for new industries and the opportunities to encourage change, development and growth in local communities. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this government has cut so much money from federal funding to regional universities. I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the government has any plans to put back the $171 million cut from regional universities.17:31:0018989Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I say to the shadow minister for education that I wish he had been listening carefully instead of chatting while I was giving a detailed summary of this because he keeps raising the same issues. I said at that time, for instance, that the shadow minister had made claims that James Cook University had lost $16 million from funding cuts. In fact the government has ensured that funding has gone to where the enrolments are—the funding is where the courses are and where the students are. It is also important to look at the operating grants. The operating grant at James Cook University, for instance—a university that he mentioned yet again—is now over $87 million. The government considers regional Australia, these institutions and the people who study in them to be very important.17:32:0018990Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I ask the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs if she would confirm what the minister told the House in May, and that is that the number of Australian students—the number of EFTSU—actually declined from 466,037 in 1999 to 464,702. Does the minister intend to release more than these one or two figures to give us what we used to receive in the past, which was a very detailed report about enrolments across the country? Does the minister intend to release these figures to the public or is the government trying to hide the fact that there has been a decline in the number of domestic enrolments between 1999 and 2000 from 466,000 to 464,700? Will the parliamentary secretary confirm that there has actually been a decline and when does the government intend to release the detailed report on that and other matters? 17:33:0018990Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—The latest figures suggest that the total number of domestic higher education student places—including fully funded student places, partially funded overenrolment places and fee paying student places at undergraduate and postgraduate levels—may in fact be lower in 2000 than in 1999, but this is contrary to the expectation derived from earlier preliminary estimates and data which was then available. This new data also changes the figures we have been using for the estimated increases in the numbers of domestic students since 1996—that is, the number of undergraduate students has increased by an estimated 35,000 and the total number of students by an estimated 42,000. These figures are based on preliminary estimates and will now be lower, and of course the exact figure is still being calculated. Rather than signalling that the expected number of domestic students actuals in 2000 may be lower than the previous forecast and in fact lower than 1999, this matter of course requires further examination.17:34:0018990Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The second part of the question was: does the government intend to produce a report containing these figures and other details, which I understand has been the practice in the past?17:35:0018990Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—We have been a very open government, and I have no doubt data and information that have been available in the past will be available in the future.17:35:0018990Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I think you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everyone else in the House would interpret that as a yes, so I will accept that as a yes and move on. I ask the parliamentary secretary to now turn to the government's expected receipts from HECS this year. As I mentioned, the graph that I am obsessed with shows that as HECS receipts for the government grow the Commonwealth's own investment in universities is declining. The parliamentary secretary would be aware that we have been very critical of the fact that the government intends to use the CPI figure to index HECS debts for all current and past university students who still have a HECS debt. It is our understanding that the typical student will have their HECS debt increased by $700 because this year the CPI increase will be substantially higher due to the effect of the GST inflation spike.The point we make to the government is that those figures demonstrate there will be an extra $180 million received by the government because of the GST inflation spike. That is why we have described this as an unfair and retrospective tax slug. It is unfair because normally students have their HECS debt increased by the underlying rate of inflation. There is a one-off GST inflation spike and it is unfair to those students to have that included in the index that determines their remaining HECS debt. It is also retrospective because many of these students have finished university—they are in the work force. Having left university, they are now going to be hit by this GST inflation spike indexing their HECS debt. Parliamentary Secretary, will you confirm that there will be an extra $180 million received by the federal government because of the GST inflation spike and doesn't that mean that there will be another $180 million reduction in the Commonwealth's own investment in universities?17:37:0018991Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I confirm that there will be an increase in HECS available to the universities coming from students who are graduating and who have graduated. I make the point that, with this very strong economic climate we now have as a result of a bold, progressive and reformist government cleaning up the mess and the deficit left by the previous government—which of course benefited nobody, whether students, graduates, apprentices or the unemployed—there has been an increase in CPI, the system that Labor introduced, with the indexation which occurs each year. The current indexation compares very favourably with the indexation rates of eight per cent in 1990 and 6.4 per cent in 1991, when Labor was in government. I make the point again—because the shadow minister may not have been listening to me; but I think it is a very serious thing and, if we are going to talk about equity, it is important—that there are students who are in traineeships and apprenticeships, and there are young people who have been students, starting out in the work force who pay tax. I cannot think of any good reason why low income workers should be subsidising those who will, when they enter the work force as graduates, have a higher salary in front of them probably for the rest of their working days. I thought, shadow minister, that you would be concerned, being a member of the Australian Labor Party, about those lower income workers. While we need graduates and encourage them, we think it is a very fair thing that they pay their share. 17:39:0018991Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I ask the parliamentary secretary if that last comment demonstrates that the government is willing to consider increases in student fees at universities.17:39:0018991Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—The government has no plans whatsoever for increasing fees. The system introduced by the Australian Labor Party of having HECS indexed—the CPI—is a system which has not been changed.17:40:0018991Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I know the parliamentary secretary would not deliberately mislead the House—otherwise I would have to move a deliberative motion—but I would remind the parliamentary secretary that, when she says the government has no plans to increase fees for university students, there was one plan. It is still in the bottom drawer, and it was written by David Kemp. It was a plan to deregulate university fees for all university students, a plan that would have resulted in students paying up to $100,000 to go to university, a plan that would have resulted in HECS being scrapped and replaced by student loans with real rates of interest. In the past, the parliamentary secretary, when asked if she would give an assurance that there would be no increase in student fees either this term or the next, told us:I am sure that at the appropriate time, in a full and honest and open way, the people of Australia will know exactly what is planned in this area ...I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary has anything to add to that commitment.17:41:0018992Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I do not resile from saying that the government has no plans at all.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Dr Kemp's plan. He has got a plan.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—The government has no plans whatsoever for an increase, and that has been made quite clear to the shadow minister on other occasions in this chamber. He is perhaps feeling a little peeved that he missed out on being in the opposition committee to organise, arrange and come up with policy for the next election. There is some nitpicking here. He has had these assurances from me, from the minister and from the Prime Minister on other occasions, and we have nothing to add to that.17:41:0018992Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—It was very telling that the parliamentary secretary made it clear that, while Dr Kemp might have a plan, the government does not have a plan today. That means that Dr Kemp, at any time in the future, can pull the plan out of his bottom drawer, and away he goes. I notice that, while at least two very senior ministers have entered the chamber, as well as the parliamentary secretary and the Chief Government Whip, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has not showed up. I understand that he has a function interstate. Perhaps the Chief Government Whip could have organised the timetable for government business to have allowed the minister for education to actually participate in these debates. Because I understand that there is some other business that the government wishes to bring on, I wish to make it clear that, in considering parts 1 to 4, I have one other issue that I wish to raise if they were planning to do something between parts 1 and 4. Or if you intend to stay until the end, I am sure you will enjoy the debate. The last point I wanted to raise in consideration of parts 1 to 2 is an issue that was raised at the recent Labor Party conference in Hobart. We have given a commitment that we intend to reverse the current government's policies by investing in a new national staff development scheme for university staff, thereby assisting staff to achieve the goal of improving the quality and the global competitiveness of Australian higher education. I have said quite a few things in the last six months about the importance of investing in better professional development for teachers in schools. It is just as important for Australia to be investing more in improving the quality of teaching in our universities. There are a lot of great teachers in our universities, and also a lot of great researchers out there. But if we do not continue to keep a focus on the quality of teaching that is taking place in the lecture halls, in the tutorial rooms and in the laboratories, then, unfortunately, many university students will not get as much out of their study at their university as they should.I know there are many vice-chancellors and dedicated teaching staff in universities who are as keen as mustard to get behind a new program to invest more in staff development to improve the quality of teaching in universities. They are just begging for someone to come forward and offer an opportunity to lift the quality of teaching that is taking place in universities. The Labor Party has made it clear that a Beazley Labor government will be working to achieve that goal. Nothing would make me happier than for the government to pick up this idea of ours and join with us in developing a national scheme for improving the quality of teaching in lecture halls, tutorial rooms and laboratories right across the country. It is by investing in staff development for school teachers, university teachers, university lecturers and university researchers that we can ensure that the community is investing in the future of young kids whether they are at school, TAFE or university. It is through measures like this that we think we can build the knowledge nation.17:45:0018993Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—The only comment I wish to make is that the shadow minister must hope that those who are on the Leader of the Opposition's committee that puts together Labor policy were listening to what he has been saying.17:45:0018993Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I ask the parliamentary secretary if the government has any plans to increase investment in university staff development. The parliamentary secretary does not seem to wish to respond. I will give her a second chance to respond to my question: does the government have any plans to invest in university staff development?17:46:0018993Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I simply add in relation to this matter that when we are talking about quality, the new quality assurance agency is a major initiative and we have never had anything like this before.Amendments agreed to.Amendments (by Ms Worth)—by leave—proposed:(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 3 (line 20), omit "$229,000", substitute "$230,000".(6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (line 23), omit "$229,000", substitute "$230,000".17:47:0018993Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—We might be able to get through these pretty quickly. These deal with a number of staff superannuation issues. This gives me a chance to ask some questions about the progress of the government's attempts to encourage universities to change their industrial relations. The government has offered a bonus to universities that meet certain criteria. I ask the parliamentary secretary: how many universities have so far successfully satisfied the government's requirements for changes in its IR programs? 17:48:0018993Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I do not have that information with me at the moment. I am very happy to provide that to the shadow minister.17:48:0018993Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Perhaps while we are talking the advisers can provide you with that information. I also ask: how many universities have applied and been knocked back? What were the grounds for those universities being refused the additional funding that was unveiled with great fanfare by the minister for education?17:48:0018993Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I will take the question on notice.17:48:0018993Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I again ask that the advisers provide you with some advice on that matter while I ask my third and last question. It does not give you a lot of time. The first question was: how many universities have successfully jumped through the hoops? The second one was: how many have applied and been knocked back, and why were they knocked back? My third question is: how many universities have not yet applied?17:48:0018993Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I will take those questions on notice and make sure the shadow minister has that information.17:49:0018994Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Will the parliamentary secretary give the House an assurance that we will be advised why certain universities have been knocked back from receiving the additional funding and the reasons why they have been knocked back?17:49:0018994Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I have already said that I will take the shadow minister's questions on notice and assured him that he will get the appropriate response.17:49:0018994Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I take that as a no. The reason I have asked the government to make available the reasons why certain universities have been knocked back is that there has been some public comment about the government's decision to refuse several universities access to the additional funding. I understand that those universities believe they have been unfairly treated. I am sure that my colleague the member for Barton would want to be sure that natural justice always took its course even for the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney. I would also hope that the Attorney-General, who is sitting in the chamber, would also be hoping that the minister would be prepared to let these institutions know the grounds for his decision to knock them back for this increased funding. That is the reason why it has been raised. It is for that reason that we would argue strongly that the government owes these institutions an explanation as to why they have been singled out and not been entitled to this additional increase in funding.Amendments agreed to.Amendments (by Ms Worth)—by leave—agreed to:(7) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (line 2), omit "$485,970,000", substitute "$488,085,000".(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 4 (line 5), omit "$466,432,000", substitute "$468,562,000".Amendments (by Ms Worth)—by leave—proposed:(9) Schedule 1, item 13, page 4 (line 7), omit "$5,145,000", substitute "$5,168,000".(10) Schedule 1, item 14, page 4 (line 10), omit "$5,145,000", substitute "$5,168,000".(11) Schedule 1, item 15, page 4 (line 12), omit "$40,100,000", substitute "$40,275,000".17:51:0018994Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—These amendments contain the extra $4 million per annum for the Research Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities Scheme, which was announced in the year 2000 budget. Even after this extra $4 million has been added to the funding for this program, funding for research infrastructure is still going to fall by $20 million from the year 2000 to the year 2002. First of all, I would ask the parliamentary secretary whether she wishes to challenge that claim. If you look at table 1.3 on page 34 of your own department's Higher education report for the 2000 to 2002 triennium, you will see that it currently indicates that in 1999 we had $115 million allocated for research infrastructure and, after adding the extra $4 million for the year 2000, we have only $108 million. It indicates that for the year 2001 you have budgeted $105 million and for the year 2002 you have budgeted only $86 million. While the extra $4 million a year is no doubt welcome for higher education research infrastructure, the figure is still collapsing. I say to the parliamentary secretary: how can we hope to ensure that Australian researchers have modern, up-to-date equipment if we are investing less money year by year in research infrastructure? The extra $4 million a year is fine, but if there is still a decline of $20 million a year surely that means our best researchers are going to have to get by with equipment that is held together with sticky tape and sealing wax. That is just not good enough if Australia is to secure the high value, high wage jobs of the future. In many ways, the companies that invest in R&D will be the ones that can offer the most secure jobs for their employees. In the same way, the countries that invest in education, training and research will be the ones that secure the best jobs for the future. If we have a federal government actually cutting investment in university research infrastructure, how can we expect anything other than a decline in the number of new inventions, in the level of innovation and in the number of companies that will be able to successfully develop new opportunities for Australia in years to come?We are going to face a massive intellectual property deficit if we continue on our current track. Public research is declining because of the $1 billion in cuts this government has made to higher education. Private research and development has declined for each of the last three years. For the first time since the Australian Bureau of Statistics has been collecting the figures, we have a decline in private R&D expenditure. If public research is going backwards and private R&D is going backwards, how can Australia expect to become a knowledge nation? How can we hope to ensure that kids like the kids in the gallery tonight get the chance to finish school and perhaps become scientists, medical researchers or computer programmers? These opportunities will open up only if Australia is investing more, not less, in areas like education, training and research. I once again challenge the parliamentary secretary to indicate whether she wishes to dispute my claim that there is a $20 million decline in investment in university research infrastructure after the extra $4 million in the budget.17:55:0018995Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—It is quite clear that the shadow minister took no notice of my summing up. He has made these claims before. He is quite wrong. While it is true to say that there has been a decrease in private sector research, there has been an increase in government funding for research. I remind the shadow minister and the chamber that in 1995, the last year of the Labor government, funding for higher education research infrastructure totalled $67.8 million—that is in 2000 prices. Under this government, research infrastructure funding is $102.4 million in 2000 and will be $104.4 million in 2001.17:56:0018995Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—On that very issue, does the parliamentary secretary dispute the fact that the same level of funding which she just said is now $102 million was actually $114.9 million last year?XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Does this bear any relevance to the debate?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member for Ballarat interjects. I say to the member for Ballarat, `You go and say to the researchers at the University of Ballarat that there is enough money going into research infrastructure.' I assure the member for Ballarat that we will make sure researchers at the university in his electorate know what he is up to. He treats with contempt the researchers of Australia who are trying to ensure that they get the money they need to do their jobs. The member for Ballarat will pay a high price for a temper tantrum such as that which he has displayed this afternoon. I say again to the parliamentary secretary: will she confirm that, while this year there is $102 million being provided for research infrastructure, isn't it a fact that last year $114 million was provided for it? 17:57:0018995Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—What I can confirm is that the shadow minister has totally misrepresented the Chief Government Whip and member for Ballarat. If the shadow minister had been listening as I have been giving detailed information, he would be better informed and therefore would be more knowledgeable and might be invited to contribute to Labor Party policy.17:57:0018996Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I ask the parliamentary secretary: is she challenging her own department's table on page 34 of the Higher education report for the 2000 to 2002 triennium? Are you saying that that figure in your own department's report is wrong? If the parliamentary secretary has decided that she cannot be bothered to respond in the Australian House of Representatives, I simply make the point to the people in the gallery today and to the researchers at the University of Ballarat, who are going to get copies of this debate, that the government cannot even be bothered to challenge our concern that there has been a decline in investment and research infrastructure. The other point I wish to raise in this debate—XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—If the member for Ballarat wishes to enter the debate, I encourage him. If the member for Ballarat wants to dispute anything I have said this afternoon, I encourage him to have the courage to get on his feet and participate.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—You get on with it.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—I ask the Chief Government Whip to be silent, and I ask the shadow minister to continue his contribution.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The point I make is that universities in regional areas are the lifeblood of communities like Ballarat. It is not just the salaries that the researchers and the teachers spend in their local communities; it is those regional universities that are often the promoters of development and change. I am sure the member for Ballarat has probably visited the University of Ballarat on many occasions and I am sure that he would have seen with his own eyes the good research that takes place in regional universities not just in Ballarat but right around the country. It is for that reason that I say to the member for Ballarat that the Labor Party will continue to pursue this government for its cuts in funding for regional universities around the country. When the government holds summits to try to pretend that it is doing something for rural and regional Australia and promises it is going to do something about rural education but will not even put back the $171 million it has taken from regional universities, we know it cannot be believed. I say to the member for Ballarat: if he wants to enter the debate and challenge any of the figures that I have used today, here is his opportunity to participate in this debate.18:00:0018996Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I confirm that the figures I have given to the chamber today are absolutely correct and that the research and innovation policy has two programs for regional universities. And, as I said earlier, funding for regional universities follows the students and follows the enrolments.18:00:0018996Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The next issue I would like to raise is the impact of a number of changes that the government is proposing to make through Dr Kemp's research white paper. This was a process that started two years ago when we had the white paper released—I think it was almost Christmas Eve; I think it was the same day as a number of the tax measures—which was disappointing to many of Australia's researchers because the white paper contained not one extra dollar for research in Australia. We then had the government having the charade of the innovation summit. Again, lots of good words but not one extra dollar provided for improving the nation's research effort. I simply say to the parliamentary secretary: how can we believe that the research white paper will help improve Australia's national research and innovation effort if the government is not prepared to put one extra dollar into the national research effort. 18:02:0018997Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I simply say again that this government has done more for regional Australia, more for regional universities and more for research than Labor ever did when it was in office.18:02:0018997Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The next issue I wish to raise concerns another change that is going to be caused by the government's new policy outlined in the research white paper. I ask the parliamentary secretary if she is willing to confirm today that there will be a decline in the number of research students trained in universities across the country by 3,500. I am sure the parliamentary secretary would know that CAPA and a number of other organisations have raised this issue.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The shadow minister has I think been treated extraordinarily well in the last 15 or 20 minutes where he has virtually taken the question of relevance to about the 99th degree— 10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Your point of order?XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—My point of order is in relation to relevance: the matters being spoken about by the shadow minister—actually for the last 20 minutes—bear no relevance to the amendments at all.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Mr Deputy Speaker, before you rule on the point of order: these clauses, clauses 9 to 11, deal with grants for research, innovation and quality in higher education. So the comments I am making about research are completely relevant to the issues before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—To my knowledge, I believe the shadow minister is speaking to the amendments. I invite him to continue his remarks or finish.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Rather than taking spurious points of order, perhaps the member for Ballarat might enter into the debate about whether the country is spending enough on research and development.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I ask the shadow minister to continue with the amendments.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Perhaps I could provide some information that might encourage the member for Ballarat to participate in this debate, and that is the impact of the changes that the government is going to make in funding for research students. It is not just going to mean a reduction in the number of places by 3,500 across the country. At the member for Ballarat's own local campus at the University of Ballarat, we will see a significant reduction with a fall from 86 research places to 45, which is more than a 46 per cent reduction in the number of places available at Ballarat University. In fact, Ballarat is one of the hardest universities hit by the changes that the government intends to make. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs mentioned James Cook University on several occasions earlier in the debate. If you look at James Cook University, they are also suffering quite significantly. The number of places they have is going to decline from 391 to 333, a decline of 58 places or almost 15 per cent.One of the concerns is that this change that the government is making—the net reduction of 3,500 research students—means that it is the newer, smaller, regional universities that are hit hardest. The member for Adelaide, of course, would have an interest in Adelaide University. Perhaps I could quickly find Adelaide University: it actually has no reduction; it keeps its 896 places. How can it be fair for Adelaide University to have no reduction in places while other universities such as the two I have quoted, Ballarat and James Cook University, are significantly hit? It does seem unfair that, in many ways, we see the universities that have the most funds to spend on research being least hit and the smaller, newer, regional universities are the ones that are going to be hardest hit. Another example of interest to the parliamentary secretary might be the University of South Australia, which currently has 455 places. That is being reduced to 358, a reduction of 97 places or more than 20 per cent. How can the government claim that it is going to be good for Australia's national research effort if we actually have a reduction in the number of research students of almost 3,500? Can the parliamentary secretary respond to those concerns? 18:06:0018998Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—The department is currently discussing with the universities their educational profiles. If universities wish to retain HECS research places, they are perfectly free to do so.18:07:0018998Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I would say to the parliamentary secretary that that raises certain interesting questions. For someone like the member for Ballarat, it says to them: are they quite happy to let their university reduce the number of research students from 86 to 45, as Dr Kemp is proposing—a reduction of more than 46 per cent in the number of research students at the University of Ballarat? The silence of the member for Ballarat in this debate, apart from a spurious point of order, can only indicate consent: silence indicates consent in parliamentary debates, as the Attorney-General knows well.