2000-08-163917REPS1905702000-08-16—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills19057R110019057Debate 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 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”.09:31:0019057Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—Vocational education and training are a critical part of the equation to get people into work and to keep them there. I think that is an issue that we will be talking a lot about today in another context. Skills and education, coupled with experience, are the most effective ways of increasing the employment prospects for school leavers and the unemployed. What is really important is up-to-date training for those already in the work force because it is crucial to maintain and expand the knowledge base of Australia's work force. We know that in an increasingly globalised environment we must be competitive in the skill and education level of our work force. We know that jobs growth will predominantly occur in occupations where a formal vocational or academic qualification is required. In our Workforce 2010 document, we forecast that 60 per cent of all new jobs over the next 10 years will require a formal post school qualification—post school of some sort. This is a pretty sobering reality when we know that only 40 per cent of the current adult population actually has some form of post school qualification. We have to bridge that gap, and skills education and training are one of the key responsibilities of government. It is the responsibility of government to anticipate that change and to do a good job of matching the training that is provided to the emerging skill needs of a nation.The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 is a funding bill to provide an extra $13 million a year for the entire VET sector. This amount, which only barely covers CPI cost increases, really does seem quite pitiful at a time when even DETYA has estimated that a 2.8 per cent increase is required to meet increases in demand for training. We know that demand is there. ANTA has also estimated that a 5.7 per cent increase will be required just to keep pace with current trends in demand. And ANTA, in keeping with its brief, is gearing up for a large information campaign aimed at making people more aware of their training opportunities. This estimate by ANTA of growth in demand does not even take this into account. It has not been allowed to. It will not be able to meet the expected increases in demand without some level of growth funding. I do not think we should let this opportunity pass without reminding ourselves that so far this government has cut $240 million out of TAFE funding since coming to office. You cannot be totally committed to training and take such a chunk out of the budget of an important component of this nation's training infrastructure.The other thing that this bill does nothing about is addressing the skills crisis that Australia is currently experiencing. We know that there are tens of thousands of unfilled vacancies in information technology, nursing, accountancy and hospitality to name but a few occupations. When we have a look at who needs training and retraining and whose training and retraining needs are not being met at the moment, we can see lots of categories. We see employees in workplaces that are at risk of falling prey to structural adjustment. They are very frustrated at not being able to retrain or upgrade their skills so as to maintain their employment. We see carers re-entering the work force, and they are wondering why there is little prospect of their getting access to the up-to-date training that they need to regain employment. These people could be helping to fill vacancies in skilled occupations, but they cannot do this without access to the training or retraining that is required. I think it is the inability of the current system to provide training for those who need it to help address our skills crisis that is denying those Australians all of the things that flow from the dignity of work, including financial and social security. So it is not just about punishing people for not having work; it is about the other side of the mutual obligation contract. It is about making serious training opportunities available. If we do not do that, it is not just about the bottom line of a social security budget; it is about holding back the long-term economic and intellectual development of Australia. The lack of skilled information technology professionals in Australia is a case in point. It is not as if we were not aware that this was an area of jobs growth opportunities. I have here an article from the Age from yesterday headed `Apprentice shortage sparks industry alarm', which states, `New technology is here—but where are the people to install it?' The article goes on to talk about apprenticeships in this sector, in particular in electrotechnology. It says that what we should be alarmed about is that 68 per cent of electrotechnology apprentices do not complete their training. There are a whole range of apprenticeships applicable to this industry. But if we do not have the people who can do this work, how can we make the connection, so to speak, and take the next step?Economic commentators are pointing out that unless we can skill up those unemployed who need it, unless we can address the skills crisis, then economic growth, as well as falls in unemployment, will hit a barrier. We welcome the drop in the unemployment rate, but we say that it is a real challenge to the government to make that drop sustainable. We cannot move forward as a nation and make that growth sustainable if we do not more seriously address the need for the unemployed to receive the skills and the education they need.I should make a comment this morning on the attitude of this government on welfare to work, the attitude that people who are out there who need training are actually `job snobs' who will not take work that is available or work that Mr Abbott says is available. I think we should focus on approaches to long-term unemployed people, single parents and the disabled and what chance they have of access to training and how that will help them make a meaningful transition from welfare to work. Most of these people who are able would like to work. They know that they want to share in the economic benefits that are accruing to many in society. So, on the one hand, we have a government saying, `Get out there and do it or we'll punish you.' But, on the other hand, we have a government which is not giving them appropriate access to skills and training and the work experience that will help them make that transition.I think a true commitment to training and education for those who are out of the work force but who are able to re-enter it and want to re-enter it is about building a partnership; it is not about big sticks and punishment. I think we all have responsibility as members of the community to actually say on a case by case basis, `Here are your strengths. Here are your weaknesses. If you have been retrenched, here is a different way of looking at your skills. Here is the sort of retraining that you will need to make you employable in a continuing way.' If I were to make one overall criticism of this government's approach to training it would be that it is very disjointed. There is not a clear path between the various federal government training programs or between the federal government programs and the state areas of responsibility. This bill, which provides for a small increase in funding, will do very little to address this problem. I think the issue with this bill is what it