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Or complete and utter trust in—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Well, be brave enough to stand up and contribute to this debate. Speak up for your electorate, I say to the member for Ballarat. Why don't you have the courage to get in here and say something about the University of Ballarat? The member for Calwell has, for the 15 years I have been a member of this House, argued up hill and down dale for additional Commonwealth investment in our tertiary institutions, in our TAFE colleges and our universities. He is someone who understands the importance of education and the way that education can break the link between poverty and poor opportunities. If only we had a few more people with his courage, not to mention the courage of many other members of the Labor Party who have raised these issues on other occasions. We simply wish that there were a few more members of the government who were prepared to stand up and explain why they have concerns about the direction that Dr Kemp is taking education policy in Australia.The up-front fees for Australian students, to allow them to jump the queue; the $1 billion worth of cuts to our tertiary institutions; the abolition of growth funding for tertiary education; the fact that our research effort is going through the floor; the fact that our schools are in serious need of additional funds, especially in disadvantaged areas: these are the issues that we will continue to raise and press the government on. We simply hope—no offence to the parliamentary secretary—that the minister for education will be prepared to participate in these debates in the consideration in detail stage in future, because we have a lot more questions to put to him—and to the parliamentary secretary, if he does not front. We are determined to ensure that there is a thorough and detailed debate in this chamber about the future of education in Australia, the future opportunities for young kids, the future opportunities for Australian researchers. We are going to ensure that this government is held accountable on these issues for years to come.18:09:0018998Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Just following up on the issue of research funding, yesterday when we had the second reading discussion of this very important legislation, the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, I had the authority to put into Hansard a table which was provided by the Parliamentary Library in relation to higher education research programs. This table is of great importance because it is objective: it is provided by the library. I asked in the second reading debate why it is that, as we look at total research expenditures, we see that there was some increase in 1996-97-98 and then a drop in 1999 and a slight rise in 2000; and there will be a very small rise in 2001; and then a massive proposed drop in 2002, down to the level around which it was in 1996-97.What I am interested in is this: why is there such a huge drop in the absolute amounts for research from a government which has just put out this paper at the end of last year, talking about how committed it is to the issue of research in universities? Is this real? Is it serious that, in fact, in the proposed budget expenditures for next year—and presumably for years to come—we will see reductions in research expenditure for universities? What is the parliamentary secretary's or the minister's explanation of these figures? Are we actually going to be in a situation where the universities are further squashed in relation to research? Research is the lifeblood of universities. If the government is committed seriously to what it said in the highly trumpeted paper Knowledge and innovation: a policy statement on research and research training, let us see some actual resources behind that. I remind the parliamentary secretary and the minister that, when this paper came out the Vice-Chancellors Committee said words to this effect: `All these high sounding principles, but great disappointment that there are no additional resources to fund university research.' There are some minor resources in the medical area but, in overall total terms in the whole range of sciences, humanities, computer sciences and economics—all the fields of knowledge which universities deal with—there is basically a cut. I would like to know the justification for these changes. I would like to know what the government intends. The Treasurer is constantly explaining how wonderful he is as an economic manager and how much money he has. Why isn't more money available, then, for universities in research?XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Well, it is.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—I just told you about these figures, the member for Ballarat. Would you like to challenge these figures from the Parliamentary Library? Why doesn't the government start dealing with the actual argument? As I said in the second reading debate yesterday, every time the minister gets up to talk about education he gives a very poor example to university students, because he does not argue on the issues. Is that what we are going to teach people in universities? What does he argue about? He argues about personalities, attacking the Labor Party and its personalities. He does not argue about the issues. Let's have a really serious, positive debate on these issues of research in universities and other matters in higher education.Amendments agreed to.18:15:0018999Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 12 to 14:(12) Schedule 1, item 16, page 4 (line 15), omit "$40,100,000", substitute "$40,275,000".(13) Schedule 1, item 17, page 4 (line 17), omit "$4,925,000", substitute "$4,947,000".(14) Schedule 1, item 18, page 4 (line 20), omit "$5,226,000", substitute "$5,271,000".I remind the chamber that earlier in this debate I explained to the shadow minister, who seemed not to have been listening, that Commonwealth spending on education is around 2.2 per cent of gross domestic product, the same as it was in 1994-95, and the high level of economic growth experienced under this government means that Commonwealth expenditure on education is, in fact, 17 per cent higher in real terms. Now if we could just look at what amendments Nos 12 to 14, as circulated and as have been used for lengthy debate, are all about, they provide additional supplementation of over $25 million a year for the two years to reflect price movements and thus maintain the value of university funding. This additional funding is good news for the universities on top of the budget funding for research and new medical student places. I commend the bill and the amendments to the House.Amendments agreed to.18:16:0019000Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I present the signed explanatory memorandum for those amendments.18:16:0019000Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I will not hold the House up for long, but I just want to place on record the opposition's concern about the inadequate notice that we were given. The parliamentary secretary claims that these were circulated in the House yesterday. That is news to me. I think there is a convention that the opposition's office is also advised. If the government wishes to break that convention as well, we will not be surprised. We simply say to the government that, if the government wishes to seek our cooperation in future debates, it is going to have to do better than to introduce late changes, late supplementary explanatory memoranda and a series of 14 amendments to sums of money. I can assure the parliamentary secretary that these will get very thorough consideration in the Senate. Bill, as amended, agreed to.19000Bill (on motion by Ms Worth)—by leave—read a third time.Bills19000R65019000Consideration resumed from 9 March.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 8), omit "Subject to subsection (2), this", substitute "This".(2) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2).(3) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 3 (lines 5 and 6), omit the heading.(4) Schedule 1, heading to Part 2, page 6 (lines 2 to 5), omit the heading.(5) Schedule 1, items 12 to 16, page 6 (lines 6 to 23), omit the items.(6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 7 (lines 1 to 3), omit the item.(7) Schedule 1, item 20, page 7 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item.(8) Schedule 1, items 22 to 24, page 7 (lines 14 to 26), omit the items.(9) Schedule 1, item 27, page 8 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item.(10) Schedule 1, item 29, page 8 (lines 13 to 15), omit the item.(11) Schedule 1, item 32, page 9 (line 10), omit "or charges".(12) Schedule 1, item 32, page 9 (line 15), omit "or charge".(13) Schedule 1, item 32, page 9 (line 30), omit the note.(14) Schedule 1, item 33, page 10 (line 3), omit "or charge".(15) Schedule 1, item 33, page 10 (line 4), omit "or charge".(16) Schedule 1, item 33, page 10 (line 7), omit "or charge".(17) Schedule 1, item 33, page 10 (line 23), omit "or charges".(18) Schedule 1, item 33, page 10 (line 26), omit "or charge".(19) Schedule 1, item 33, page 10 (line 29), omit "or charge".18:19:0019001Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.We are considering today opposition amendments to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998. These amendments remove from that bill those provisions relating to the imposition of charges that would have been imposed by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998. The charges bill was rejected in the Senate with the support of the opposition and the Democrats.The government cannot understand what the opposition hope to gain by opposing the charges bill and the complementary amendments contained in the amendment bill. As I said in the previous debate on the bills in the House, the government does not believe that it is either fair or appropriate to use public funds to subsidise businesses involved for commercial gain in the production or distribution of publications, films or computer games. The government does not think it is at all unreasonable that the industry should be expected to pay for the services and benefits it receives from the national classification scheme.The charges that were to be levied by the charges bill were designed to cover the cost of activities ancillary to the classification services provided by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. These include certain research, the community liaison officer scheme, policy development and ministerial support. While these activities are related to an efficient and effective classification and enforcement scheme, for constitutional reasons their cost cannot be included in the fees for the provision of classification services. They nevertheless benefit industry. For example, the community liaison officer scheme, which now operates in all jurisdictions, is designed to increase compliance with the classifications scheme which benefits those sectors of the industry that do comply with the law. Policy development and research assist in improving consistency in decision making and in ensuring that classification decisions reflect community standards. The government is aware that sections of industry have expressed concern about the effect of the 1997 classification fee increases and the further increases that were proposed under the charges bill on the availability of material that has a limited market appeal in Australia. In response, the government considered that there is a case to enable certain material, where limited distribution is involved, to be classified at reduced rates and has taken action as a consequence. First, the amendment bill empowers the Director of the Classification Board to waive, in whole or in part, classification charges for `limited distribution special interest material' which comprises a documentary record of an event or which is of a cultural or like nature, if it is in the public interest to do so.Secondly, the government proposes to further expand this power in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 by empowering the director to waive fees for short films from new or emerging film makers. This means that films of this kind which would usually fall outside the exempt categories will still need to be classified but that the fee for doing so can be waived or reduced.Thirdly, the amendment bill (No. 2) 1999 proposes that the current exemptions in the act be expanded to cover current affairs, hobbyist, sporting, family, live performance, musical presentations and religious films. These will be an addition to the current exemptions in the act, which cover films for business, accounting, professional, scientific or educational purposes. Films within these proposed new exempt categories are typically distributed to a specialised market, often in relatively small numbers. Removing the need for them to be classified should ensure their continued availability and thereby contribute to product diversity in the Australian market. The combined cost to revenue of these measures is estimated to be $354,000.The government believes that its response to concerns about the effect of the increase in classification costs on certain industry sectors has been both timely and responsible and that it should address many of the issues that have been raised. Given these factors and the fact that the industries which are embraced by the national classification scheme have a high turnover each year, the government can see no justification for the stance the opposition has taken on the charges bill and on the complementary amendment bill we are considering today. Just to reinforce the impact that the opposition's actions are having, the industry bodies consulted in the course of preparation of the scheme, who represent those who will benefit from the opposition's action, include members of the Motion Picture Distributors Association, which represents the large cinema studios. (Extension of time granted) It also includes members of the Australian Visual Software Distributors Association, which represents major video and computer game distributors; members of the Eros Foundation, which represents the adult industry; and, since its formation in August 1997, members of the Australian Independent Distributors Association, which represents independent film distributors in Australia.The rejection by the opposition and the Democrats of the charges bill in the Senate leaves the government with no real alternative but to accept the Senate amendments to the bill. It does so with great reluctance. The stance of the opposition and the Democrats will only increase the burdens on the public purse to the benefit of commercial operators.18:25:0019002McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition accepts the Senate's amendments. I should indicate that the fact it was necessary for the government to propose a separate charges bill, in the form of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998, was an acknowledgment that it amounted to a tax rather than the recovery of the cost of classifying films. As the Attorney-General acknowledged, that was to recover the cost of matters which were ancillary to the classification task, including research, policy development, ministerial support and some payment for enforcement. We say that there is a public interest in the classification regime operating efficiently by denying access to improper or inappropriate material by households and ensuring classifications are in place so that people know the nature of material before they purchase or rent it. We thought it was inappropriate to burden the industry with those additional or ancillary items. In forming that view, we had regard to the fact that the smaller producers were going to be penalised by those additional charges—that is, not the actual disbursement involved in the classification process but those additional public policy considerations. In particular, whereas the larger producers and publishers can spread the cost of classification over a much broader market circulation, the smaller or, if you like, niche producers do not have that opportunity, yet the classification charge would have been rendered in respect of the length of the movie or video or the size of the publication rather than the circulation. We believe that would have had greater adverse effects on smaller producers.We are also mindful of the real risk. There have been some suggestions that, since higher charges were introduced in 1997, the amount of unclassified material has increased as a result of backyard operators not complying with the legal processes required in respect of classification. That of course presents not only the potential for social harm in terms of this material being purchased and entering households but also a problem for those legitimate producers and publishers who are doing the right thing. For instance, we saw it as inequitable to charge those legitimate producers and publishers who were doing the right thing for the cost of enforcing the system against those who were acting illegally.Moving on to the issues, we support and welcome the ability to grant exemptions for those publications which are of a documentary or cultural nature. We say that is something to be encouraged. We also support the additional points of clarification which will clarify the prosecution procedure and the ability to obtain prosecutions of those publishers and producers who are not complying with the law. So, in short, the opposition supports the bill as amended by the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills19003R111719003Debate resumed from 29 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.20:00:0019003O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme Extension Bill 2000 that the House is debating tonight amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to enable farmers to continue to access the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme from 14 September 2000 to 30 June 2001—an extension period of nine months. This extension measure was announced by the government in the 2000-01 budget. It was prompted primarily by the poor rate of take-up of the scheme when matched against the government's own expectation of possible participants who might access this provision.This is not the first time and not the only portfolio area where this government has announced a policy initiative accompanied by a very optimistic and some would say deceptive expectation of that initiative's potential to address a particular situation—in this case the intergenerational transfer of farms. Members might recall the fanfare that accompanied the announcement of the original scheme by the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson, in October 1997. The minister in his press release of 21 October 1997 said:A preliminary review of ABARE Farm Surveys data suggests as many as 10,000 farms could potentially meet the eligibility criteria for this measure. The government in this House, and of course in the public arena, made great play of this initiative and bandied about the 10,000 figure as if that number of farm enterprises had already entered the scheme. It was touted as a major structural adjustment initiative of significant scale and would address in a very real sense the issue of intergenerational transfer of farms. It is now a matter for the public record that around only 1,400 farms have availed themselves of the scheme. Of the $77 million which was originally allocated for this purpose, only around $10 million has been committed to the task. This is an issue that I intend to take up a little bit later in the debate.The issue of intergenerational transfer of farms is an important one to the rural sector. Anyone who has grown up on a farm and who has parents who have farmed for many years understands the very strong attachments of people to their land. In some families the same property has been farmed for several generations, and it is always an extremely difficult personal decision for a farmer to relinquish not only ownership but control, even to another member of the family. There would not be too many farmers' children who do not understand the point I am making here.I grew up in the western district of Victoria on a small dairy farm. I know it was a difficult decision for my father to end his farming days and to sell the property. My father through illness had ceased to farm and crop. In his latter years he performed a caretaker type of role on the small farm that he loved so dearly. He was the youngest, along with his twin brother, in a family of 11 children. He had to leave the farm to find consistent employment, and he spent many years working in Melbourne. He finally realised his dream after many years and after the war, returning to where he was born and raised to purchase the property and to do what he dearly loved to do—and that was to farm.He farmed for most of his life, rearing four children in difficult economic circumstances. He invested his emotional and physical energy in building the farm up and earning a living. When the time came to relinquish ownership and leave the farm, he was initially unable to do it. It took several years of gentle persuasion—and sometimes not too subtle persuasion—to bring him to a decision to finally leave. He died suddenly before he was able to sell the property and to re-establish himself and his wife in retirement. It then took the family another few years to persuade my mother to finally leave the property. There is no doubt that throughout the sector this sort of sentiment has prevailed, and it is not a sentiment easily understood by those who have not experienced it. Many people understandably react adversely to what they perceive to be special treatment of farmers in this regard, without perhaps having the sensitivity that is borne out of first-hand experience of the attitude of farmers to their land. The whole issue of succession planning and the intergenerational transfer of land is a sensitive one and quite difficult to manage on farm. That is why special provisions have been structured to assist the process of intergenerational transfer of farms within the rural sector.The problems confronting the sector and successfully effecting this intergenerational transfer can be readily appreciated when one examines the 1996 census data on the age distribution of Australian farmers. In the 1996 census, it is recorded that there were 25,343 farmers over the age of 65. There were an additional 17,341 farmers between the age of 60 and 64. In the younger cohort, between the age of 55 and 59, there were 22,543 farmers recorded. When you combine those three categories, there are some 65,127 farmers, according to that census data, in the over-55 and 65-and-over cohort—that is out of a total registered farming population of around 199,000. That comprises about 34 per cent of total farm numbers.So we can see from those particular figures that I have quoted that we have a problem in the rural sector that I think both sides of politics have adequately acknowledged—that is, we have an ageing farming population. That presents all sorts of problems to the sector. We are in a process of significant global challenge and cultural change. As we know—and it is a natural state of affairs—sometimes the older we get the more conservative our attitudes become to adapting to change and to taking on the challenges that are often posed to us. I think that is fair enough because people do bask in the efforts that they have made in the past on their farms. They have secured their livelihoods in many instances and see no reason to adapt to a change in circumstance. But I think it is very important to appreciate that over time we are going to have to address this issue of the ageing of our farm population. It has implications not only for the provision of a whole variety of services in rural and regional Australia and the survival of many rural communities and towns but also for the productivity of the sector over time. The scheme that the government introduced was an attempt to address the issue of the intergenerational transfer of farms. But in the literature surrounding that particular announcement and in subsequent views that have been expressed by people such as the New South Wales farmers organisation there appears to be some confusion as to the objectives of this particular scheme and how it should operate. Nevertheless, I do concede that it has been an honest attempt by the government to structure a set of arrangements to ease that intergenerational transfer of funds. I think the government has made some significant errors in the announcements that it made and, at the end of the day, it has not had the take-up that it anticipated. This scheme has not lived up to the expectations set out in the minister's original speech to the parliament in introducing this particular scheme.If we look at the provisions of the scheme, we see that there are several provisions that some in our community might think are very generous. As I said before, the original piece of legislation was designed to encourage farmers to consider the issue of passing on their farms and enjoying the lifestyle to which they have been accustomed by residing on those farms and in their local communities on retirement. Some features of the legislation are that the government did set a time limit of 15 September 2000 for farmers to take advantage of the scheme. The government did raise expectations on the number of farmers that we could expect to take advantage of the scheme, and that has not been realised. As far as the provisions go, the transferor must be a natural person, not a company, but may be a farmer alone or the farmer in conjunction with a spouse, and the value of the farming interest must not exceed $500,000. To qualify, the farmer must have been in farming for 15 years or, if he or she has been in farming for at least 20 years, have acquired the relevant interest in the farm prior to 15 September 1997. Another provision is that the farmer's income is means tested. An average of the farmer's income over the three years preceding the completion of the transfer is compared with the pension entitlement currently at $10,059.40 a year for a single pensioner and $16,780.80 for a couple.Those particular provisions do indicate to the community that it is not just a case of all farmers being able to access this particular scheme. There are some restrictive provisions and the government initiated a review of the scheme last year, and in that review some very constructive suggestions were made by interested parties about how these provisions ought to apply. The reality is that these particular provisions mean that many farmers are not entitled to access the scheme, and I think that goes some way to dispelling those concerns in parts of the community that the scheme might have been overly generous as these provisions do not apply to similar businesses, say, in rural communities and rural towns.But I want to return to the obvious failure of the government to meet the 10,000 target it originally set for the scheme. In view of the obvious policy failure in this area, I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for failing to meet its target under the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme of allowing up to 10,000 older farmers to retire with dignity with control of their farm assets passing to the next generation.".In moving this amendment, I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that, when the minister originally announced this scheme, the government trumpeted very loudly out in the community that 10,000 farmers would be eligible to take up this scheme. They created the expectation in rural Australia that farmers would be able to access the provisions of this scheme when the government probably knew very well that the restrictive provisions would prevent many farmers from accessing the scheme. It is this issue of expectations that I want to address here tonight in this particular debate, because even as we debate other matters in this place, and even as we debate them here in the House today, this whole issue of the government raising expectations and then tending to renege on the promises that it makes comes up. I refer here to the GST compensation issue when pensioners and self-funded retirees were promised by the Prime Minister that there would be an element of compensation for them in the GST compensation arrangements which was far in excess of what the Prime Minister knew and promised these people would receive. Once again we had the coalition creating an expectation among older Australians that they would receive $1,000—and, in the case of self-funded retirees, $2,000—as compensation for the impact of the GST on their savings. It was a solemn promise that the Prime Minister made. But, as we know, this Prime Minister is one who has made a habit of making promises. When he broke the big promises to the Australian community, including farmers, older farmers and veterans, he came up with the cute terminology, `Oh, no. It wasn't really a promise; it was a non-core promise.'Mr Deputy Speaker, if you went out to farming communities and you said to a farmer, `Well, we've had this discussion. Here is what I intend to do, and I will make you a non-core promise,' they would get up from the table and walk away. But the city lawyer the Prime Minister is, and his stockbroker and lawyer mates on the front bench of the Liberal Party, have no perception of the sort of honesty that is required by farmers when you deal with them. It is this essential dishonesty that regrettably has found its way into the attitudes of the National Party senior ministers in this coalition who, on too many occasions, have gone along for the ride with their city based Liberal counterparts to the detriment of the rural community. I say to the Prime Minister: go out to rural and regional Australia and make a few more non-core promises. You will be laughed out of the regional towns, you will be laughed out of the small rural communities and you will be laughed out of the areas where farmers gather to discuss matters of family and politics.But it is not only the issue that we are debating here today where the government raised expectations; it raised them on the GST compensation package and it also raised them on the issue of fuel. We have had in this place National Party ministers who have supported the Prime Minister's original proposition, when the GST package was announced, that petrol prices would not rise under the GST arrangements. Once again, the Prime Minister made them a non-core promise because he then changed his terminology to `petrol prices need not rise'. Now we know that, directly as a result of the introduction of the GST, petrol prices have risen and the Prime Minister's promise to farmers on petrol is in tatters. But it is not only in the area of petrol that the great deceiver—and I call the Prime Minister the great deceiver—has pulled the wool over the eyes of the rural sector of this country but also in the area of diesel fuel. The government went out to rural communities and said to the farmers of this nation, `We are going to introduce a set of arrangements that are going to lead directly to a lowering of fuel costs in rural and regional Australia that will flow on to goods and services in the form of lower prices in rural and regional Australia.' We now know that that is another promise that the Prime Minister has not been able to keep. We also now know that the government, through its taxation arrangements on diesel, has its hand in the pockets of farmers to the tune of $25 to $60 million. We are not quite sure what the exact figure is, but farmers out there know it, the New South Wales Farmers knows it and the National Farmers Federation know it. After we exposed the government on this particular issue, the farmer organisations got into the public ring to call the government to account because they realised that this city centred Liberal coalition government had dudded Australia's farming community again on diesel. So on these three issues—the policy issue we are debating here tonight, the retirement assistance plan for farmers; the issue of the GST compensation package; and the issue of fuel—we have seen the government raise expectations about what it was going to deliver, and of course it has failed to deliver. This is what the New South Wales Farmers Federation had to say in their submission dated 31 March 1999 to the retirement assistance for farmers scheme review:The scheme is not effectively targeting that sector of agriculture which would make best use of its provisions. The Association has had experience with many farm families who were led to understand, by the Government announcements, that this program would enable them to hand on the family farm, yet were unable to access assistance. Many of these families are trying to support three generations on the one farm, but were still not eligible.The New South Wales farmers have gone to the very point that I have been making in this debate thus far: this is a government that creates expectations—expectations that its GST arrangements will lead to lower prices in rural areas, when they know it will not; this is a government that has raised expectations of massive benefits flowing to rural and regional Australia by its fuel arrangements, yet farmers know that they are paying more for their petrol now than they did before the GST. We can even take out the increases that have occurred because of the increase in world prices for the product, and they are still paying more for their petrol. Now they find that this coalition government has its hand in their pockets for another $25 million on the diesel fuel arrangements. There is some confusion, I think, in the stated objectives of this farmers retirement assistance scheme. The minister's original question press release said:Mr Anderson said the initiative was deliberately targeted at low income farmers with relatively low assets because this was the group experiencing the most serious financial hardship."The families that will benefit from this measure are those that up until now have not been able to afford to transfer ownership of the farm, even with the States exempting them from stamp duty on these transfers."In this press release the minister is saying that this measure is being squarely aimed at low income farm families; yet a different interpretation of the scheme is given by the New South Wales Farmers Federation submission that I just previously referred to. This is what the New South Wales Farmers Federation have had to say about the objectives of the scheme:As outlined by the Government, the objective of this policy measure is not to assist unviable farmers off the land but to enable them to pass a viable farm on to the next generation. This objective appears to have been lost somewhat in the implementation and it is essential that this review redirect the program towards its original intention.The Terms of Reference for this review state that the aim of the scheme is to facilitate the agricultural adjustment process through the inter-generational transfer of viable farms. It does not mention the targeting of low asset and low income farms yet this is the category that is targeted by the scheme.Here we have the government stating a set of objectives for the scheme back when it was introduced and conducting a review where the terms of reference are interpreted in quite a different way. It is important that the government clarify exactly what its objectives are with this scheme. It needs to do that for farm organisations and for farmers themselves.This is a very important issue to the sector. The government has made an attempt in this legislation to address the issue. But we do not believe, given the expectations that were raised by the government about this initiative when it was announced, that the government has succeeded in meeting its own objectives for the scheme. Indeed, we are highly critical of the fact that this is a government that goes into the rural sector raising expectations about what it might deliver and then reneges on that—be it the Prime Minister's `non-core promises' on a whole range of issues or be it this scheme.In the time remaining to me in this debate I want to address an issue that was raised in the House today in question time by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry when he in quite an extraordinary way accused the Labor Party of not having a platform on agriculture. If the minister wants to come in here and make political hay while he thinks the sun is shining, that is his prerogative; but I am a bit surprised that the minister is acting like his Prime Minister in this statement of deceit to this House today, because the national conference of the Labor Party did pass a platform. Just to clarify for the minister, the platform is not a detailed set of policies, and we will not be announcing that detailed set of policies until we are in the zone where the Prime Minister is going to put the nation to the polls. We will over time, between now and that election, indicate to the rural sector where we believe the priorities in agriculture should be. Our great task is going to be to maintain the productivity of the sector in the face of the great environmental and global challenges that it will face. (Time expired)10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! Is the amendment seconded?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.20:30:0019007Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I am absolutely incredulous that members of the opposition would come into this chamber and bag the government for the way they have addressed the fuel situation in rural and regional Australia. This is the same opposition that voted against abolishing the 24c a litre diesel fuel excise and that voted against every measure the government took to relieve the load of not only farmers but also businesses and taxpayers in rural and regional Australia. So I am surprised that someone could come into this chamber from the other side and talk about how the government has made promises on fuel prices and not delivered them.I take the example that if indeed the opposition had supported the government in their attempts to lower the diesel fuel excise we would not have had the situation where we have this slightly complex formula for how people have to apply for the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. If the Labor Party had voted with the government on this, we would have been able to deliver a whole lot more than we actually did to rural and regional Australia in the area of fuel. The speaker from the Labor Party talks about this and other attempts that the government have made to ease the load on rural families. Yet the reason why the AAA package was brought in—the reason why it was so critical that it be brought in—was the absolute and utter mess the rural economy had been left in after 13 years of Labor.The Labor Party has absolutely no interest in rural and regional Australia. To take one example, the interest rates that were absolutely crippling people living on farms, who were paying anything up to 28 per cent interest, had far more of an impact on the viability and ability of such people to make a living than anything this government has done. This government came in in 1996 and it has made great strides in improving the viability of farms in Australia. As I said before, it is absolutely amazing that the opposition would come in here and even speak in such terms on this bill.I strongly support the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme Extension Bill 2000 and to some degree I agree with the previous speaker. It certainly is not easy for farmers who have been on the land for some length of time, often all their lives and possibly involving a previous generation, to make a decision to leave that farm. This retirement assistance for farmers in financial difficulties is only one of the key components of the successful Agriculture Advancing Australia scheme. Other assistance was offered—for example, the Farm Family Restart Scheme. Another part of the Agriculture Advancing Australia scheme which was so welcome and useful in my part of the world was West 2000. It was a pleasure just recently to be able to announce that the federal government had continued to fund West 2000 with the West 2000 Plus scheme.These are a few of the measures this government has taken to improve the viability of farms and the livelihood and lifestyle of people on the land. For example, it was announced that the West 2000 funding was to be allocated by western people for western people. West 2000 Plus, which is a continuation of that scheme, has also been extremely warmly welcomed by people in western New South Wales. It has enabled farmers to build up their properties and make them a viable size. There are also various other measures like woody weed control. One of the most important aspects of the West 2000 and West 2000 Plus schemes is the education component. I think it is very easy to say that the uptake of this retirement assistance package was not what was expected. Perhaps part of the reason for that is so many other things were introduced at the same time that enabled farmers who perhaps might have taken up the package to improve their viability by continuing education, building up their farms and taking up the myriad of other opportunities this government has made available to them. This scheme was introduced by this government in 1997 as part of a sustained approach to provide economic impetus and support for the rural sector. Since then the package has delivered unprecedented backing to all elements of the agricultural industry through enhanced competitiveness, viability and therefore profitability. But at the same time, the Agriculture Advancing Australia project included provision to assist those farmers struggling to cope financially in the form of this Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme. Since being introduced in September 1997 the retirement assistance initiative has served as a reassuring safety net for some 1,400 retiring Australian farmers and their families. The retirement assistance scheme allows older farmers to transfer their farm to the next generation without jeopardising their access to age pension payments or, where applicable, service pensions. As mentioned by the previous speaker, this bill seeks to extend this invaluable scheme by nine months to 30 June next year and, in doing so, allows more farmers to utilise the benefits and pass their farm operation on to younger generations without penalty.This retirement assistance most benefits farmers who are confronted with financial difficulty because their farm business has to provide a livelihood for two families when, in reality, the operation has the capacity to support only one. It does so by removing a significant barrier to the transfer of the family farm from one generation to the next, that being the delay for retiring farmers in receiving pension assistance. They will be able to pass on their farm to their children as a going concern, confident that the new owners will be able to make a more viable living, and they will receive pension support immediately.From a broader community perspective, maintaining the farm in family hands will foster greater economic confidence and allow long-time farm couples to retire in dignity and comfort. This extension of the scheme will not change the eligibility criteria. Farmers will still need to qualify by meeting the same conditions that have applied for the past three years—some of which were mentioned by the previous speaker—those being that the net value of the farm must be no more than $500,000, that retiring farmers must have owned the property for at least 15 years or been actively involved in farming for 20 years, that retiring farmers must have had an average income less than the age pension rate in the previous three years, and that the next generation to which the property is being handed must have had an active involvement in the farm for the three years prior to the transfer.Quite clearly conditions need to be placed on a scheme such as this because it is targeted at those farmers who are the least viable. I am sure that if, for example, the criterion for the net value of the farm were increased to $1.5 million, we would hear squeals of protest from the opposition saying that it was too generous. The noise made by the opposition, on the one hand, is about farmers not having taken up this program while, on the other hand, they accept that there still need to be conditions so that farmers in the target group are the ones who are actually taking it up. By extending this worthwhile program, the government will have contributed to a stronger farming community and allowed older farmers—including numerous armed forces veterans—to retire having placed the family farm in safe hands. Coupled with federal initiatives such as the recently announced $18 million Farm Innovation program to financially back new ideas in the farm sector, this government is constantly making new ground in boosting the fortunes of primary producers. Such an approach is particularly critical in my electorate of Parkes in western New South Wales, where we face many challenges. We have a limited ability to diversify, so any assistance to provide innovation on the farm is most welcome. There are many other significant impediments placed in the way of young farmers in my part of the world and in other areas of New South Wales, not the least the savage restrictions the New South Wales Labor government have placed on clearing. There are many areas both in my electorate and in other parts of New South Wales where young farmers have bought country and have cleared small parcels of that country with the intention of clearing more in a sensible and sustainable way to pay off the loan and provide an income and a lifestyle for their family. Many of these farmers have had the wool pulled from under their feet when the Labor government in New South Wales changed the rules, severely restricting farmers' ability to plant crop and therefore severely restricting their ability to produce an income. In fact, many young farmers from my part of the world have actually up and left the farm because of the impositions the state Labor government have placed on them.As a predominantly sheep grazing and wool-producing area, the impact on farmers of a slump in the world wool market and commodity prices has been dramatic and long term in some areas. Emerging alternative farming methods and products, ably supported through the funding efforts of this government, augur well for the next generation of farmers to take control of the farm operation. Freed from the burden of trying to provide income for two families, the farm's chances of remaining a viable income source are increased. But in the state's far west, where the options for farming other than sheep grazing are more limited, the drought has greatly aggravated the economic situation. Here the prospects for two-family farm operations are most dire, and it is in these communities that support mechanisms such as retirement assistance for farmers are most needed and appreciated. It is essential that governments continue to offer incentive and support to the farming communities that are the cultural heart of areas such as western New South Wales. The more farmers' offspring that can be kept on the land, the more a confident sense of economic security and stability can be maintained in our small rural communities. The curse of the asset-rich but cash-poor farmer is well recognised. By extending this assistance scheme, we continue to right the wrongs of fiscal circumstance for older farmers on less profitable holdings.Small communities, in my area and in others, rely heavily on the economic wellbeing of the surrounding farming operations and, as a result, the balance between remaining a service town or becoming a virtual ghost town is a delicate one. By striving to provide both the incentive to excel on the one hand and a safety net for embattled older farmers on the other, this government is meeting its commitment to the people in the non-metropolitan heartland of this country. In areas hardest hit by the reversal in the fortunes of traditional produce, this scheme is a commonsense approach to delivering the best outcomes for individual farmers and the wider communities in which they live. I look forward to seeing the uptake of this scheme in the next nine months. As the previous speaker noted, it is an emotional decision for farmers who have worked and lived on the same farm or in the same area for all of their lives and the lives of their ancestors. It is not surprising that the uptake of such a scheme has perhaps not been what was predicted, but giving the farmers another nine months to consider their positions and make the decision that will put them and their families in the best possible position in the future will be welcome. I commend this bill to the House.20:44:0019010Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I rise to speak on the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme Extension Bill 2000. I note with interest the comments by the member for Parkes, for whom I have the greatest admiration as he is a dedicated member for his area. He mentioned that the uptake was not as expected, and I hope in this contribution to suggest exactly why. I suggest the criteria that apply to this legislation exclude those who by any judgment should qualify for access to this scheme. In March 1999, the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services announced a review of the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme. That review was to address the extent to which the scheme is meeting its objectives, having regard to targeting and take-up rates, the factors which promote or inhibit access to the scheme, and the justification for and cost and equity of any suggested changes to the eligibility criteria. Having dealt with many RAFS cases over the preceding two years, I took a keen interest in that review. But, after I had waited over a year and after my office had contacted the review on a number of occasions, it became quite obvious the review's findings were unlikely to be made public. In April this year, I placed a series of questions directed at the Minister for Family and Community Services on the Notice Paper. The questions were aimed at trying to ascertain what the outcome of the review, commenced over a year previously, had been. I asked:Is the three year window for gifting of family farm assets under the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme scheduled to end on 15 September 2000; if so, why is the Government yet to respond publicly to the review provided to the Minister in mid 1999 by the Minister's Department.The minister's response, received on 9 May 2000, budget day, was:Yes, the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme which provides a three year `window of opportunity' for low income, pension age farmers and their partners to gift their farms to the younger generation, retire from farming and qualify for the age pension is due to finish on 15 September 2000. The departmental review of the scheme is currently being considered by the Government in the 2000-2001 Budget context.I asked:Among other things, was the purpose of the departmental review referred to in part (1) to (a) assess the extent to which the scheme was meeting its objectives, (b) assess the factors which promote or inhibit access to it and (c) examine the justification for, and the cost and equity of, any changes to the eligibility criteria for the scheme and its extension past September 2000.The response was yes to all parts. I asked:Will the Department's report be made public, if not, why not.The minister's response was:The Government is currently considering the future of the scheme in the context of the 2000-2001 Budget. No decision has been made as to whether the departmental report will be made public.I further asked:Has the Minister's attention been drawn to problems people have had accessing the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme because of the rigidity of the eligibility criteria, including the problems (a) resulting from the requirement that assets be personally gifted, rather than gifted from a company or trust and (b) caused by the treatment of equitable interests such as life estates.The response was yes to both aspects. Thankfully the minister was at least aware of the types of complex problems I had dealt with in my office. I asked further:Will the Government extend the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme; if so, what changes will be made to the eligibility criteria ...The response was:(5)(a) The Government is considering the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme and the need for any changes to the scheme in the context of the 2000-2001 Budget.(b)The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme has been effective as a welfare measure to assist needy farmers. As at 28 March 2000 more than 1550 farmers and their partners have been successful in being granted an age or service pension or an increase in their rate of income support payment under the scheme. This is in line with initial estimates that the scheme would assist some 2100 farmers and their partners during the full life of the scheme.That night the Treasurer announced that the cut-off for the RAF Scheme would be extended nine months, from 15 September until 30 June 2001.In introducing the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme Extension Bill 2000 to this place on 29 June, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration claimed:Since its introduction in September 1997, the scheme has assisted more than 1,400 retiring farmers and their partners. On the one hand, we had the minister saying in May that some 1,550 out of a planned 2,100 farmers had been able to access the scheme. On the other hand, a month or so later we were told that the scheme had assisted more than 1,400 retiring farmers. I hope the minister can let this place know exactly how many people have been able to access the scheme and also, importantly, how many have missed out. In fact, this parliament has a right to know just what the departmental review of the scheme found.When the bill was introduced, the parliamentary secretary made no mention of the review whatsoever, no mention of the extent to which the scheme was meeting its objectives, no mention of any factors which have promoted or inhibited access to the scheme and no explanation of why the decision had been taken to extend the scheme without altering its eligibility criteria. I also note there is nothing in the explanatory memorandum that sheds any light on these issues either. As is so often in its dealings in this House, the government—and no doubt the previous government was the same when I was not in this place—expects this place to neatly pass the bill and to rubber-stamp it without providing its members, the non-government ones at least, with any real detail about how the policy has performed over the last three years.I call on the minister to explain to this place whether any decision has yet been made about whether his department's review of the scheme will be made public. I further ask the minister to allow that review to be tabled in this place and, if that cannot be done, to explain why not. I can understand why the government may not have wished to make the review public prior to the budget, but now that that extension has been announced surely there should not be a problem. This is of course unless there is something in the report which suggests that more than just a mere extension of the policy was required or that it has not been as effective as some would have us believe. Members need to know what the outcome of the review was so they can make an informed decision about whether the proposed response is the best way to go.The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme intended to allow older farmers to transfer ownership of the farm to a younger generation, to retire and to gain access to the age pension. It did this by allowing farmers, subject to certain strict criteria, to gift their family farm and avoid the social security assets test which otherwise deems gifted assets as assessable for five years after the gift is made. The scheme was developed from a recommendation from the special rural task force, established by the government shortly after it came to power in 1996. That task force examined the impact of the social security assets test on rural customers. The scheme originally offered a three-year moratorium or `window of opportunity', which was to have run from September 1997 to September this year. During those three years, farmers otherwise excluded by the social security gifting rules might gain access to the pension.When the government announced the scheme, it estimated its cost during that three-year period would be $77.6 million. Yet as of March 2000, according to management information provided by Centrelink, actual expenditure on the scheme amounted to just over $10 million. The estimated cost of the extension is $9 million. The obvious question is: what happened to the other $55 million or so that has not been used by the scheme? Perhaps the minister can provide this place with an explanation about that also. The funds budgeted were so underspent they seem to me to point to problems with the criteria. The stipulations may be too onerous, as was argued by me and others in this place and the other place when the original legislation was considered. To have $55 million or so not spent also suggests that there is room to move to further loosen the eligibility criteria for the scheme to allow more suitable retiring farmers to access the assistance.The member for Corio outlined the criteria that must be met. I will not repeat those, except to say that under those criteria a younger generation must have been actively involved in the farm for the three years immediately before the transfer. The member for Parkes pointed to—and no doubt other speakers in this debate will—the absolute necessity to maintain the family farm unit in rural Australia and, if possible, to ease that transition from one generation to the next. I put it to the House in this debate that the criteria that have been applied are excluding people who by any definition should access the scheme. The criteria for assessing the scheme are onerous. When the bill putting in place the RAF Scheme came before this place on 2 June 1998 I applauded the government on its initiative. I said it was the first time such a move had been introduced, I said it was sorely needed and I said it was welcomed in the community, but I also argued the government should look more deeply at how meaningful it would be and how many people would really be assisted by it with the thresholds being so strict. In particular, I supported the moves by the National Farmers Federation and the Democrats to increase the farm value threshold—not to $1½ million, as has been suggested—from $500,000 to $800,000. As with the totally inadequate property valuation included in the tax integrity measures bill, the government seems locked into the $500,000 farm valuation threshold. For what reason I am not quite sure. I also supported at the time the moves to increase the annual income cut-off from the maximum pension rate to $20,000 per annum. Throughout the life of the policy I and my staff have dealt with a large number of inquiries from people who have faced problems accessing the scheme. These cases have demonstrated to me a number of problem areas within the legislation. This extension bill could have rectified these, but instead because we are keeping the legislation in its current form they will remain. The first of these problems is the requirement that retiring farmers personally gift what the legislation calls their `qualifying interest'. This requirement did not appear to take into account the many farming enterprises owned and operated through a company structure. In order to access the scheme, farmers operating their property through a company must first transfer ownership of the property from the company to themselves personally and then to their children. This caused problems on two fronts: first, the extra legal expenses incurred in the double transfer and, second, the state stamp duty impost on the transfer.For a qualifying retiring farmer running their farm through a company structure, depending on the value of their property, stamp duty in the range of $20,000 to $30,000 was not out of the question. Obviously such an amount would be beyond the means of a retiring farmer with income in the range which would allow him access to the scheme. Thankfully, after numerous representations the solution was found to this problem, not at the federal level but at the state level. I do not know what happened in other states but in at least one case I dealt with the New South Wales state government saw the impracticality of the federal legislation. It waived the stamp duty in order to allow the transfer to go through and the applicant to access the pension. I do commend the New South Wales government for at least applying some commonsense to its stamp duty legislation. I wonder though just how widespread such exemptions are and whether there are people out there who have not been able to access the scheme because of the stamp duty burden. This is the sort of thing the department's review, if made public, could tell members.The second problem area related to the treatment of farming ventures run through trusts. In particular, there was some confusion spelt out to me about whether a trustee of a trust that holds a farming property has a `qualifying interest' in that property under the terms of the scheme. While the legislation specified that only legal estates or interests were treated as `qualifying interests' under the scheme, Centrelink's policy document interpreting that section stated that `a farmer who is a trustee of a trust which owns the farms and farm assets has a qualifying interest in the farm'. Arguments were put by the solicitors of at least one applicant I represented that such a trustee held an equitable—not legal—interest, and therefore the department's interpretation conflicted with general legal principles. Thankfully, in that case a one-off solution was eventually reached for the applicant, but only because the trustee farmer's name did not appear on the title documents of the land held by the trust. Once again, that solution was reached only after many representations, both legal and political, made on his behalf. The question must be asked: how many people in similar circumstances missed out? Yet another matter which perhaps the department's report shed some light on. Another problem area with the policy lies in the property valuations used by Centrelink. I recall dealing with the case of at least one Orange district farmer where the valuation used was far in excess of the going market rate for similar properties. Once again, after considerable representations a solution was reached in that case, but only after the valuers admitted they had erred in their valuations.Another problem area with the scheme lies in the requirement that the entire farming enterprise be transferred. My office has had a long involvement with one case where this requirement appeared to have an unfair and perhaps unintended impact. The applicant had transferred his property to his son in 1995 but had not transferred the full property at Manildra. He had kept 50 acres surrounding the house in his own name. The reason why he had not transferred the full property was that at the time he could not afford the surveying and consequential expenses associated with having the house and surrounding two hectares removed from the land transfer. The 50 acres already apparently existed on a separate title. He has derived no income from that acreage which is farmed with the rest by his son, but since 1995 he has had his pension reduced under the social security asset test deeming provisions. And I reckon that is unfair.When RAFS was announced, he applied for it and, by applying, he hoped he would not have to wait the full five years before getting his pension increased—nor, I suggest, should he have. The veteran constituent had taken his application for RAFS through the Department of Veterans' Affairs internal review process. It was rejected at every stage. His appeal was ultimately rejected by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal a month or so ago. That farmer's five years is now up and he can finally access the higher pension under the normal rules. But he wrote to me recently expressing his frustration at the two-year ordeal he went through—and I say `needlessly'. He wrote among other things:... the point I am making is that everything one reads in the Veterans Affairs Newspaper, the indication one gets from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Minister concerned the Hon. Bruce Scott and the Howard Government is that they are bending over backward to make life easier for war veterans ... what I consider is that I have got just about the opposite. What that case and many of the others I dealt with demonstrated to me was that many applicants found it difficult to get detailed information about the scheme and that they had difficulty, especially in the more complex cases, in being able to talk with people in Centrelink who had a solid understanding of the scheme's requirements. The complexity of the scheme was apparent from the large number of constituents I dealt with who had had to seek independent legal advice to decipher the laws and run their cases. Surely it was not the government's intention that applicants, most of whom had very limited financial means, would need to resort to solicitors to comprehend the scheme. This, if anything, suggests to me that amendments to the legislation and not just extension are necessary.The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme has undoubtedly helped the 1,400—or is it 1,550?—farmers who have been fortunate enough to meet the strict eligibility criteria. But one wonders how many worthy and justified applicants have missed out. I recall when the original RAFS legislation was introduced in 1998 that I received a letter from a Malcolm Martin of Coonabarabran who argued that only two per cent of retiring farmers were likely to qualify for the scheme. I said at the time I thought that claim was rather extreme. But, in considering this extension bill, this place deserves to know just how successful the scheme has been in meeting its objectives. As I did with the original bill, I offer my support for the bill. I would hope the government seriously reviews the value of this legislation in the interests of those farmers who deserve to access the pension but who have been unfairly missed out under this current regime for which $77 million was set aside but only $19 million will be spent even after this extension is taken into account. 21:03:0019014St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise in support of the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme Extension Bill 2000, which extends an act that has already delivered enormous benefits to the local communities in rural and regional Australia. The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme Extension Bill 2000 extends to 30 June 2001 the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme, which was expected to conclude on the 14th of next month. In 1996 this government constituted a special rural task force to investigate the impact of social security assets tests on farmers. The task force has also considered the effect of social security assets tests on the intergenerational transfer of the family farm. The task force report found that disposal provisions meant that farmers were frequently unable to transfer the farm as they could be precluded from the pension for five years. The report noted existing provisions hindered rather than encouraged the process. One farmer quoted by the task force observed:... if I give the farm away my wife and I will have no money to live on for the next five years until we become eligible for the pension ... due to harsh conditions we haven't been able to return enough profit to support two families.How often have we who live in rural and regional Australia heard that said? The task force found that structures to support long-term planning either had not been available or had been too expensive for farmers to access. It recommended that, in order to ease the transfer of the farm, a temporary exemption from the disposal provisions should be provided where farms were to be transferred through to the children. As a response to the perceived needs of the rural sector, the government introduced its Agriculture Advancing Australia package. The AAA package provides both incentives for farm adjustment to ensure that there is an efficient and competitive farm sector and a welfare safety net for farmers. The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme is yet another initiative of this government when it came to power in 1996. This initiative is part of the Agriculture Advancing Australia package—better known as the AAA package—which was introduced by this government in 1997 to ensure a strong, ongoing future for this nation's farming sector. The aim of the AAA package is to help the rural sector to be more competitive, sustainable and profitable by focusing on four key objectives: to help farmers profit from change, to give farmers access to an effective welfare safety net, to provide incentives for ongoing farm adjustment, and to encourage social and economic development in rural areas.I would like to remind the House and particularly those on the other side how successful the AAA package has been. More than 30,000 farmers have used the FarmBis program to improve their skills and training. Around 80 per cent of depositors have transferred their deposits from the former income equalisation deposit and farm management bond schemes to farm management deposits to take advantage of this attractive tax-effective risk management tool. The Farm Family Restart Scheme has helped more than 4,000 farmers in financial difficulty, while the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme has helped 1,484 retiring farmers in Australia. This includes 437 retiring farmers in New South Wales. In my electorate of New England, RAFS has helped 41 retiring farmers to pass on their farms to a younger generation and remain eligible for the age pension.The cornerstones of the AAA package are the effective measures to address the key issues of rural adjustment, farm business risk management and skills development, drought, farm family welfare and rural community development. Unlike the opposition, those on this side of the House are deeply committed to the people of rural and regional Australia and do recognise that things have been tough in the bush for the best part of the last decade. Labor failed to provide programs to support farm families to manage change on the land. I would like to say that again: Labor failed to provide programs to support farm families to manage change on the land or, if necessary, to leave farming with dignity. The Labor Party did not devote significant resources to education and training opportunities for farmers. With its Farm Household Support Scheme, Labor provided essentially a short-term loans scheme for farmers obliged to exit the industry. May I remind the House that this was subject to a means test, similar to what they suggest they might bring in for private health insurance—not very supportive, as it is now. This government abolished this ineffective scheme and forgave the outstanding debts in the scheme to the value of $5 million. The farm sector is critical to Australia's future prosperity. Improving the profitability, sustainability and competitiveness of our farmers will deliver benefits for everyone. In short, it will advance Australia. This government has laid a solid economic foundation through lower interest rates, a reduction in the value of the Australian dollar, and reforms in areas such as the labour market which had impacted on our national competitiveness and had been real barriers to the growth of our export industries and, of course, to our farmers.The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme provides an opportunity for eligible low income, pension-age farmers to gift their farms to a younger generation without affecting their age pension and to retire from farming. The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme addition to existing provisions allows farmers to get immediate access to the age pension. The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme is also open to eligible farmers who had transferred their farms to a younger generation after 15 September 1992. This helps many families living in hardship because their farms cannot support more than one family.The main eligibility criteria for the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme are that the net value of the farm must be no more than $500,000; that retiring farmers must have owned the property for at least 15 years or have been actively involved in farming for 20 years; that retiring farmers must have had an average income less than the age pension rate in the preceding three years; and that the next generation must have had an active involvement in the farm for the three years prior to that transfer.Where the farmer keeps the right to live on the farm after it has been transferred, the value of the home will not be included in the $500,000. Any equity in the farm enterprise held by the person to whom the farm is being transferred will also be excluded. Its extension for a further nine months will allow more farmers to reap the benefits of the scheme and they will be able to pass their farm on to their children, providing their family not only with a going concern but with a good sense of continuity and belonging to their community. At the same time, it will allow retiring farmers immediate access to the age pension or the service pension. The extension of this initiative, costing around $9 million over the next four years, will further contribute to a strong farming industry and will enable older farmers, including many veterans, to retire with peace of mind, leaving a proud legacy to the younger generation. This bill also makes amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Amendments to this act extend the operation of the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme for the same time period to 30 June 2000.In conclusion, this is the lucky country. For years Australia relied on the agricultural industry for the country's income, often being referred to as `riding on the sheep's back'. Now that the retiring farmers on whom society relied so heavily for the nation's income a few decades ago are in need of a little help, I am glad that this government has been able to provide that help for them. I commend the bill to the House.21:12:0019016Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—It is a pleasure to rise this evening to address the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme Extension Bill 2000. Really, those of us from rural electorates are keen to welcome this bill. I would like to cover some of the various elements in relation to it. The idea of this proposal stemmed from the Special Rural Task Force, which I suppose you could describe as the Tambling committee, because it was headed up by Senator Grant Tambling. It covered a range of issues looking at the way the social security network impacted on rural areas. Going to the explanation that that committee put together in its report on the impact of gifting provisions, I will quote what they had to say about gifting provisions—that is, those gifting provisions that applied at the time; and we are talking at the moment of those established in September 1996. The committee ran for a period of four months and, in its report, it said that the gifting provisions that applied at that time meant that:... people may be excluded from a pension or allowance, or have their entitlements reduced for a period of five years, if they give away assets over $10,000 per year (the value of these assets are still counted in the person's total assets). In addition, deemed income is calculated on the amount gifted over $10,000 and this is counted as income under the person's income test during the five year period. The rationale is that those with substantial assets should use them to provide for their own support, rather than dispose of them. These rules apply to all Social Security payments but the issue is particularly relevant to older farmers seeking a pension.These provisions mean that if a farmer wishes to retire and give (ie pass ownership of) the farm to the next generation, they could be precluded from a pension for five years.That was the situation as it applied as laid out by the Tambling committee, that Special Rural Task Force, in its report dated January 1997. But, of course, there were many problems with the regime and that difficulty laid out and identified by the committee. For example, it gave a couple of illustrations of cases that were submitted to the committee, and I will give one here. On page 34 of the committee's report, it quotes a farmer from New South Wales saying that:My problem is if I give the farm away my wife and I will have no money to live on for the next five years until we become eligible for the pension. While the property is a good one and we are both good managers, due to the economic conditions over the past seven years, and also a major bush fire six years ago, we haven't been able to return enough profit to reasonably support two families.That is one example, and there are also more on page 28 of that report. Another states:A widow of four years applied for widow's allowance because she has two sons home on the farm (one is married with three children). She was told that she was ineligible and that she should look for work. She wasn't successful and was then told she would have to sell the farm. With two sons who know no other lifestyle she felt she could not sell the farm. Yet there is insufficient income to keep three families.It continues:Now that stamp duty has been abolished, she will be able to transfer the farm over to her sons but will still have to wait five years for any assistance.Those examples make very clear the extent of the problem that was confronted by the Special Rural Task Force that in the end led to the establishment of the provisions that we are discussing tonight. That task force, in recommendation No. 15 of its report, stated:That to facilitate the inter-generational transfer of farm assets, a short term (eg two year) moratorium on the five year gifting provisions be applied for farmers planning retirement (from 63 years) or of pension age to give individual families a one off "window of opportunity" to plan and transfer the family farm. Qualification would be conditional upon:. active involvement of the second generation in the farm operations for a minimum previous three years;. an off farm assets test not exceeding the applicable assets test threshold;. an income test consisting of average income over the previous three year period being less than the pension rate; and. application to one farming enterprise.It then stated:Such a moratorium should be strongly promoted to the farming community.Such a proposal should be promoted very strongly in the farming community because it is exactly the kind of provision that the farming community was crying out for at that time. What ensued following the completion of the report of the Special Rural Task Force was consideration of that issue by the government and a decision by the government to include the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme proposal in the AAA package, the Agriculture Advancing Australia package.Perhaps I can go into the elements of that because the AAA package was a very positive innovation and it provided a range of important measures that continue to assist agriculture in Australia. This particular part of it, the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme, was introduced in the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Act 1998. That was given royal assent on 2 July 1998. When that scheme was introduced, these were the provisions that went along with it. As well as applying to people who fell within the period of the operation of the scheme—it was to start on 15 December 1997 and it was due for completion at the end of September 2000—it also applied to those who had transferred title to the new generation any time in the previous five years. That I think is a very welcome and generous provision that was provided by the government.These are the circumstances that were applied to it, and I think members should reflect on the way this reflects the recommendations of the Special Rural Task Force. For example, it stated that the farm, except for the family home, must be transferred and that the value of the farm should be equal to or less than $500,000. It could not be transferred from a company but from a farmer or from a partnership involving the farmer and a spouse. Those people would have to have been in farming for 15 years. It was income and means tested and compared with the pension, as suggested by this special rural task force. Also, that comparison with the pension and that income would have been tested over a period of three years. The person who is the transferee under the requirements must have a farming background; also the transferee is required to be actively involved in farming for the three-year period prior to the transfer. Obviously, if you compare one with the other, the decision by the government very strongly reflects the position that the rural community was telling the government to adopt.I have had the privilege, I suppose you might say, of listening to the member for Calare discuss this proposal tonight. I appreciate the comments he made because I am about to move into the area of discussing the criticisms that have been raised about this particular piece of legislation and the proposal that we confront now to extend it to June next year, which is a nine-month extension.It is okay, I think, for people to bring attention to those criticisms, but the member for Calare is in the position of being an Independent who has chosen not to take part in policy development and not to submit himself to the discipline of being part of a party and having to develop a regime of policy making that fits the environment and is accountable. When you are in a position like that, you get the opportunity to adopt whatever level of criticism people want to throw at a scheme without necessarily having to follow up or be accountable yourself.It was interesting to hear what the member for Calare had to say. I will discuss some of the criticism that has been raised in relation to this bill too, but I think members do have to give credit where it is due. In the words of the member for Calare, this program has undoubtedly assisted rural communities in Australia, so I think we should listen to that part of his speech much more closely than the other rabbiting on he did about some of the problems that apply.Let us look at some of those problems. Farm groups said that the value of the property should be $800,000. To demonstrate the applicability of that figure, they used a 1997 farm survey report which said that the average value of farm businesses at that time was $968,000. That is probably a criticism you could take on board, but you have to remember that the purpose of this legislation is to address people who are really going to benefit from being able to move forward their entitlement to a pension. We are not talking about people who are at the upper end of the rural industry; we are talking about people who are operating a farm but wish to move on to a pension. I think the figure of $500,000 is appropriate in many cases in my electorate. I know that there would be people in higher levels than this, but I think one of the difficulties has been that people find themselves trapped, in effect, on a farm when it is no longer productive and when they really do need to move on to a pension. That is the problem that this legislation has been very effective in addressing, and I think credit deserves to be given in relation to that. There was also criticism that there needed to be more flexibility to allow people to work off farm. I tend to support that, because the overwhelming trend at present with the falling commodity prices that we face and the difficulties that are emerging for people on the land—particularly when we are talking about a small holding with not much opportunity for people to make big profits—is that many of them are turning to off-farm income as a way of supplementing their existence. So this is really something that can be considered and perhaps addressed by the government in another way; certainly it could be addressed by way of more flexibility in this regard.There was also criticism that there needs to be more time for succession planning in rural industries. I think we could apply this right across the board. I notice that the library's briefing on this issue that was given to members of parliament quoted a Western Australian survey which said that, when it comes to the problems of succession, only 14 per cent of farmers were succession planning. It said that, in 51 of 67 cases, difficulties in relation to succession planning had led to disagreements among those farming families. You could certainly argue that in no way can a piece of legislation, no matter how effective, serve to remove the personal element of transferring something as valuable and emotionally important as a family farm between generations. You will not get away from those kinds of difficulties and you will not get away from the problem of the older generation wanting to hang on, protect the asset and ensure that, for example, there is not going to be a marriage breakdown in the younger generation which may result in problems.After two years of seeing the system in operation, I think we can say that it has been very successful. It was reviewed by the Department of Family and Community Services, and after year one it was found that 716 farmers and spouses had been assisted by the program. By June 2000, there had been 1,400 farmers and spouses assisted by it. However, I note that Senator Newman quoted a figure of 1,550 people who had been assisted by it as of 28 March 2000.What is great about this bill we are looking at tonight is that we are going to be extending this program and opening it up for people to access right through until the end of this financial year. We have a nine-month extension. We have the opportunity for farmers to access that scheme right through until the year 2003-04, and the cost of that extension is quoted as being something like $7.5 million. It has been a very effective program and I really do think members from rural areas will welcome its longer introduction. It has been a complement to and a very important feature of the Agriculture Advancing Australia program.In closing, I would like to reflect on some of the important developments that that package brought to Australian farms. For example, it included the creation of the tax linked Farm Management Deposit Scheme. It included $50 million for the extension of business management skills under the Farm Business Improvement Program, known as FarmBis. It allowed older farmers to transfer the ownership of the family farm to the younger generation—the very issue which we have addressed tonight. That was cited at the time as having a value of $77 million. It also continued the exceptional circumstances assistance to farmers through two different provisions. It also provided the Farm Family Restart Scheme, introduced from 1 December 1997, which was worth $120 million. And it included the improved Rural Communities Program, worth a total of $40 million, to provide assistance to rural communities.The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme is worth while. It has now been in place since royal assent was granted on 2 July 1998. I would like to say on behalf of primary producers in my area that it has resulted in many positive applications and many people have been able to overcome problems that many of them, I honestly believe, had thought were insurmountable. In closing, I would like to welcome its extension and urge members to continue to look for other ways in which we can assist the intergenerational transfer of farms because of course this is the way in which we drive up the productivity of these farms. We have a problem where the farming community is an ageing community. In some of the material that I have here, it is stated that the average age of farmers is 55. I would swear that that age is going up. I am sure members are keen to see more keen young farmers brought into the system, so that we can look to the future and find new ways to boost productivity, new methods and new profitability not only for the farmers themselves but for the communities out there that are desperately reliant on a profitable rural sector. 21:32:0019019Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—In summing up, I would firstly like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme Extension Bill 2000. I note that some concerns have been raised by the opposition—in fact, they have put forward an amendment—and the member for Calare had some concerns on which I would like to comment during my summing up.This bill extends the successful Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme for a further nine months, as members on this side of the House have pointed out, until 30 June 2001. The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme is a key initiative of the Agriculture Advancing Australia, or what became commonly known as the AAA package, which was an initiative of this federal government, introduced by the then minister for agriculture and now Deputy Prime Minister. The AAA package has delivered unprecedented support to the rural sector and is ensuring a strong ongoing future for our nation's farming sector, focusing very heavily on the competitiveness, the sustainability, the productivity and, importantly also, the profitability of our farming sector. The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme provides older farmers with an opportunity to transfer their farms to the younger generation without affecting their access to service pensions, for those who are eligible for them through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and also to age pensions for those who are eligible to access them.At the time the scheme was introduced, the departmental submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which examined the original bill, estimated that 2,100 farmers would be able to apply and qualify for the pension under the Rural Assistance for Farmers Scheme. I note that the opposition's amendment suggests that, whilst they do not want to decline to give the bill a second reading, they are talking about a figure of something like 10,000 farmers to retire with dignity and control of their farm assets passing into the next generation. In other words, they are saying that the government is failing to meet its target. I refer the opposition to the departmental submission given to that Senate committee. The submission's original target was 2,100 farmers. I am not quite sure where the opposition got their figure of 10,000 from. It seems to be something that was plucked out of the air, or perhaps it might have come out of the Hobart conference. But if the opposition care to look at the department's submission given at that Senate committee, they will see quite clearly that the original target—the estimated number of farmers that would benefit from the scheme—was 2,100. As of 30 June 2000, some 1,724 farmers have accessed the scheme. With the extension of the scheme for a further nine months, this will enable additional farmers to qualify for the assistance.The member for Calare suggested in his comments on this bill that there were originally an estimated 1,550 farmers who may benefit from the scheme. He is suggesting now that only 1,400 have been able to benefit. He commented that the numbers that were suggested earlier this year have declined. I can only suggest to the member for Calare that perhaps he has looked at the numbers of those who have accessed the scheme who have been able to access an age pension through Centrelink—in other words, the Centrelink numbers, which are 1,400. The numbers that perhaps he has not looked at are those who have been able to access a Department of Veterans' Affairs entitlement—in other words, a service pension—through my own Department of Veterans' Affairs, which are 324 farmers. So I refer the member to those figures because as at 30 June some 1,724 farmers have accessed the scheme—and that figure is made up of those two components. I also noted the comments of the member for Calare in relation to a report that he has been trying to gain access to. I will certainly make sure that the Minister for Family and Community Services is aware of his comments in relation to that report. The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme has successfully aided farmers who have been experiencing hardship—I know in my own electorate there are many in this category—and who also wish to retire. This scheme has enabled them to pass on the farm to the next generation so that we can get intergenerational transfer of the farm asset. That means that there will be a continuation of the tradition of the family farm. It has also eased the financial burden of trying to find sufficient income from one farm to support two or more families. That is an extremely important point and why this scheme has been very successful. The bill does not alter any of the other eligibility requirements of the scheme. Farmers will need to meet the eligibility criteria of the scheme as it has been operating for the last three years. So the criteria are not changing; we are extending the bill for a further nine months to 30 June 2001. With more than 1,724 farmers and their partners who have accessed and benefited from this scheme, I believe that this nine-month extension will enable even more farmers to retire and have immediate access to an age or a service pension. I commend the bill to the House. Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.19021Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott) read a third time.Bills19021R110019021Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.21:40:0019021Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 provides for supplementary funding for this year in line with price movements. It also provides a base amount of $931 million for 2001. These funds are directed through the Australian National Training Authority to the states and territories. The first thing to note about the funding which this bill appropriates for next year is that those funds will not automatically flow to the states and territories. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, makes it clear in his second reading speech that the Commonwealth funding is subject to `finalising a satisfactory amended ANTA agreement'. Why should this be an issue? Because with the expiry this year of the current ANTA agreement the minister is again trying to impose on the states an unfair, unbalanced and unreasonable arrangement which reduces the proportion of the Commonwealth's contribution to the national vocational education funding. The total number of vocational education students grew from $1.3 million in 1996 to 1.6 million in 1999—an increase of 22 per cent. Yet no growth funding has been provided by the Howard government. Not only has there been no growth funding to support growth in the system, but vocational education and training has suffered destructive cuts in both the 1996 and 1997 budgets. As you are well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, that has meant that ANTA, our national vocational education training system, has lost at least $240 million because of the cuts that the Howard government has made.In 1997 the minister tried to force the states to sign a new ANTA agreement covering five years with all the expected growth to be funded by the states through so-called efficiencies. After months of acrimony, after months of bitter fighting, the agreement was eventually signed but only for a three-year life. Each state government which has appeared before the Senate inquiry into vocational education told the committee that the system cannot tolerate any more growth through efficiencies without serious damage to the quality of training. This also included the conservative state governments in South Australia and Western Australia. They understand that there is no more blood to be wrung from the stone. After three years on the minister's starvation diet, the states are saying, `Enough.' Even the minister admits that growth through efficiencies has well and truly reached its use-by date. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, wrote to the states and territories in May with his proposed changes to the ANTA agreement. One of the changes is the deletion of the growth through efficiencies requirement, thereby even Dr Kemp is acknowledging the states cannot continue to fund growth in this way. In some ways the minister is trying to have a bob each way. His covering letter says that the Commonwealth is `seeking a commitment from the states and territories to strive for ongoing efficiency improvements'. So the Commonwealth wants to continue to shift the growth burden from the Commonwealth onto the states, and it is doing that by simply trying to change the words in the ANTA agreement. The ANTA chief executive officers, the heads of the training departments in each of the states and territories, commissioned a report—a draft of which was finalised in April this year—about future demand for VET. This report found that growth in demand is likely to be up to 5.7 per cent per annum for the next four years. Each one per cent of growth equates to a cost of around $27 million.The minister's department made a separate contribution to the report, but even this admitted likely growth of at least 2.8 per cent a year. To this we need to add the likely impact of the work being done by ANTA on a national marketing strategy. The strategy aims to instil in the Australian community and in Australian enterprises the desire to engage in lifelong learning. It is seeking to identify incentives to improve the uptake of training and to do something about barriers to participation in vocational education and training. To the extent that this strategy is successful, it is likely to increase demand for vocational education and training. So we have here clear documentation that growth is likely to be at least 2.8 per cent a year, as the minister's department has admitted, and may be as high as 5.7 per cent a year, as the ANTA chief executive officers found. In addition to that, we have to add in the effect of ANTA's marketing strategy. Despite this, the Howard government wants to keep the lid screwed down as tight as possible on funding for VET. This is the government which constantly tries to tell us that it is looking after the needs of the 70 per cent of school leavers who do not go on to university.This Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs incessantly talks about vocational education, trying to fill his policy and funding vacuum with meaningless words. He claims that Labor has had nothing to say on this issue. I would suggest that the minister's flimsy 1½-page second reading speech on this bill clearly shows which party has nothing to say on VET. It is the coalition which has nothing to say and no great money to invest in Australia's young people, in Australia's workers, in the future of Australia and its needs in VET. It is the coalition which has made no commitment to making Australia a knowledge nation. The minister talks about strong partnerships involving governments, he talks about Australia's national training system and he talks about the government's so-called commitment to expanding training opportunities for young people. But talk is all he does. Sometimes it is abuse. We have all seen the reports of the minister's behaviour at the recent meeting of training ministers in Melbourne when he sought to bludgeon the Labor and conservative training ministers into an outcome that he was unable to achieve.The Howard Commonwealth government refuses to meet its obligations as a national partner in the national training system. This attitude has had a significant impact on the quality of some training. The minister now pretends that he is interested in the vital issue of quality. He has gone so far as to actually change the name of an existing ANTA board committee to the National Training Quality Council and even put out a media release about it. If the minister was really interested in quality he would provide a decent level of resources to the states and territories rather than insist that growth must be funded from non-realisable efficiencies. In fact, the minister never would have mentioned the word `quality' unless Labor had forced him. He has set up his so-called quality council so he can claim to be addressing the quality problems which never would have arisen had not his privatisation agenda been so enthusiastically pursued by the former conservative governments in Queensland and Victoria. The aggressive and indiscriminate expansion of user choice and competitive tendering in vocational education and training under the Borbidge government in Queensland was a direct result of pressure placed on the Queensland conservative state government by the Howard government. As a result, Labor Premier Peter Beattie inherited a TAFE system in which 50 per cent of institutions were not financially viable. Similar ideological zealotry in Victoria under Jeff Kennett saw some TAFEs facing insolvency with less than a week's operating revenue on hand when Steve Bracks's Labor government was elected to office. Along with the decimation of public VET providers came a decline in quality, starkly outlined in reports by Kaye Schofield on the Queensland, Victorian and Tasmanian systems. The May 2000 Schofield report in Victoria found significant weaknesses in the way training had operated under Kennett. Here are some quotes:Too many instances of non-compliance by both employers and providers with their legal and moral obligations to apprentices and trainees ... insufficient emphasis on the suitability of the workplace environment to workplace training ... significant problems with the User Choice system which are reducing training quality ...Kaye Schofield went on to say:Most disappointing of all is the fact that ... 20% of trainees do not believe they are learning new skills.On user choice, she said:Having regard to all the factors, this Review has concluded that the benefits in terms of quality of shifting the balance in apprenticeships and traineeships from an albeit imperfect client-driven system back to a purchaser- and regulator-driven system are outweighed by the disadvantages.That was in May 2000 in Victoria. Last December, Kaye Schofield reported on the Tasmanian vocational education and training system. She found:Many stakeholders have become increasingly anxious about quality and fearful that quality training is being eroded by policy-driven growth - that the traineeship system is being driven by quantity not quality.She also said:There is some customer concern that traditional apprenticeships and traineeships are no longer valued in the way they once were and that a good deal of training delivery is inappropriate.The July 1994 report done for the Queensland government found that nearly 20 per cent of trainees were receiving no training at all. It even found an instance of a trainee being recorded as completing an entire traineeship in an hour and a half. All those new traineeship figures, those New Apprenticeship figures, that you hear Dr Kemp rabbiting on about in question time every day include traineeships such as these—traineeships completed in an hour and a half. The issue of quality has also been raised in submissions to the Senate VET inquiry. RMI University's submission had this to say:There is circumstantial evidence that, in industry sectors without a tradition of apprenticeship training, employers are using the [New Apprenticeship] Scheme primarily for the employment subsidy and are not necessarily committed to high skills training. This culture is fostered by the fact that providers are aggressively selling traineeships to meet targets, by highlighting the employment subsidy. ... There is a need to turn this employment subsidy and low commitment to training culture around to one where the employer has a clear mutual obligation to contribute resources to the skills development of the apprentice as a primary objective. There is a risk apprenticeships/traineeships will develop a reputation as a low skill, dead end labour market entry mechanism.That is what RMIT's submission to the Senate VET inquiry had to say. The Wodonga Institute of TAFE in their submission says: Small business are currently the major employers of apprentices and trainees, however, they often do not have appropriately qualified staff to support the training of apprentices/trainees or the size of business to ensure a full educational and learning experience.The Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training at the University of Sydney had this to say in its submission to the Senate inquiry:... industry training markets are failing and their operation and performance is having an adverse effect on training quality. In general terms, the training market initiatives are encouraging employers, training providers and trainees to favour the use of the most convenient, most easily administered and most easily accessible courses of training ... Our fieldwork has revealed a very widespread view that some of the most `popular' traineeships such as those in small business, administration and hospitality often involve employers claiming subsidies and employing workers on training wages with relatively little structured training being undertaken.I could go on, but the point is pretty clear: the Howard government's policies are not about investing in valuable and portable employment skills; they are about shoddy targets, bogus numbers which this minister can use for self-promotion in and outside this chamber. But as soon as one looks behind the numbers the superficiality of the claims made by this government are exposed.The centrepiece of the minister's plan is what he calls the `new apprenticeships'. This lumps together both traineeships and traditional style apprenticeships so that he can claim to have massively increased so-called new apprenticeships. For example, statistics compiled by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research show that in 1998 the growth rate in commencements for traineeships in retailing was 56.9 per cent, and for hospitality trainees it was 32 per cent. But for apprenticeships in the electrical and electronics trade it was only 7.3 per cent. For mechanical engineering tradespersons it was only 7.1 per cent, and it was just 2½ per cent for automotive tradespersons. It is no wonder that we are facing skills shortages in these sorts of traditional trades. It is clear that the vocational education and training picture facing Australia is nowhere near as rosy as the minister would have us believe.Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I am sure you, like me, have heard some people make claims about the fact that Australia has certain old economy industries that some people would allege are in permanent decline. I believe very strongly that this artificial divide between the old economy and the new economy is something which not only is completely misleading but can actually result in industries in which Australia has enormous potential suffering for some time to come.Let me just give you two examples to show how ridiculous this old economy-new economy divide is. The Ford Motor Company has been quite radical in the way it has sought to ensure that its staff improve their IT skills. There has been a lot of interest in car companies that are providing to their employees computers for them to build up their IT skills—not just to use them at home, not just to be able to get information from their company more easily, but to ensure that they have got better IT skills for them to use at work, at work in a so-called old economy industry, the manufacture of motor vehicles.Some of these same industries will be using e-commerce to allow a company such as Ford to sell motor vehicles directly to customers through sales over the Internet, completely bypassing the current dealer network. That raises all sorts of issues if you have a Ford dealership, but it certainly makes the point that Ford realises that if it is going to maximise its opportunities in markets in Australia and other countries it not only has to ensure that it is maximising its sales by making sales available online but also has to invest in training its staff. It has to ensure that its staff are fully able to utilise the current developments in IT in the manufacturing process.In contrast, if we were to take a company that might manufacture computers, it is quite possible that a company that was poorly managed, that was not investing in the training of its staff might be manufacturing computers but could be facing all of the difficulties that the so-called experts often attribute to the old economy industries. Whether an industry is old or new, they must be investing more in their staff. Whether an industry is old or new, they have to ensure that the company and the employees are able to utilise the changes that are being delivered by the information revolution that is taking place. Mr Deputy Speaker, it was possible for someone of our generation to leave school and get a job for life. Not many achieved it, but it was possible in our day. These days, when the current generation of kids leave school and seek to get a job we can certainly guarantee that they will not have a job for life; they will have five, 10, 20 careers—20 different jobs—during their working lives. Some of them will need skills in trades. Some of them will need to be able to do things that are completely beyond our imagination today. Some of them will be able to have jobs in industries that have not yet been invented, because of the rapid pace of change, especially in IT. Unless we ensure that the kids who are leaving school today have a solid foundation in basics like literacy and numeracy and have imbued in them a love of learning—not just while they are at school but throughout their lives—they are going to be at a tremendous disadvantage.There are other countries in the world where they are investing more; they are lifting their national investment in education, training and research. The warning bell for Australia is that in our country we are investing less in education, training and research. The percentage of national income that is being invested in these areas is declining. I am sure that is of as much concern to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as it should be to all of us in this House. Whether it is the fact that the country needs to turn around the decline in national investment in research and development, whether it is the fact that the country has to invest more to ensure that kids in disadvantaged communities get a decent start at schools throughout the country, or whether it is to ensure that the country needs to invest more in our TAFE colleges, in private VET providers, we need to be doing more than we are doing today, not less, as this government is doing.In many ways the damage that is being done to our universities, TAFE colleges and schools fits a certain pattern. It is quite easy to understand when you appreciate the ideology that drives the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. He has set out to shift as many students as possible from government schools to private schools and he has come up with a new funding formula that delivers massive increases to some of Australia's wealthiest private schools while implementing an EBA formula that takes money from government schools when they have extra children. That is his agenda to privatise schools. In universities last year we had the Kemp plan to deregulate student fees and scrap HECS, replacing it with a student loan system with real rates of interest. That was all about privatising our public university system. The education minister's agenda in vocational education and training is to continue opening up as much as possible the provision of VET through private providers, even when that places at risk the great work that takes place in our TAFE colleges across the country.We on this side of the House are of course quite happy to work with our colleagues at the state level. I think we demonstrated that at our recent national conference in Hobart, where we outlined a series of initiatives that can improve Australia's performance in areas such as vocational education and training. Let me briefly touch on those. We have argued that one of the first initiatives of a Beazley Labor government will be to establish a series of education priority zones across the country. We are going to pick out several dozen communities where social and educational disadvantage overlap—where the literacy performance of kids is not as high as it should be, where not enough kids are finishing year 12 and where not enough kids are getting a chance to study at TAFE or university. We are going to offer for the first time an active partnership between the federal government and local communities. We are not in the business of writing cheques and posting off our responsibilities; we are going to offer to put extra resources into a local community to help them come up with a practical plan that will address the educational difficulties in their local area. We are prepared to stand behind that funding and give it security for four years. What are our aims in the education priority zones? We want to improve literacy rates, we want to lift those year 12 completion rates and we want more kids to be getting into TAFE and uni. Lots of different ideas have been tried around the country. Since you are in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I will mention my recent visit to Coffs Harbour in your own electorate where the senior college, which is co-located with a TAFE college and the Coffs Harbour campus of Southern Cross University, has done a tremendous job in turning around completion rates for year 12 students and in lifting tertiary participation rates by students in that community. I know that you and many other members of that community have put a lot of effort into supporting that development over many years. I am sure that, if we could replicate the co-location of a TAFE college and a university with every senior high school in the country, we could make a real difference. But of course that is not practical. There can be only so many university campuses throughout the country.But we do know that where the federal or state government is prepared to put extra resources into sensible intervention programs you can turn things around. A person's poor socioeconomic background does not determine how high their level of educational performance can reach. Unfortunately there are many people who have low expectations for kids in poor areas. Often the performance of the students lives up to those low expectations. Sometimes, in communities where not many parents have had the opportunity to study at university or even to have a trade through TAFE, the expectations of those parents for their children are affected, and certainly they are much lower than the expectations of parents in some of the wealthier parts of our capital cities. Often in rural areas students, because of the additional cost of studying away from home, do not have as many opportunities to study at university. In many places there are ways that we can use education to break that cycle of poverty and poor education performance. That is what the education priority zones are all about—that is what we want them to do. That is why we want to work with local communities to help them to draw up their local plan to solve their local problems. This is something that we believe can make a real difference to the several dozen of these zones we will be establishing across the country. Lifting participation rates in vocational education and training is a crucial part of the educational priority plans.What are some of the things that local committees might do in their education priority zone? If there is a school in one of the zones that believes they have to do better in literacy, they might employ more literacy remedial teachers. They might have a program that addresses poor literacy or numeracy performance in the school. It might mean in their local community that they believe the best way to address the difficulties is to invest more in refresher training for teachers—to invest more in professional development for teachers. There is an enormous amount of evidence from the United States from people such as Professor Linda Darling-Hammond that the best way to lift the performance of students in literacy and numeracy tests is to invest in professional development for the teachers—in improving the quality of teaching in the classroom. The states in the USA that have invested most in and focused most on improving the quality of teaching in the classroom have delivered the greatest improvements in the performance of kids in literacy and numeracy. One of the options that could be part of an education priority zone local plan is to invest more in teacher professional development.For too long we have had teachers going through their teacher education training at university doing a modest amount of practical teaching, and we expect them to know everything about teaching. We expect them perhaps to rely on the goodwill of a colleague in the staffroom to help them become excellent teachers. The best teachers know that they have got to continuously work on their teaching practice in the classroom. The best teachers know that they will never be perfect. The best teachers know—especially with the changes in technology—that they are going to have to be always trying to improve and update their skills. We used to have a lot of teachers going back to do postgraduate study at university; there has been a massive decline in that. Through Labor's proposal for teacher development contracts, we are offering to provide a fixed number of contracts each year, funded by the federal government, which will meet the cost of professional development for teachers, and we will offer them a $2,000 completion bonus to encourage them to do this. All we ask of the teachers is that they do this professional development in their own time. Many teachers do that now. It is time the federal government tried to encourage more teachers to do professional development; it is time the federal government tried to demonstrate that it is in our community's interest to invest more in professional development for Australia's teachers.I mentioned this afternoon that it was also important to invest more in professional development for university lecturers and researchers. To complete the triad tonight, we are dealing with vocational education and training and, of course, it makes sense for our VET teachers also to have adequate professional development opportunities to improve their teaching in the classroom.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Perhaps the honourable member meant a trifecta, not a triad.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—A trifecta. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I always find you of great assistance, especially on matters affecting the Coffs Harbour campus. The other point to make is that, having visited Coffs Harbour, I can tell you that there has been a series of articles in the Melbourne Age recently about the enormous difficulties facing students in some of the high schools in Victoria. If ever you needed evidence that Labor's plan for education priority zones was the way to go, it is in a series of articles based on research by Richard Teese from the University of Melbourne. Last week I had the privilege to visit places like Gladstone Park Secondary College and Gladstone Park Primary School and to speak with the principal from Gladstone Park Secondary College, Ken Thompson, about the plan that that secondary college and the neighbouring primary schools have developed to improve middle years teaching in their local area. I also recently had the opportunity to visit Mill Park Secondary College, who are also making some very interesting improvements in expanding access to VET in schools.There are going to be real challenges for our country and for this parliament to ensure that young people and existing workers get the chance to get the skills they need. It is not just a matter of making sure that employers get trained people with skills that are essential for a company or that workers get the training they need to have more productive jobs. Our nation needs more young people to have these training skills. Our nation is going to be held back unless we invest more in these areas. The contrast is between a government that has cut $240 million from TAFE and an opposition that is determined to do something about this. For this reason, I wish to formally move the amendment that has been circulated in my name. We believe that there is a clear contrast between the government and the opposition on these issues, and we intend to maintain this debate for some time to come. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes that:(a) the broadest possible access to quality training opportunities is a vital part of Australia becoming a Knowledge Nation;(b) demand for vocational education and training is likely to increase by at least 2.8% a year over the next four years; and(2) condemns the Government for:(a) failing to provide any funding to support this growth;(b) failing to negotiate a fair and reasonable new ANTA Agreement with the States and Territories; and(c) pursuing policies which damage the quality of training and put at risk the nation's skills base".4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.22:11:0019027Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—The member for Dobell is nothing if not predictable. I sat and waited, and it was not until the latter part of his speech that he started dragging in the usual red herrings: that this government is cutting education spending, when, of course, we are not; that we are actually favouring private schools and non-government schools ahead of government schools, which, of course, we are not; and that we have in some way damaged our schools, our TAFEs and our universities, which, of course, we have not. In an electorate like Groom, where education is so important—in fact, it is one of the major industries—I am able to get a real insight into how the modern education system is able to move with the times. I see the University of Southern Queensland, of which I spoke in a previous address during the debate on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 and which is one of the world's leading universities. It leads in a whole range of fields—in e-learning and distance education—and is setting trends which other universities can only envy. I see in the schools in my electorate, the state government schools, people adapting to a new way of educating young people. Time permitting, I hope to outline a very effective vocational education program that is currently under way at Pittsworth.I do not accept for one moment that the government are in any way derelict in their duty in education. We are, in fact, doing a fantastic job. Of course, we have introduced a number of changes which have required the education system to move into the year 2000—to be efficient, to compete and to go out and seek private funding. We are not ashamed of that because that allows us to spend more money in other areas of education. I am always amused when the Labor Party spring to their feet and say, `We are going to spend more money on education, we are going to spend more money on health and, of course, we are going to roll back the GST as well.' Don't ask me how they are going to do it. They do not seem to know how they are going to do it. My bush instinct tells me that they will do it by increasing taxes. I think this country has embraced the new tax system for one reason: people felt they paid too much tax. So I remain completely sceptical about the comments of the member for Dobell, except for one thing. When he said right at the end that we as a parliament face real challenges in skilling our young people, I could not have agreed more. And challenges, where I come from, are there to be met. Challenges are there to be taken on, not to be whinged about and not to be used as some excuse. They are actually there to be met and overcome.The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 is a follow-on to the Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992. The bill will amend the act to supplement year 2000 funding in line with the real price movements reflected in Treasury indices, a fact which immediately contradicts what the member for Dobell has said. It is also there to appropriate general vocational education and training funding through ANTA for the year 2001. The bill will provide an increase of some $13.063 million in the amount already currently legislated in 2000—I think that reads as an increase, member for Dobell—and will provide $931.415 million of funding in 2001. We can see that already that refutes the statement that we are cutting education.Vocational education is of great importance in the education and development of Australia's youth. The federal government understand this importance and are committed to the continuation of vocational education. We already provide grants to the states and territories for the provision and the support of vocational education and training through the TAFE—technical and further education—system. In April 1998, the Commonwealth state and territory vocational education and training ministers reached consensus on a three-year funding agreement. Under the revised Australian National Training Authority agreement, the Commonwealth are committed to maintaining our 1998 funding in real terms—I am not sure how many times I have to say that. We are committed to maintaining our 1998 funding in real terms for the three years from 1998 to 2000. In return, the states and territories have agreed to maintain their level of activities and the principle of growth through efficiencies. No government could ever shy away from improvement through efficiencies. Consistent with the Commonwealth's commitment under the revised agreement to maintain real funding in 1998 terms, the current bill provides supplementation for the year 2000 appropriation in accordance with real price movements, as I have already said, and makes provision for base funding in the year 2001. The bill supplements the amount of appropriation under the Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992 by $13.03 million. It appropriates a further amount for the period 2001, which will enable the minister to determine the amount payable to the states and territories when the amended Australian National Training Authority agreement is in place. Contrary to what we hear from the other side, this funding will give certainty to the states and continue to give the Commonwealth influence over national vocational education and training policy. The government are committed to supporting the vocational education and training sector. In the 2000-01 budget, total Commonwealth funding for vocational education and training will increase to $1.7 billion. I am not sure how the opposition can sit there and continually carp about education when we are making increases in funding and such advances through efficiencies.The Commonwealth have also indicated to the states that we are prepared to maintain this funding in real terms for a further three years. National quality assurance mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that quality is achieved, and state and territory efficiency plans also identify many quality enhancements, such as investment in technology, benchmarking and maintenance of equity. Again, that contradicts this assertion that we are interested only in quantity, not quality. What I see from the education system is indeed quality. What I see with young people in the year 2000 is enormous opportunity. There is opportunity not only for them but also for this country, as they have an education level which I can only envy, an education level far in excess of that which I was eligible for and able to achieve in my education period back in the late 1960s and early 1970s—probably too long ago to remember.In supporting this legislation, I am pleased to refer to the successes already enjoyed in the area of vocational education by one of the excellent government high schools in my electorate, Pittsworth State High School. Students and staff at the school have joined with the Pittsworth community—I apologise to the member for Dobell, but we are already working with the community; you can catch up at some stage with Labor policy—to achieve and promote the value of vocational and general education in the school curriculum.The principal, Greg McKitrick, who I must say is an exceptional headmaster, is the foundation and continuing vice-president of DISCO, which has been one of the most successful Australian student traineeship federation supported programs in Australia. I know the Labor Party do not like to hear about successes, but I suggest they take some time to come to my electorate of Groom and look at what is a real success in DISCO. I congratulate Mr McKitrick and his staff for their efforts and commitment to vocational education, which have ensured adequate allocation of time, financial resources and in-service and clerical assistance to the convergence of vocational and general education.Strategic links in the Pittsworth State High School have also been established not only with DISCO but with other industry and commercial training agencies. Curriculum support for the proposed vocational education subjects has included teacher training—again, the member for Dobell needs to catch up—and the appointment of a vocational education coordinator, Mr Rob Raymond. While I talk about excellence and leadership from Mr McKitrick, Rob Raymond has in fact done an extraordinary job in vocational education in the Pittsworth State High School and, I am pleased to say, has been recognised for it. He received a National Excellence in Teaching award in 2000, presented by the Queensland state government. In addition, the program which he operates was selected as a district showcase finalist this year.The school reports that vocational education has gained significant momentum since it was initially introduced in 1995. There have been some outstanding performances during that time with students gaining silver medals in national hairdressing championships and a number of other students qualifying with very high distinctions in their chosen courses. A Pittsworth State High School student was awarded the automotive trainee of the year trophy at the annual DISCO ceremony in 1998. In 2000 year 12 students are continuing with the SATS program. Three year 11 students have commenced SATS and another eight year 11 students are awaiting final placement. The number of SASs has grown to seven, with 102 work placements—accounting for 73 per cent of the senior school population—to be coordinated this year. All SATS students have completed at least certificate II, with a number moving through year 12 to certificate III studies. All SATS students who have finished year 12 have moved into full-time employment with ongoing training components. That perhaps again exposes some of the misinformation we hear from those opposite. This is vocational education and training delivering real jobs for young people. When young people are given an opportunity they will always take it. This program at the Pittsworth State High School is a graphic example of that. I actually enjoyed taking the federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs to the Pittsworth State High School during his recent visit to my electorate and he was certainly impressed.Through the period 1996 to 2000, the vocational education coordinator, Rob Raymond, liaised with special needs staff to implement individual education programs. These included the allocation of students with learning difficulties and/or delayed social development to supervised community learning environments such as retirement villages, primary schools, preschools, kindergartens and other workplaces. Again, it is important that we recognise that, when we enter the area of vocational education, we have to at times ensure that those students with disabilities of one sort or another are given ample opportunity to reach their full capacity, which I know they can, in the workplace. This program at Pittsworth is certainly giving them that opportunity.Also in the year 2000, a year 9 student commenced a flexible school-workplace program undertaking level one studies in a certificate of work education. It is a structured work placement one day per week and a vertical placement in subjects across the school timetable—such is the flexibility of the program. Work experience is scheduled for student vacation time and typically attracts 65 to 70 students from years 10 and 11. We are talking about a school of only a little over 300 students, so you can see the acceptance that this program has amongst the student and parent body. Better still, host employers in the town and surrounding area report favourably on the consistency of this program. As well, the Pittsworth State High School is an active and successful participant in the E-team program, focusing on developing teamwork and lateral problem-solving skills. Pittsworth State High School invites academically abled students to enlist in this activity to enhance their vocational skills development.There are positive outcomes resulting from the school vocational program. Outcomes are important because in the end they are what really matter. These include students, staff, parents and other members of the Pittsworth community now highly valuing the vocational education agenda, apprenticeships and traineeships. This speaks for itself. The Pittsworth State High School has expanded offerings to eight study area specifications, with compulsory annual two-week student work placements with DISCO. Study area specifications are attracting significant senior student participation—at the moment, around 70 per cent—with a high level of student satisfaction. Again, that is a statistic that speaks for itself. Another positive outcome has been reduced behavioural management issues for teachers and year coordinators arising from the clearly obvious relevance of vocationally related subjects to future employment. If you give young people a purpose, they will grasp it with both hands. This continues to point out that the federal government, through its cooperation with the state government in Queensland and nationally with its vocational education programs, is getting results. The program is identified as a highly visible and effective strategy for community viability and growth. Last year a national coordinator described a project by the Pittsworth State High School year 11E, or enterprise team, as the best of more than 200 projects in Australia. I have to say that it comes as no surprise to me that that occurred in Pittsworth in the electorate of Groom. The federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, David Kemp, who I mentioned visited Groom a few weeks ago, enjoyed his opportunity to visit the Pittsworth State High School and is quoted as saying, `Pittsworth High is well up with the best standards, especially with its school based apprenticeship programs and student work placements.'In working to implement its vocational education program, the Pittsworth State High School defined the key objectives to be met. One is to retain students in the school to participate in valid, relevant workplace skills, personal and social development activities while progressing the students' aspirations and potential for full-time employment post year 12. There are a number of other objectives, but time will prevent me from going through them. They range from broadening the curriculum options; achieving a level of excellence despite the challenges of restrictions arising from small school populations; developing enhanced school, community, business and industry partnerships; better preparing students to become effective citizens; and endeavouring to ensure all students leaving school are given the best opportunity.In closing may I say that the Pittsworth State High School have been working to complete a major curriculum review with vocational education as part of their future directions. This takes into account best practice models operating in other locations. You are never perfect so you are always happy to look around. At the same time they intend to ensure that their program caters to the emerging needs of students and the local and wider labour markets.Debate interrupted. Adjournment1903110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1903122:30:0019031Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Yesterday the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations released the report Age counts, an inquiry into the issues for the mature age unemployed. One important part of the debate, working time reorganisation, due to the constraints of time was only briefly mentioned in the House and in the press conference that followed. Unfortunately, in the employment debate, it is an issue that has fallen off the agenda. That is a great pity because putting faith in economic growth alone to solve modern unemployment problems will fail. As the report Age counts points out, many Australians today are working longer hours than at any time in the last 20 years. These longer working hours also coincide with the trend towards more people working fewer hours than they would like to work. To this also could be added the increasing anecdotal evidence of hidden unemployment. The number of workers working standard hours each week, 35 to 40 hours, has fallen over the last 20 years from 63 per cent to about 50 per cent; the number of workers working long hours, 41 to 48 hours, has remained about the same. That is, about 20 per cent of full-time workers. But the number of workers working very long hours—that is, greater than 49 hours—has risen from 20 to 33 per cent. Using those statistics some people have argued that, by producing this excess, it may be possible to create more jobs, especially as the very long hours of work coincide with an increase in unemployment. In the Australian context, Mr John Moorhouse from the University of South Australia has pointed out that, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 20 million hours of overtime are worked in Australia. Simplistically, 20 million hours is equivalent to some 500,000 forty hours per week jobs. While it is obvious that not all of these hours are paid overtime; nevertheless, serious consideration could lead to the release of thousands and thousands of new jobs. Patricia Hewitt, the then Deputy Director of the Institute of Public Policy Research in London and author of a widely commentated paper at the European jobs summit in October 1993, argued that a reduction in working time cannot solve the problem of unemployment on its own. She said:... no analysis of unemployment and employment will be adequate until it takes account of the rapid changes in the structures of working time and working lifetime; and no employment debate will be complete if it omits working time reorganisation.Let me explain why that quote is so important. In 1980, the unemployment rate was around 6.5 per cent—not very different from the current rate, some may argue. But, if they did, they would be very wrong. In 1980, underemployment was actually recognised and was measured at about 2.9 per cent. In 2000, the rate is well over six and in fact is probably higher. In 1980, hidden unemployment—not surprisingly—was not measured. It was also then about three per cent. Today it is still not measured and it is probably also double that rate at around six per cent. Admittedly, I cannot prove the last statistic on hidden unemployment. But one statistic in a story last week by Tim Colebatch in the Melbourne Age ought to ring alarm bells. He reported that 22 per cent of working age Australians were on welfare benefits. Twenty-two per cent of working age Australians on benefits is a far different but more accurate version of unemployment than the current rate of around 6½ per cent. Many economists, Treasury officials and academics have rejected the reduction in working time proposition. However, their criticisms as well as those of the financial media are based purely on narrow economic considerations. The critics take no account of the economic and social costs of unemployment, with increased family breakdown, crime, suicide, and drug and alcohol abuse. Nor do they mention an inefficient economy with high unemployment, occupational health and safety compromises, lost productivity caused by fatigue at one end and boredom at the other, increased compensation claims and increased redundancy costs. The essential criticisms of some economists are that proposals for reducing working hours suffer from a `lump of output fallacy'—that is, the total amount of work to be done is fixed—and that therefore the only way to employ more people is to share the work more frequently; that is, in and out of employment. But that `lump of output fallacy' argument is itself fallacious because of productivity gains throughout the 20th century. Hours of work since they began being measured over 120 years ago fell continuously until 1980 when the trends began to reverse—a trend that has harmed up to 25 per cent of the aspirations of ordinary Australians. (Time expired)1903222:35:0019032Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to commend the work done by carers of severely disabled family members in my electorate and elsewhere in the country. I call on the New South Wales state government to reassess how it plans to match the Commonwealth's efforts in this policy area. New parents have a mental picture of raising their children and seeing them leave home to begin their own families. But this is not the life plan for families dealing with a member's profound mental illness. Being the parent of a child with a severe intellectual disability is like having a baby forever. Parents and primary carers of children with mental disabilities bear this burden with impressive strength and remarkable commitment. Carers such as Lorraine Atkins and Sue Long in my electorate of Cook both have intellectually disabled sons who are nearly 18 years of age. Lorraine and Sue came to visit me in my office recently to draw attention to the shortage of respite places for disabled people who are over 18 but whose carers are under 65. Until recently, both boys were spending time in a respite care centre in my electorate. However, this centre is temporarily unavailable to them because it is fully occupied in housing a child with severe autism. Coincidentally, I had earlier met with the mother of that same autistic child, who impressed on me how poorly the state government is handling the issue of respite care. To someone with limited knowledge of autism, a child suffering the condition seems simply undisciplined and badly behaved. It is the child's frustration with their communication difficulty that leads them to lash out by screaming or hitting out at those around them. Autistic children need constant care and supervision. Parents cannot take an autistic child to a restaurant because their behaviour is socially unacceptable and so poorly understood. Many members will recall the A Current Affair report which was aired on 1 August this year and which portrayed the family life of the Goswell family. That family does not live in my electorate, but their experience mirrors the burdens that are borne by 30,000 other families affected by autism nationwide.Autistic children are usually unlike the savant character portrayed by Dustin Hoffman in the film Rain Man. Most have extreme behavioural problems. Considering the stressful, distressing and frequently physically exhausting nature of their work, carers could do with more time off. This is necessary just for them to recuperate and energise so that they can continue their work as carers more effectively for a much longer period. It took the interest shown by A Current Affair for the New South Wales state Department of Community Services to finally act by granting the Goswell family the assistance they had for so long been evaluated as needing—one week's respite per month.Assistance for carers is a responsibility of the state and territory governments under the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement and the Home and Community Care program. In an April 1999 meeting between Minister Newman and her state counterparts it was agreed that the Commonwealth would inject $150 million, over the final two years of the agreement, into meeting the needs of carers. As one part of the National Respite for Carers program, the Commonwealth has taken on responsibility for a network of carer resource centres and carer respite centres throughout Australia. I stress that this is designed to complement the existing state funded services in operation. The Commonwealth network is the vehicle for dispensing the Commonwealth's funding for aged carers. This should not be taken by the states as a sign that they can shirk the responsibility for the maintenance of respite care, a responsibility which is primarily theirs. The role of the Commonwealth funded care respite centres includes the administration of short-term or emergency respite assistance for carers, and the coordination of other community services that may be of assistance in addressing their longer term needs.To improve carer respite and information services, the Commonwealth government has expanded the National Respite for Carers program. Over the last four years, direct funding by the government for community based respite care in this program has grown from $19 million in 1996-97 to an estimated $58 million this year. That funding has allowed the very welcome 1997 Social Security Legislation Amendment (Parenting and Other Measures) Act, which increased the number of days of leave that carers can now access from 42 to 63 days without having their payments reduced or terminated.Of course, carers like Lorraine and Sue in my electorate sacrifice a great deal for their children because of their pure love; and they do it in a selfless manner. It is a tragic situation that many parents have to face. It is a situation which the Commonwealth government is facing in terms of funding. It is one in which the state government has not risen to the challenges in the appropriate way, despite the offer of shared funding and matching funding from the Commonwealth, and it is about time that we saw genuine compassion and genuine concern from the state government to address this most important issue. (Time expired)1903422:40:0019034Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—On 9 June this year, I raised the possibility of the Department of Defence ammunition and explosives test facility at Graytown closing under the efficiency measures in the defence reform program. There are two of these facilities in Australia. One is located at Port Wakefield in South Australia and the other at Graytown, which is in central Victoria. The idea was, as I understand it, that under the efficiency measures they would amalgamate and be located at one particular site. I understand that the site chosen was Wakefield in South Australia. The decision has not been taken. This represents the loss of some 50 civilian jobs from the Graytown facility—which in itself represents some $900,000 per year which will not be injected into the small towns of Seymour, Nagambie and Heathcote, which are also in central Victoria. As I said, I first raised this issue on 9 June via questions on notice to the Minister for Defence. They were not particularly technical questions—the minister is a very simple man—and I would like to read them now. Question 1 was:Does his Department plan to close the explosives facility at Graytown, Victoria. Question 2 read:Will the closure result in the loss of about 50 civilian jobs and a substantial reduction in goods and services provided by local businesses. Question 3 read:How does the closure sit with the Prime Minister's commitment to country regions given in Nyngan in January 2000. They are not very technical questions.The interesting thing is that a member of this House, the member for McEwen, issued a press release on 15 June saying that she had had some consultations with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence and that she had actually saved the facility: Graytown would not close and, in fact, she had saved those 50 jobs. What is very interesting is the answer that the minister has provided in relation to those questions. I received the answer from the Table Office on 31 July. I will read the answer:The proof and experimental functions of Defence at Port Wakefield, South Australia, and Graytown, Victoria, are being market tested as part of the efficiency measures envisaged in the Defence Reform Program. The evaluation of the tenders is approaching completion but until the decision is finalised it is not possible to comment on how or where the services will be delivered.So on the one hand we have the member for McEwen saying that it is all right, she has fixed it, she has saved the jobs; but, on the other hand, as late as 31 July the Minister for Defence has come out and said there has been no decision taken on where the service is likely to be located. Somebody is telling porkies. I cast no aspersions on the member for McEwen. If she issued that statement, I believe she did so genuinely believing that she had in fact saved those jobs. I will read you some of the phrases she used. The headline of her press release said `Fran gets assistance from big guns to resolve the Graytown issue'. 4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—They were firing blanks.83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—Thanks, colleague! I was about to say that. I think the member for McEwen has indeed been firing blanks. I am not sure whether `big guns' would be the appropriate description either. Perhaps `small bore' would be more appropriate in relation to the Prime Minister, and perhaps `big bore' in relation to the Minister for Defence! Clearly, the electors of McEwen are entitled to expect a member of a far heavier calibre—and I am sure they will get that when Andrew Macleod wins that seat next time.I should not joke about this. It is a very serious matter. There are some 50 jobs at risk. We have had a situation where the Minister for Defence has refused to rule that out in his answer to my question on the Notice Paper, yet we have the member for McEwen saying publicly in the media all around central Victoria that everything is fine. What is happening? Who is telling the truth? The minister will obviously make a decision very shortly and he would be well advised to make sure that Graytown survives. After all, Graytown is situated on the border of the marginal seat of Bendigo, which is my seat, and the marginal seat of McEwen, which is Fran Bailey's. So it is a very serious issue. Somebody is being misleading and not telling the truth, and the matter should be cleared up as soon as possible. (Time expired)1903522:45:0019035Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise to speak on a very important issue concerning constituents in my electorate of Makin within the Fairview Park area. Recently I have been contacted by not only constituents but also concerned small business owners in the Fairview Park Shopping Centre with regard to the relocation of the Fairview Park Post Office to Surrey Downs. I am pleased to report to the House that I have been meeting with Mr Brian McGlauchlin, Area Manager of Australia Post for the Northern Retail Network, on a regular basis to monitor this situation and, as a result of our last meeting, I have written to him to strongly urge Australia Post to consider continuing to provide a service to the residents of Fairview Park and surrounding areas. I would now like to take this opportunity to read into the Hansard a letter that I wrote to Mr Brian McGlauchlin. It reads as follows:Dear Mr McGlauchlin As you are aware, I have recently been contacted by several constituents from Fairview Park in my electorate of Makin with regard to the possible relocation of the Fairview Park Post Office. In view of the above, I would like to thank you for meeting with me to discuss these issues of concern. As a result of our discussions, if the relocation was to occur, I would strongly urge Australia Post to consider continuing to provide a service to the residents of Fairview Park and surrounding areas and formally request that Australia Post consider offering a `Post Point Unit' service at Fairview Park. I believe it is extremely important that residents continue to receive as high a standard of service as possible from Australia Post and that they are not disadvantaged in any way.Your urgent consideration of this matter would be greatly appreciated.Yours sincerelyTrish Draper MPMember for Makin.As the federal member for Makin, I shall continue to fight for postal services being available for my constituents in the Fairview Park areas as well as the surrounding areas of Banksia Park and Redwood Park. However, the decision by the licensee to relocate from Fairview Park to Surrey Downs does not contravene any of the Licensed Post Office Agreement—particularly in relation to clause 8, sections (a) to (e), where (a) states:... the licensee may, upon obtaining the written consent of Australia Post, relocate the premises to a location acceptable to Australia Post.The licensee shall be liable for all costs and expenses associated with such relocation ...And (b) states:any decision by Australia Post to relocate the Licensed Post Office shall be made after consultation and agreement with the licensee.Australia Post shall pay for all reasonable removal costs and expenses associated with such relocation of the Licensed Post Office including any in-conjunction business ...Therefore, I am most disappointed and saddened that up to this point in time nobody, including the solicitor acting on behalf of several of the local retailers whom I shall not name at this stage, has bothered to inform them of the relevant facts; and neither has Jennifer Rankine, the member for Wright in the state parliament, who apparently has taken an interest in this issue. It is also disappointing that the solicitor in question completely ignores our Constitution and conventions associated with the three arms of government—the executive, the legislative and the judicial—whereby, when legal proceedings have commenced, members of parliament should not be involved, so that any outcome is not prejudiced as the case goes before the courts.I am appalled at the said solicitor's treatment of one of my staff members in several telephone conversations and at the obviously political statements, rather than legal and factual statements, in his recent letter to me. By all accounts, as members in this place know and understand, while the federal parliament is sitting and members of parliament have to attend to parliamentary duties, schedules, especially in busy electorates, cannot always be subject to change just because a solicitor threatens in an intimidatory manner that this should be so.However, I have been delighted with the community's response so far over the weekend with their concerns for their local shopping centre at Fairview Park and their signing of many petitions. I would like to assure my constituents that I will continue my endeavours to ensure that, at least and in any event, we will secure continuing postal services for residents in the Fairview Park, Redwood Park and Banksia Park areas—not for the media attention, as others have sought, but for the wellbeing of the constituents that I represent in this place. 1903622:49:0019036Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Mr Speaker, I am pleased that you are in the chair at this point of time because you and I have something in common. The fact is that we came into this House at the same time. We attended the same initiation seminars—not that many years ago, it seems, but sufficient years ago for me to have announced at the weekend that I shall not be renominating for the electorate of Newcastle in the next election, whenever that may be. That decision is one that causes my wife and me great sadness because we have had a very interesting and satisfying life—and, at times, a very difficult life—and the amount of time that is taken up by my career will be very hard to fill. But it is important to ensure that both the party members in Newcastle who will be involved in selecting candidates have adequate time to consider whether they themselves wish to run or to choose an alternative candidate. I am not so arrogant as to think that in itself would retain the seat, but the fact is that I am optimistic that the record that the party has in the Newcastle area will help the candidate to be successful.Mr Speaker, as I have said, you have had almost precisely the same number of hours as I have had in this place and would know what it has come to mean to us. This is not a farewell speech; it is more of an announcement speech. Having announced it in Newcastle, it seemed to me appropriate that I make a similar statement in Canberra. I suppose that, since I made the statement, I have had a very great number of people making contact and expressing their appreciation, their sadness—and also their excitement. In a sense, `The king is dead. Long live the king!' is a wonderful concept. I am moving on, but the position continues and will take a new shape and form, new directions and new ideas. That is exciting for my community, and it is exciting for me to consider that.I would like to remake myself, but the fact is I cannot so it is best for me to move aside and let someone else project their ideas differently. I think it was particularly poignant that I made this announcement today because I had two schools from my electorate here: Hamilton Public School and New Lambton Public School. Those occasions always give us great emotion. I was looking at those bright young faces and encouraging them to be active, to think about the community, to be involved and so on at the same time as I was saying, `By the way, I'm moving aside in the next year or so.' It was a very poignant thing.This place is complex, difficult, ordinary in the American sense and rewarding. There are all those conflicting emotions and feelings. It is a place where I have achieved great satisfaction and enormous frustration, and I am sure that is the same for all of us. I want to signal a couple of things which I hope will be important in this next year, and one of them is in your home state, Mr Speaker. I cannot accept my level of frustration at the submarine project and the way it is being treated in the community and the media. What is happening there will lead to the world's best diesel electric submarine. I think the failings that have happened to date have been failings of time, particularly on the part of the weapons system made by an American company who were the best in the world. We brought in the world's best company at enormous cost on a fixed price contract that they absolutely guaranteed could be done, and the fact is they failed. We did not fail; they failed but we are getting the blame for it as a country. That is not good, and I would like to see you and your colleagues defending that project a lot more because it is a very fine project that is being done extremely well. We always knew there would be great difficulties with the new submarine. We always knew that, but it was a great challenge and South Australia took it on. We would have loved to have had it in Newcastle, but you took it on and I think you did it well given its sheer size and complexity. It breaks my heart to watch it being badmouthed and blackguarded the way it has been, and it has largely been by commercial interests who do not want us to do it again. They want us to buy equipment overseas in the future, and I am scared that will happen. Another project I want to mention is the hot briquette iron project in Western Australia, which will be a national disaster in the making if we do not fix it. There will be $3.6 billion of capital losses and $400 million a year of export earnings lost if that project does not succeed. I think it can succeed because of Newcastle scientists who are world leaders in steel technology and iron ore smelting. I think it is critically important that we all start to get much more active and be much more supportive.The final thing I want to mention is that last week I had the Public Works Committee in Newcastle, and Judy Moylan did an excellent job. It is a good committee and they spoke about the CSIRO energy project. It is wonderful, exciting stuff happening in an old industrial centre. In my time, we are remaking Newcastle; I am sorry I cannot remake myself.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There will be other occasions to pay tribute to the member for Newcastle, but may I simply wish him well in what I know must have been an emotionally very difficult decision to make. All of us read the decision and I think it is appropriate that he has made the remarks he has made tonight.1903722:55:0019037Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Tonight I wish to raise the impact of UN economic sanctions in Iraq. Ten years ago this month, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Opposition to the Iraqi aggression was almost universal across the Western and Arab world. Four days later, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 661 imposing comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions on Iraq and setting out conditions for their lifting. A few months later, in February 1991, a combined UN mission to Iraq found the available piped water supply to Baghdad to be less than five per cent of pre-war levels. Waste treatment plants also ceased to function and raw sewage was pumped directly into the Tigris River, the main source of Iraq's drinking water. The result was a public health crisis leading to major increases in infectious diseases, including cholera and typhoid. In the aftermath of the war, unemployment and inflation skyrocketed, while economic production plummeted. With market prices for food beyond the reach of most families, food rationing was implemented and provided less than half a person's daily dietary requirements. At this time, underweight children sharply increased, as did rates of stunting and wasting and their vulnerability to life threatening diseases.As reports documented the crisis faced by ordinary Iraqis, a plan was developed for using Iraqi oil revenues to finance humanitarian relief. It became known as the oil for food humanitarian program, or resolution 706, and it was passed in August 1991. But the government of Iraq never liked the oil for food program and delayed its implementation for five years at a terrible cost to the Iraqi people. For the first few months of its implementation, when it did begin in 1997, Iraq cooperated but after a few months failed to submit the required distribution plan for humanitarian goods. It appears that the aid went to the regime but not the people. Despite the difficulties, the oil for food program has been a partial success. An April 1999 UN review reported it had met its priority objective in making available basic food items and health supplies. According to the review, food availability improved, water contamination rates dropped and the availability of lifesaving drugs increased. But the same review also reported that, even if the program could be fully implemented, it would meet but a small fraction of the priority needs of the Iraqi people and would not overcome the humanitarian crisis resulting from the war and the sanctions. The facts are that the brutal cost of the war and sanctions have been paid for by children under the age of five. According to an independent study by Columbia University, the number of excess deaths among children under five between August 1991 and March 1998 was at least 100,000 but more than likely 227,000. Approximately three-quarters of these deaths were associated with the consequences of economic sanctions. Thousands of Iraqi children die each month from preventible hunger and disease. The purpose of the sanctions was to achieve Iraqi compliance with resolution 687. It is true that Baghdad has not complied fully with each provision of resolution 687, but it has substantially done so for seven of the eight provisions. The exception is that it has not formally renunciated international terrorism, but there is no evidence that it has engaged in any such acts. It has complied by recognising Kuwaiti sovereignty and borders, accepting a demilitarised zone and eliminating its nuclear weapons capability. It has partly complied with the return of stolen properties and prisoners, has paid some war damages and has accepted monitoring of ballistic missiles. Some matters relating to chemical weapons remain outstanding.I am concerned that the goalposts have been shifted from resolution 687 to a broader objective of containing a heartless regime and removing its head. I am concerned that the sanctions have been particularly lethal to children under five years of age and have harmed those people who would most like to get rid of Saddam Hussein. But to those with money—that is, the friends of Saddam Hussein's—just about anything they wish is available in Baghdad. I am concerned that sanctions have cemented in place a leader who presides over a police state with one of the worst human rights records in the world. I am not speaking in favour of capitulation, but after a decade of sanctions and terrible suffering of Iraqi children, I am speaking about being clear about our objectives and in favour of reviewing Australian support for the sanctions. I will be writing to the foreign minister with this in mind to inquire if there is anything that Australia can do to alleviate the suffering of the children in Iraq.23:00:0019038House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices19038The following notices were given:R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—to present a bill for an act to establish an Aviation Noise Ombudsman, and for related purposesWI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—to move:That for the sitting on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:(1) the question—That the House do now adjourn—being put at 6 p.m. and any business under discussion and not disposed of at that time being set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting; and(2) if, at 6.30 p.m., the question before the House is—That the House do now adjourn—the Speaker interrupting debate and adjourning the House until its next sitting.Answers to Questions in Writing19035The following answers to questions were circulated:19035(Question No. 1229)122919035Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 March 2000:(1) Is he able to say how many full time equivalent staff were employed in (a) his Department, (b) the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, (c) the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, (d) the Department of Defence, (e) the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, (f) the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, (g) the Department of Finance and Administration, (h) the Department of Health and Aged Care, (i) the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, (j) the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, (k) the Department of Transport and Regional Services, (l) the Department of Veterans' Affairs, (m) Airservices Australia, (n) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, (o) the Australian Bureau of Statistics, (p) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, (q) the Australian Federal Police, (r) the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, (s) the Australian Sports Commission, (t) the Australian Taxation Office, (u) Centrelink, (v) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, (w) the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority, (x) Medibank Private, (y) the National Library of Australia, (z) the National Museum of Australia and (aa) the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing in the provision of legal services, including legal advice, litigation, representation and legislative services, during 1998-99.(2) Is he able to say what were the salary costs of those staff in 1998-99 itemised by Department or agency.(3) How many legal services staff from his Department were based in each Department or agency referred to in part (1) in 1998-99.(4) What were the salary costs of those staff referred to in part (3) in 1998-99, itemised by Department or agency.(5) Is he able to say what were the costs of legal services provided under contract to each Department or agency referred to in part (1) in 1998-99.19035Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) My Department does not maintain information on the legal services staff employed in departments and agencies in other portfolios. I am not prepared to authorise the diversion of resources that would be necessary to seek this information. Some legal staff employed by the Attorney-General's Department are involved in the provision of legal services as described in the question. Others are involved, either in whole or in part, in the provision of policy advice and other services to government. In addition, support staff and administrative staff are employed in part in the provision of legal services. I am not prepared to authorise the diversion of resources from other work that would be required to provide the level of detail sought by the honourable member. However, the following information outlines the general position of legal staff in the Attorney-General's Department. The Department's annual report for the year ended 30 June 1999 records that on 30 June 1999 the Department had 127 legal staff and 57 Senior Executive Officers employed under the Public Service Act (including the Secretary). These figures reflect full time equivalent for part time staff and include temporary and casual staff, as well as paid inoperatives and those acting in higher positions as at 30 June 1999. Numbers have been rounded to whole numbers. Some of these SES officers would be involved in providing legal policy advice and legal services. During the year ending 30 June 1999 the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) was still part of the Attorney-General's Department but was administratively separate. The whole of its service was in the provision of legal and related services. The Department's annual report for that year records that on 30 June 1999 the AGS had a total of 619 operative and 26 inoperative staff. (For these figures, actual staff numbers were used for part timers, rather than full time equivalents.) The Australian Federal Police (AFP) advises that 13 staff full time equivalent staff were employed in the provision of legal services to the AFP during the relevant year, including support staff.(2) The salary costs only of SES officers in the Attorney-General's Department (excluding the Australian Protective Service) are Band 1$83,800 (median)$79,668 (mean)Band 2$96,100 (median)$103,756 (mean)Band 3$126,600These amounts represent salary only and do not include amounts for superannuation, performance pay and other component of officers' salary packages.Mean salaries for legal officers in the Department are as follows Legal Officer$40,756Senior Legal Officer$66,471Principal Legal Officer$76,140These salaries do not include employer superannuation contributions. The amount of these contributions would depend on the fund of which the officer is a member.AGS is wholly directed to the provision of legal services. Its salary bill for 1998-99 was $35,054,301. This amount is made up of salary and allowances, including higher duties allowance. The Australian Federal Police advise that the salary costs of the 13 staff was $682,225.19. This amount does not include allowances or non-salary components of salary packages. (3) AGS had the following numbers of its staff in each department or agency in 1998-99: Attorney-General2.30Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries5.91DOCITA2.00DEWRSB2.00DHAC1.95DIMA2.00DISR0.75DTRS1.00ACCC7.10CSIRO1.00Total26.01(4) AGS is a government business enterprise, operating in direct competition with private sector law firms. AGS was administratively separate from the Department during the relevant year, in the lead up to its establishment as a statutory authority on 1 September 1999. The salary costs of employees in the provision of particular legal services relate to AGS' cost and pricing structure which is commercially sensitive information. Because of the small numbers of AGS legal services employees involved, it is inappropriate to provide salary costs for particular agencies.Overall, however, AGS had salary costs (excluding performance pay and superannuation) of $1,936,013 relating to the 26.01 staff referred to in the answer to question 3.(5) While legal services provided by AGS to the Department were not provided under contract, I am advised that during the year in question the Department paid a total of $4,958,759.38 to AGS for legal and related services. This amount includes payment for legal services provided by AGS to other departments and agencies for certain Cabinet and international law work. It also includes work undertaken by AGS in providing support for the Attorney-General as First Law Officer, as well as work in relation to ministerial briefings and input into litigation policy development. The amount does not include payments made to AGS in respect of counsel fees where counsel were retained by AGS for matters involving the Attorney-General's Department. The Department paid a further $804,095.04 for legal services from other legal services providers. This amount includes amounts paid to counsel in some matters.The Department also made payments for legal services to both AGS and other legal services providers for legal services it obtained in some proceedings in which the costs were paid by the Commonwealth pursuant to section 305 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. I am not prepared to authorise the diversion of resources that would be necessary to ascertain what amounts paid under section 305 relate to legal services. The AFP advises that it paid $594,551 to AGS and $29,781 to other legal services providers. This does not include amounts paid for counsel retained by AGS.19037(Question No. 1470)147019037O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KeefeCE4BurkeALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 May 2000:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1026 (Hansard, 6 December 1999, page 12924), does the Administrative Appeals Tribunal impose a $500 application fee if a person or an organisation that does not receive an agency's decision within the time limits prescribed under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act makes application for appeal to the Tribunal; if so, does this make this avenue an ineffective remedy.(2) Can the Commonwealth Ombudsman impose sanctions pursuant to its investigation of complaints of agencies' actions under the FOI Act, including decisions, delays, and refusal or failure to act; if not, does this make this avenue an ineffective remedy.(3) Why are there time frames for responses to be provided within the FOI Act when these limits are not adhered to by agencies, including Comcare Australia, and when effective remedies are not available.19037Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Where an applicant does not receive notice of an agency's decision on a valid request within the time limits prescribed under the FOI Act, the principal officer of the agency is deemed to have made a decision to refuse to grant access on the last day of the prescribed time limit. A person who applies to the AAT for a review of a decision may have to pay an application fee. The fee is currently $526.00. However, Regulation 19 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976 prescribes situations in which a fee is not payable.In summary, a fee is not payable if:(a) the applicant is the holder of a health care card, pensioner concession card or any of the other cards referred to in Regulation 19;(b) the applicant is a person of the type referred to in Regulation 19 (for example, he or she has been granted legal aid for the matter to which the fee relates, or is under 18 years of age);(c) the fee is waived by the AAT because paying the fee would cause an applicant financial hardship; or(d) the fee is refunded by the AAT because proceedings have `terminated in a manner favourable to the applicant'.The AAT also has a discretion to recommend to the Attorney-General that an applicant's costs in relation to the AAT proceedings be paid by the Commonwealth where the applicant is successful or substantially successful. (2) After an investigation into action taken by a Department or prescribed authority has been completed and the Ombudsman considers that an instance of defective administration has occurred, the Ombudsman must provide a report to the relevant Department or prescribed authority. A copy of the report is furnished to the Minister responsible for the Department or prescribed authority. The report may include recommendations. It may also include a request from the Ombudsman to the Department or prescribed authority to furnish to the Ombudsman particulars of any action that it proposes to take with respect to the matters and recommendations contained in the report. If the Ombudsman is of the opinion that adequate and appropriate action has not been taken within a reasonable time, the Ombudsman may inform the Prime Minister and the Parliament.Following presentation of the Ombudsman's report to the Parliament, the Ombudsman may have further discussions with the principal officer of the Department or prescribed authority, for the purpose of resolving the matter.(3) As I made clear in my answer to Question No. 1026, the statistics in the FOI Annual Report for 1998-99 show that the vast majority of FOI requests are processed within the required time frame. Statistics in other recent FOI Annual Reports are consistent with this finding. There are established and workable procedures in the FOI Act which allow for the provision of a remedy to an applicant who is not satisfied with a decision in relation to his or her FOI request or the processing of his or her FOI request.19038(Question No. 1489)148919038Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MacklinPG6JagajagaALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 2000:(1) Did the Vietnam Veterans Health Study released in December 1999 find that the children of Vietnam veterans had higher rates of death than children of other members of the community.(2) What action is he taking to address the needs of children and grandchildren of Vietnam veterans, particularly with regard to suicide and illness.(3) When will he put this into effect.19038Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. Validation of the findings of the Vietnam Veterans Health (Morbidity) Study showed that children of Vietnam veterans had higher rates of accidental death and suicide, than children of other members of the community.(2) The package of initiatives announced in the 2000-2001 Budget in response to the Health Study builds on the extensive range of benefits, treatment and counselling services already available to veterans and their dependants through my Department and the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service (VVCS).Free psychiatric assessment and counselling will now be available through the VVCS to Vietnam veterans' children, up to their 36th birthday. In recognition of the role of education in suicide prevention, access to the Veterans' Children Education Scheme is being extended to Vietnam veterans' children who are identified as being vulnerable to self-harm or suicide. The scheme provides veterans' children in these circumstances with access to financial and other support so they may continue their education regardless of their family arrangements.In addition, two annual bursaries will be provided in each State and one annual bursary in each Territory to assist needy students to make the transition to tertiary study.Additional VVCS programs covering issues associated with veterans' lifestyles and promoting healthy family relationships will also be provided to veterans, their partners and children.The policies of successive governments, as enacted under the Repatriation Act 1920 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, have intended that the Repatriation system be primarily directed towards the compensation and care of veterans. While my Department does have some responsibilities for veterans' children who have been affected by their direct relationship with the veteran, this does not extend to grandchildren.(3) The Government has been implementing measures through the VVCS in response to the findings relating to the deaths of children since shortly after the 1998 release of the first volume of the report of the Health Study. This action has included:. expansion of the range of VVCS programs;. the creation of linkages to the National Suicide Prevention Strategy; . publishing of I thought it was just me, an information booklet written for older and adult children of Vietnam veterans. a satellite broadcast on Family Dysfunction and Suicide in the Vietnam Veteran Community to assist health professionals identify and manage families at risk; and. training workshops on suicide prevention for parents, members of the veteran community and health professionals.The additional measures, set out in (2) above, that form part of the recently announced Budget package for Vietnam veterans and their families, complement these initiatives and are being implemented progressively from 1 July 2000.19039(Question No. 1490)149019039Adams, Dick, MPMr AdamsBV5LyonsALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 May 2000:(1) How many persons, by age group, have been recruited into the Australian Defence Force from Tasmania in each year since 1985. (2) Into which service did Tasmanian recruits enter each year.(3) When will the next round of recruitment be undertaken in Tasmania.(4) How is this information being advised to young persons who are not necessarily at school.19039Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Defence records for this specific data is only available from 1990 onwards. While hard copy records for the years before 1990 may be available from archives, the resource costs associated with collating the necessary information would be excessive, and in the interest of efficient utilisation of departmental resources, I am not prepared to authorise the time and effort that may be involved.Tasmanian Enlistments from 25 July 1990 to 29 May 2000 by age: ENLISTMENT YEARAGE19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000TOTAL1541516102132423577177322650958710310982436341811423449838410198784062019617222831475748471431720415152738442326301223421312822172636201381652211061222271914851242311281418121113695242541317161217659725338158896464263455971562562713278475554728433851135422912277926238301122138551293113263342232122243122193311272132193422334418351152221143612126371123811239111144011134112342111144311244112461148115111Total1371801342593924414314023251652767Tasmanian Enlistments from 25 July 1990 to 29 May 2000 by service: SERVICEENLISTMENT YEARArmyNavyAir ForceTotal199011199122873719925172571801993554534134199474122632591995108164120392199619213311644119972251159143119982718348402199922450513252000983235165Total13208246232767Note (1):Data after 1996 is more reliable than data prior to that date.Note (2):Enlistments for 15 and 16 year olds relate to apprentices.(3) and (4) ADF recruitment in Tasmania, as in all states, is an ongoing activity augmented by press and television advertising such as the current `lifestyle' campaign. Young persons interested in Defence Force careers are reached via these mediums, as well as our web sites and physical presence in the Defence Force Careers Reference Centre in Hobart and careers counselling visits to regional areas in Tasmania by recruiting staff.19041(Question No. 1493)149319041Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 May 2000:(1) Is the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) able to use Section 218 notices to garnishee income from a company that is in debt to the ATO.(2) Is the ATO able to use Section 218 notices to garnishee income from a company that is in debt to the ATO while the company is trading from an insolvent position; if so, how frequently does the ATO use Section 218 notices to garnishee income from a company that is in debt to the ATO while the company is trading from an insolvent position.(3) Does the Government accept the use by the ATO of Section 218 notices to have debts to the ATO repaid ahead of workers entitlements when this would not be the case if the provisions of the Corporations Law were followed.19042Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes.(2) Yes, though no statistics are recorded for this type of situation. However, if the ATO is aware that a company is trading while insolvent the ATO would seek to have the directors remedy this. (3) A full explanation of the interaction of the income tax law and the corporation law in relation to garnishee notices, voidable transactions and payments to liquidators can be found on the ATO's web page at www.ato.gov.au, Go to For Business, Go to Pay Tax, Go to Paying Your Tax, Go to Debt Collection policy.19042(Question No. 1496)149619042Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 9 May 2000:(1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a recent conviction of a Queensland truck driver on three counts of defrauding the Commonwealth, relating to excise evasion through purchasing marked solvent and selling the product to service stations as transport fuel. (2) What other prosecutions were undertaken for fuel excise evasion in 1997, 1998 and 1999, and what were the outcomes of those prosecutions. 19042Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answers to the honourable member's questions: (1) The Minister for Justice and Customs is aware that a truck driver was sentenced on 17 April 2000 after pleading guilty on 27 March 2000 to three charges of defrauding the Commonwealth in the Brisbane District Court.(2) On 21 October 1998, a new Administrative Arrangements Order resulted in the transfer of the Excise function to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). On 4 February 1999, the core excise functions were passed to the ATO. Customs and the ATO agreed that investigations and prosecutions of excise and fuel substitution offences would, for a period of six months, continue to be conducted and managed by Customs under a temporary purchaser-provider arrangement. In May 1999, the ATO decided to assume responsibility for investigations and prosecutions as from 12 July 1999.Customs had commenced three prosecutions during the 1998-99 financial year. All three cases were transferred to the ATO on 12 July. Prior to 1998-99 financial year, no other fuel substitution prosecutions were initiated.19043(Question No. 1498)149819043Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 May 2000:(1) Why do aircraft departing Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport from runway 16R and crossing the Kurnell peninsular over north Cronulla, not track out to sea to avoid noise impact on residents along the southern coastline and the Royal National Park.(2) On how many occasions, and when, have aircraft flown directly over, or in the near vicinity of, the township of Bundeena since May 1999.(3) Are there regulations preventing the dumping of aviation fuel along the coastline or the Royal National Park.19043Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Jet aircraft departing south from runway 16R at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport cross the Kurnell peninsular over the sand hills between Kurnell and Wanda. The proximity of the adjacent parallel runway, the need to facilitate independent operations between the runways in a safe manner and cockpit workload considerations, are major operational constraints to the design of alternative procedures.However, on 15 June 2000 a new Standard Instrument Departure (SID) procedure was introduced which means jet aircraft departing runway 16R will turn slightly to the east as they reach the southern side of Botany Bay. This procedure has been designed to provide relief to Cronulla and points south while avoiding an increase in noise exposure at Kurnell and resulted from extensive consultations within the LTOP Implementation and Monitoring Committee.Non jet aircraft departing from runway 16R use a track to the west of the jets over Yowie Bay and the National Park. This is required to achieve a safe separation between the jets and slower non jet aircraft.(2) The following data is provided for the number of aircraft arriving at or departing from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport that have flown within a two kilometre radius centred on the township of Bundeena: 1999ArrivalsDeparturesMay239306June197356July195449August133178September175266November164277December2242762000January127284February299228March167309April172325May260235(3) Yes. Under the Air Navigation (Fuel Spillage) Regulations 1999, the operator of an aircraft within the Commonwealth's jurisdiction must ensure that fuel is not released from an aircraft during flight unless fuel is released:. in an emergency over areas where it does not create a hazard to a person or property on the ground; or. according to a permission given by a person performing duty in Air Traffic Control.In the latter case, aircraft should maintain a minimum height of 6,000 feet above ground level to ensure maximum vaporisation of the fuel.19044(Question No. 1505)150519044McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services upon notice, on 10 May 2000:Further to the answer to question No 1097 (Hansard, 4 April 2000, page 14692) will he act on the recommendation of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation report to reconsider routinely operating the short runways at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) airport, with up to 25 knots crosswind.19044Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Since 1989 the procedures across Australia have allowed for the continued use of dry runways with a crosswind component of up to 25knts and downwind components of up to 5knts. Continued use of wet runways is available with a crosswind component of up to 25knts with no downwind component, or a crosswind of up to 15knts with a downwind component of up to 5knts.In response to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), formerly the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, report into the Sydney Airport Terminal Area (B98.90), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) reviewed the criteria used at Sydney Airport. Following discussions with Airservices Australia and Airline operators, CASA concluded that routinely operating runways with up to 25knts of crosswind does not pose an unacceptable safety hazard.Given the continuing concerns being raised by some parties within the industry, I have recently asked that CASA, in conjunction with the ATSB and Airservices Australia, revisit this matter with the industry. I am advised that the agencies have now commenced this review process.19044(Question No. 1509)150919044McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 May 2000:(1) Has his attention been drawn to comments by his Honour Justice Michael McHugh in the High Court of Australia in the recent case of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ex parte Durairajasinjhim wherein he expressed concern that amendments to the Migration Act (Commonwealth) are resulting in an excessive number of applications under the Act coming before the High Court.(2) Has he considered his Honour's comments and will he take steps to ensure that the High Court is able to concentrate on constitutional and important appellate matters rather than cases which are in the nature of trials under the Migration Act.19044Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware of the comments of His Honour, Justice McHugh in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham [2000] HCA 1 about the effect that the current judicial review scheme contained in Part 8 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is having on the work load of the High Court. (2) I have considered his Honour's comments. The Government has already taken steps to ensure that the High Court is able to concentrate on constitutional and important appellate matters. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 currently before the Senate would have the effect of decreasing the number of applications coming before the High Court under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).19045(Question No. 1533)153319045O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, 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.19045Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. Details of the 14 relevant programs are as follows.Contracts for the delivery of Job Network services are awarded through a competitive tender process. Job Network consists of private, community and public sector organisations which are currently contracted to provide a range of services for the period 28 February 2000 to 2 March 2003.The department administers the Small Business Enterprise Culture Program (SBECP) to provide funding for the development of business skills for small business owners and managers. The department, jointly with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), administers the Indigenous Small Business Fund (ISBF) to foster the development of businesses owned, operated and managed by indigenous people, and promote sustained indigenous employment opportunities throughout Australia. Indigenous organisations which provide services to foster indigenous businesses and indigenous individuals seeking support for their own businesses, may apply for assistance from the fund.The department is also a primary source of funding for the establishment of Small Business Incubators. The program provides funds to help cover the costs of setting up an incubator to assist new and growing businesses to become established and profitable by providing premises, advice, services and other support, normally lasting from one to three years. Most organisations within the community are eligible to submit a proposal for funding to establish a Small Business Incubator.Community organisations, businesses, or individuals, can apply for funding under the Indigenous Employment Program. Wage Assistance, a wage subsidy program, pays an incentive for 26 weeks to employers who provide ongoing job opportunities for indigenous job seekers. Structured Training and Employment Projects (STEP) assist community organisations and businesses to establish employment opportunities through structured training involving five or more people.The Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Placement Incentive Scheme, allows indigenous community organisations controlling the projects to claim a bonus of $2000 for each of their participants, who through CDEP are placed in ongoing, mainstream, full-time employment. The Indigenous Small Business Fund provides the opportunity to foster the development and expansion of indigenous small businesses, by encouraging community organisations and individuals to identify and develop innovative business opportunities.The department also administers the Regional Assistance Program (RAP). RAP aims to generate employment in metropolitan, regional and remote Australia, by encouraging business and communities to take action to boost business growth and create sustainable jobs. It provides seed funding for innovative, quality projects of value to the community. RAP project proponents will usually be not-for-profit organisations.Community organisations and businesses can apply for funding under the Work for the Dole, Return to Work and Community Support Programs. Work for the Dole ProgramThe Work for the Dole Program seeks tenders from private, and not-for-profit community and government organisations/agencies to provide Work for the Dole Community Work Coordinator services across Australia. An important part of a Community Work Coordinator's role is to develop and manage Work for the Dole activities/projects in their local community, by seeking Work for the Dole activities/project proposals from local community, government organisations/agencies, and to promote these projects to job seekers. The funding for this promotional work is part of a Community Work Coordinator's contracted price. In turn, not-for-profit community and government organisations/agencies are eligible to apply to Community Work Coordinators for funding to host Work for the Dole activities/projects. Not-for-profit community and government organisations/agencies can approach Community Work Coordinators at any time with activity/project proposals. Community Work Coordinators submit all activity/project proposals to the department for final approval.The department also produces promotional material about the Work for the Dole Program. This material is distributed to Community Work Coordinators, Centrelink Offices, not-for-profit organisations/agencies, other organisations and individuals who express an interest in the Work for the Dole Program.Return to Work ProgramThe Return to Work Program is promoted generally through Managing Agents, advertising and recruiting strategies, the DEWRSB internet site and promotional material displayed and distributed by Centrelink.It seeks tenders from any entity tendering to provide Managing Agent services for all, or a number, of States/Territories, or a single State/Territory.Community Support ProgramThe Community Support Program is administered by Centrelink. However, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will be resuming administration of the Program from 1 July 2000. There have been two tenders for organisations to provide services to eligible job seekers. Centrelink has administered both tender processes.Individuals can apply to the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme (EESS) to seek assistance in the event that their employment has been terminated on or after 1 January 2000 as a result of their employer's insolvency, and where they have not been paid certain employee entitlements.(2) Yes(2) (a) Programm Advertising The Job Network tender was advertised in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and in metropolitan and major regional newspapers.The Work for the Dole 2000 Community Work Coordinator Request for Tender and subsequent appointments were advertised in national and regional newspapers in August 1999 and March 2000 respectively. A complete listing of all newspapers advertising the appointments of Community Work Coordinators has been included. The department paid for these advertisements from its funding allocation.The Return to Work Request for Tender was advertised in the national press and regional newspapers.The Small Business Enterprise Culture Program (SBECP) was advertised in the Australian Financial Review, The Weekend Australian and state newspapers including the Hobart Mercury. These were paid advertisements. It has also been advertised on the department's website and in offices of the department.The ISBF has been advertised in the indigenous press, on departmental and ATSIC websites and in departmental and ATSIC offices. Paid advertisements were placed in the Koori Mail.The support for Small Business Incubators has not been advertised in the press. Funding details and information about Small Business Incubators are available on the department's website at dewrsb.gov.au.The indigenous employment Programs are promoted by departmental staff and through paid advertisements in indigenous print media outlets such as the Koori Mail. A paid advertisement for the Wage Assistance subsidy was also placed in the Tasmanian Business Reporter in August/September 1999. In addition, the Indigenous Employment Program is also promoted through direct mail to stakeholders, including small businesses, major corporations in the private sector, and community organisations. The department writes to every jobseeker eligible for Wage Assistance every six months to advise them of their entitlement.The department promotes RAP through the Commonwealth's network of Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) including through the ACC web site. The department has also advertised RAP in local Tasmanian media. Paid advertisements appeared in three Tasmanian print media outlets — the "Mercury", the "Examiner" and the "Advocate". Advertisements have been placed in National, State capital, and certain regional newspapers.Details of the newspapers concerned are given below QLDCourier MailBundaberg News MailAtherton TablelanderToowoomba ChronicleGladstone ObserverTorres Strait NewsCleveland Bayside BulletinGold Coast BulletinRockhampton Morn BulletTownsville BulletinMackay Daily MercuryGympie TimesCairns PostFraser Coast ChronicleSunshine Coast Daily Warwick Daily NewsWestern StarRedcliffe and Bayside HeraldSouthern StarNorthern TimesQueensland TimesLongreach LeaderMt Isa StarWAThe West AustralianGeraldton Midwest TimesGeraldton GuardianBunbury SW TimesAlbany AdvertiserKalgoorlie MinerEsperance ExpressAvon Valley AdvocateNorth West TelegraphBroome AdvertiserMandurah MailSAAdelaide AdvertiserRenmark Murray PioneerMt Gambier BorderMurray Valley StandardWhyalla NewsPort Pirie RecorderWest Coast SentinelYorke Peninsula TimesMt Barker CourierPt Augusta TranscontinentalPort Lincoln TimesVictor Harbour TimesBunyipNTNT NewsTASHobart MercuryBurnie AdvocateLaunceston ExaminerVICMelbourne AgeBallarat CourierGeelong AdvertiserLa Trobe Valley Express East Gippsland NewsSunraysia DailyBendigo AdvertiserShepparton NewsSwan Hill GuardianNSWSydney Morning HeraldMoree ChampionPt Stephens ExaminerMacarthur AdvertiserMid Coast ObserverMaitland MercuryLismore Northern StarOrange Central Western DailyDubbo Daily LiberalBroken Hill Barrier TruthWentworth CourierArmidale IndependentInverell TimesTamworth Northern DailyWollongong Illawarra MercuryWagga Daily AdvertiserByron EchoNorth Coast AdvocateCootamundra HeraldAlbury Border MailCoffs Harbour AdvocateLake Macquarie NewsQueanbeyan AgeWoolgoolga AdvertiserWollongong AdvertiserNewcastle HeraldBatemans Bay PostTweed Daily NewsCanberra TimesDaily ExaminerHunter Valley NewsSouthern Highlands NewsGoulburn PostShoalhaven and Nowra NewsManning River TimesArea NewsBega District NewsThe Advertiser - CessnockBathurst Advocate Parkes Champion PostLithgow MercuryDeniliquin Pastoral TimesYass TribuneBlue Mountains GazetteTown and Country MagazineCooma Monaro ExpressMilton Ulladulla TimesPort Macquarie NewsHastings GazetteWellington TimesWestern Herald(2) (b) Yes.19050(Question No. 1536)153619050O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, 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.19050Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The Defence Community Organisation administers the Family Support Funding Program (FSFP) which provides funding to Defence groups and community organisations which provide services in support of ADF families. The Army History Unit administers the Army History Research Grants Scheme, which is open to individuals and institutions in Australia and overseas.(2) Yes.(a) The FSFP is advertised in local Defence community newsletters. The Army History Research scheme is advertised annually in the national press (Australian, Canberra Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Melbourne Age, Courier Mail and the Army newspaper).(b) In the case of the FSFP, no. In the case of the Army History Research Scheme, yes.19050(Question No. 1542)154219050O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 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.19051Ruddock, 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) and (2) As set out in the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Portfolio Budget Statements 2000-2001 (Budget Related Paper No.1.12) administered appropriations for which eligible community organisations can apply for funding in Tasmania are: . Grants for migrant community services which includes the community settlement services (CSS) scheme for which applications are called annually. For the 2000-01 round (for which applications have closed) the CSS scheme was advertised in national, appropriate regional and ethnic media: - on Saturday 4 March 2000 in the Burnie advocate, Hobart mercury and Launceston examiner in paid advertisements ($1,431) and- in national and selected regional English and ethnic media which may also be accessed in Tasmania, through paid advertisements (total $32,107.40) . Grants for living in harmony were advertised august 1998 in the Burnie advocate, Hobart mercury and Launceston examiner in paid advertisements ($1122.24); grants are currently funded. This initiative is no longer open for applications.19051(Question No. 1561)156119051Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 29 May 2000:(1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Australian Conservation Foundation April 2000 edition of Habitat Australia and the article entitled "What's up at Cape York".(2) What sum of the $40m promised by the Government for the protection of Cape York Peninsula has been spent.(3) Is the Minister aware of criticism of the Cape York Natural Heritage Trust by the Centre for International Economics Resource Policy and Management 1999 which describes it as fragmented with no single point of accountability or responsibility and confused messages being given to the community.(4) What action has he taken in relation to this concern.19051Truss, 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) To date, 29 projects valued at $9.6m have been approved for expenditure in Cape York. (3) I am aware of the comments made by the Centre for International Economics Resource Policy and Management 1999 in relation to the Cape York Natural Heritage Trust. The comments were in a report prepared by the Centre as part of the broader Mid-term Review of the Natural Heritage Trust.(4) I met with conservation, pastoral and indigenous stakeholders, local government and government officials in October 1999 to discuss ways of progressing the implementation of the Cape York Natural Heritage Trust Plan. The Cape York Regional Advisory Panel, which represents the main stakeholder groups in Cape York, is also finalising its own response to the Mid-term Review report and will be forwarding this to me shortly. I will then consider any outstanding concerns. 19052(Question No. 1568)156819052McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 29 May 2000:(1) What are the current criteria of eligibility of payment of the carer payment for a profoundly disabled child.(2) When were the criteria introduced.(3) Since the criteria have been introduced, how many claims have been lodged for the payment.(4) How many claims have been rejected, and of those, how many were with respect to children who suffered from epilepsy or another profound handicap.(5) Has the Government recently undertaken a review of the criteria; if so, (a) what recommendations arose from that review and (b) will the recommendations be adopted.19052Anthony, 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) A person providing full-time care in the home of a child under 16 years of age with a profound disability as defined by the Social Security Act, may be eligible for Carer Payment. Under subsection 197(2), a child is a `profoundly disabled child if':(a) the child has either: (i) a severe multiple disability; or (ii) a severe medical condition; and (b) the child, because of that disability or condition, needs continuous personal care for: (i) 6 months or more; or (ii) if the child's condition is terminal and the child's life expectancy is less than 6 months - the remainder of the child's life; and (c) the child's disability or condition includes 3 or more of the following circumstances: (i) the child receives all food and fluids by nasogastric or percutaneous enterogastric tube; (ii) the child has a tracheostomy; (iii) the child must use a ventilator for at least 8 hours each day; (iv) the child: (A) has faecal incontinence day and night; and (B) if under 3 years of age, is expected to have faecal incontinence day and night at the age of 3; (v) the child: (A) cannot stand without support; and (B) if under 2 years of age, is expected to be unable to stand without support at the age of 2; (vi) a medical practitioner has certified that the child has a terminal condition for which palliative care has replaced active treatment; (vii) the child: (A) requires personal care on 2 or more occasions between 10pm and 6am each day; and (B) if under 6 months of age, is expected to require care as described in sub-subparagraph (A) at the age of 6 months.Carer Payment may also be available to a carer of two or more disabled children if the children are assessed as requiring a level of care that is at least equivalent to the level of care required by a profoundly disabled child.(2) 1 July 1998.(3) 3,767 claims were lodged between 1 July 1998 and end February 2000.(4) 2,545 claims were rejected from 1 July 1998 to end February 2000. Data by medical condition is available for 1 July 1999 to end February 2000. In this period there were 1,539 claims rejected, 32 of which were in respect of children with epilepsy. No application for Carer Payment would be rejected in respect of a `profoundly disabled child' as defined under the legislation where the eligibility criteria are met.Figures may be subject to minor adjustment at the end of the 1999-2000 financial year due to data refinement.(5) Yes, a review was undertaken in 1999 by the Department of Family and Community Services with the assistance of a reference group comprising medical experts and representatives of peak organisations. The report of the review was released on 15 March 2000.(a) The review raised six proposals to refine the program's operation. They were to:. recognise a broader range of children with impaired bowel function;. streamline the eligibility process for carers of terminally ill children;. improve claim forms and related publicity material;. undertake further work in relation to the `tube feeding' criterion;. recognise children who require high-level supervision; and. allow eligibility to be granted on a discretionary basis.(b) As indicated in the government response to the report, the government has adopted the first four recommendations listed in answer (5)(a).19053(Question No. 1571)157119053Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 2000:Further to the answer to question No. 1268 (Hansard, 9 May 2000, page 15328), how many, by country, of the 3484 and 1148 unauthorised arrivals by boat and air, respectively, since July 1999 had applied offshore for refugee and humanitarian visas before entering Australia illegally.19053Ruddock, 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:Unauthorised arrivals generally do not possess documents verifying their identity. This makes accurate data matching comparing information received in applications offshore with information provided by unauthorised arrivals in Australia very difficult. When interviewed, unauthorised arrivals routinely claim not to have previously made applications before the Department.However, a manual check of a number of recent cases indicates that there have been a small number of cases where an unauthorised arrival who applied for protection onshore has been found to have also lodged a refugee or humanitarian application offshore.19053(Question No. 1579)157919053McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 30 May 2000:(1) How many matters were filed in the High Court registry in respect of each financial year since 1 July 1997.(2) How many of those matters which have been filed relate to matters concerning migration.19053Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The migration matters identified in Table 1 include matters filed in both the original and appellate jurisdictions of the High Court. The migration matters identified in Table 2 include migration matters filed in the original jurisdiction only of the High Court. Figures provided for the 1999/00 financial year are to 31 May 2000 only.Table 1 - Migration matters filed in the original and appellate jurisdictions of the Court Migration mattersTotal matters filed1997/98345481998/9989 6151999/0095 682Table 2 - Migration matters filed in the original jurisdiction of the Court Migration mattersTotal matters filed1997/98265481998/9958 6151999/005868219054(Question No. 1602)160219054Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 5 June 2000:(1) Under the proposed changes contained in the `Budget 2000 Child Support Package, is the maximum or cap amount of Child Support Income the highest amount that a paying parent (one having a child support liability) can be assessed upon.(2) Does the proposal drop the maximum or cap child support income amount from $101 153 to $78 378.(3) Is Child Support Income the income of the parent used to calculate how much child support is paid. (4) Is income over $101 153 not taken into account for child support purposes, other than where special circumstances are established.(5) Under the proposed changes, will income over $78 378 not be taken into account.(6) Do the proposed changes to the Child Support Income threshold give greatest benefits to high income earners.(7) Will the proposed changes reduce the (a) amount of child support from $24 552 per annum to $18 301 per annum, or a fall of $119.89 per week, (b) amount of money available to children and (c) standard of living of the payee or carer parent in favour of raising the standard of living for the payer parent.(8) Under the proposed changes will there be a reduction in child support where there is contact by the payer of at least 30% or more nights per annum.(9) Will child support percentages be reduced when there is contact of at least 10% of nights per annum.(10) Is the justification for this change due to the non-carer parent's high costs of having contact with the children.(11) Does the level of contact between the payer and child reduce the costs of the carer.(12) Do the standing costs of the carer remain, including accommodation, education and clothing costs.(13) Will a parent having 10% of nights contact with a child get in excess of a 10% reduction in child support payments if there is one child.(14) What are the benefits of the change to the child and the payees in receipt of the child support monies.19055Anthony, 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) Yes, however, this may be varied: by agreement of the parents; as a result of an application for departure from the administrative assessment; or by the Court.(2) Yes, under current arrangements aligning the measure of `average weekly earnings' that sets the upper limit or `cap' on payer taxable income used in their child support assessment with that used for the payee's disregarded income amount will give a `cap' of $78,378 compared to $101,153.(3) Yes, however, this may be varied: by agreement of the parents; as a result of an application for departure from the administrative assessment; or by the Court.(4) Yes, however, this may be varied: by agreement of the parents; as a result of an application for departure from the administrative assessment; or by the Court.(5) Yes, however as is currently the case, this may be varied: by agreement of the parents; as a result of an application for departure from the administrative assessment; or by the Court.(6) Paying parents with an income over $78,378 (under current arrangements) who pay child support will benefit from the reduction in the upper limit or `cap' on payer income used in their child support assessment. (7) (a) The amount of any reduction will be dependent on a number of factors, such as the payer's income, the number of children involved, the presence of any new natural or adoptive children in the paying parent's household and the payee's income. The estimated 4,000 payers affected by this measure will pay an average of around $60 per week less in child support. These payers will continue to pay an average of around $15,300 per annum ($295 per week) in child support. (b) While the measure will reduce the "formula" assessed level of child support for affected parents this does not mean that they cannot provide additional support beyond the assessed amount. (c) Child support is not designed to support certain standards of living for separated parents. Rather, child support is about both separated parents contributing to the costs of raising their children according to their capacity. (8) The proposed changes do not alter the current child support arrangements for parents who have the care of their child for 30 per cent of the nights of a year or more. Where a parent shares the care of a their child for 30 per cent of the nights of a year or more, the current reduced child support liabilities will continue to apply. (9) Under the changes to child support announced in the Budget, where a child support payer exercises contact with their children of between 10 per cent and 29 per cent of the nights of the year their child support formula percentages will be reduced. For payers with contact between 10 per cent and 19 per cent, the relevant formula percentage that is applied to their income will generally be reduced by two percentage points (for example, from 18 per cent to 16 per cent for one child). Where contact is between 20 per cent and 29 per cent, the formula percentage will generally be reduced by a total of three percentage points (for example, from 18 per cent to 15 per cent for one child).(10) This change is intended to encourage parents to maintain contact with their children after separation. By recognising that parents incur costs during contact, the proposal will improve incentives for non-resident parents to maintain contact with their children. Contact with both parents is of benefit to the development of the children, and leads to a higher likelihood of payment of child support.(11) Yes, it reduces costs such as food, entertainment and clothes. However, like the non-resident parent, ongoing infrastructure costs will continue during periods in which children are with the other parent. Those costs to both parents may include the provision of a bedroom for the child(ren), bedroom furniture and bedding, toys and other entertainment items and general household materials used by the child(ren).(12) Yes, as noted in response to Question 11, as for non-resident parents a resident parent's ongoing infrastructure costs will continue during periods in which children are with the other parent.(13) This Budget measure aligns with the current provisions that apply to child support payers with the care of their children for more than 30 per cent of the time. For example, under current arrangements, parents with care of between 30 and 39 per cent of the nights of the year have their child support reduced by the same percentage regardless of the exact percentage of care they have within that 30 to 39 percent range. In these cases the child support formula percentage is generally reduced by 4 percentage points.Under this budget measure, where a child support payer has care of their child for between 20 per cent and 29 per cent of the time their child support formula percentages will generally be reduced by three percentage points. Those with between 10 per cent and 19 per cent of the nights of the year their child support formula percentages will generally be reduced by two percentage points.Where a parent pays child support for one child, the effect of these arrangements in terms of the percentage of the actual dollar value of these reductions is that those parents with between 10 per cent and 19 per cent care have their liabilities reduced by around 11 per cent. Parents with between 20 per cent and 29 per cent care have their liabilities reduced by around 16 per cent.(14) By recognising that parents incur costs during contact, the measure will improve incentives for non-resident parents to maintain contact with their children. Contact with both parents is of benefit to the development of the children, and leads to a higher likelihood of payment of child support.19056(Question No. 1619)161919056Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, upon notice, on 7 June 2000:Has the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) the power to investigate the potential loss of economic activity in regional Australia following the merger of the Colonial Bank and the Commonwealth Bank; if so, will he direct the ACCC to take into account the likely loss of economic activity in regional Australia.19056Hockey, Joe, MPMr HockeyDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is responsible for ensuring compliance with the competition and consumer provisions of the Trade Practices Act, including the prohibition on anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions. In its assessment of the competition implications of the Commonwealth Bank / Colonial merger, the Commission conducted extensive market inquiries. It received comments from business and farming organisations, consumer groups and banking customers, as well as State Governments and State and Federal members of Parliament. After significant undertakings in relation to price, service quality and product range were provided by the parties, the Commission decided not to oppose the merger. Undertakings given by the Commonwealth Bank include a commitment to retain Colonial State Bank sites where there is no Commonwealth Bank branch within close proximity. There is also a commitment that in any country town where the Commonwealth Bank or Colonial is the last bank in the town, the branch will be retained for at least the next five years. In country towns, any amalgamated branch must also be retained for at least five years. The Commonwealth Bank also undertook to ensure that there would be no involuntary employment losses in Tasmania and rural and regional NSW as a result of the acquisition. If the Commission forms the belief that a term of these undertakings has been breached, under the Trade Practices Act, it may apply to the Court for an order directing compliance with the undertaking.19056(Question No. 1649)164919057Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 20 June 2000:(1) How many applications lodged with the Migration Internal Review Office (MIRO) are outstanding.(2) When will the backlog of MIRO cases be cleared.(3) Will outstanding MIRO cases be given priority consideration by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT).(4) What timeframe can applicants for review by the MRT expect for a decision to be reached.19057Ruddock, 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) Of the 2605 cases received from the Migration Internal Review Office by the Migration Review Tribunal, 1802 were outstanding at 31 May 2000.(2) It is difficult to predict when the backlog of MIRO cases will be cleared. Cases are dealt with in accordance with the agreed casework priorities, not according to whether the application was originally lodged with MIRO, the IRT or the MRT. The MRT's caseload priorities have been determined by the Acting Principal Member of the Tribunal as follows: Priority 1. . Time critical cases as defined by legislation (ie applications for review of a decision to refuse or cancel a bridging visa as a result of which the person is in immigration detention) and . Cases to be expedited in accordance with legislation, (ie onshore visa cancellation cases, certain visitor visa cases and cases where the person affected is in immigration detention). Priority 2. . Cases where there are circumstances of a particularly compelling or compassionate nature relating to the review applicant or the visa applicant, and . cases remitted from the Federal Court.Priority 3. . Applications for the review of decisions to refuse a visa where the review applicant is also the visa applicant by date of lodgement of undecided review application (ie applications for review of onshore visa decisions), and . offshore spouse applications lodged prior to a date advised by the Principal Member from time to time (currently 1 June 1999).Priority 4. All other cases by date of lodgement of undecided review application ie applications for review of offshore visa decisions, other than offshore spouse cases included in priority group 3).Work usually commences on applications which fall within Priorities 1 and 2 shortly after receipt by the Tribunal.Within Priorities 3 and 4, cases are dealt with on the basis of "oldest review application first". MIRO cases generally fall into these categories and because of their age are more likely to be dealt with before applications made to the former Immigration Review Tribunal. There is however scope for cases within a priority grouping to be constituted taking into account the characteristics of cases where this will achieve economies of effort through dealing with a number of similar cases at the same time or to make the best use of the skills and knowledge of members and case officers. "Oldest review application" is determined taking into account the date that the review applicant first applied for merits review. The rate of clearance of the backlog of MIRO cases will depend on the number of new applications that fall within Priorities 1 and 2, and the number of cases able to be finalised by the Tribunal. (3) Outstanding MIRO cases will be processed in accordance with the Tribunal's caseload priorities described above at (2). (4) As described above, it is not possible to predict with any certainty, when an MRT application will be decided as it depends on the nature of the case and the Priority assigned to the application.19058(Question No. 1682)168219058Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 26 June 2000: (1) How many individual transactions with individual members of the public were conducted by each agency in the Minister's portfolio in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000, and if available, what are the forecast figures for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04. (2) What definition of transaction is used to determine these figures.(3) What proportion of these transactions were or are expected to be conducted online.(4) What was the total cost of administering these transactions for each agency in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.(5) What was the total cost of administering the online transactions in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.19058Anthony, 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 detailed information required to answer the honourable member's question is not readily available. I do not consider appropriate the expenditure of resources and effort that would be involved in collecting and assembling the information for the sole purpose of answering questions of this nature.19058(Question No. 1691)169119058Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 26 June 2000:(1) How many individual transactions with individual members of the public were conducted by each agency in the Ministers portfolio in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000, and if available, what are the forecast figures for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.(2) What definition of transaction is used to determine these figures.(3) What proportion of these transactions were or are expected to be conducted online.(4) What was the total cost of administering these transactions for each agency in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.(5) What was the total cost of administering the online transactions in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.19058Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised that considerable resources would be required to research the answers to these questions across the portfolio. This would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the department.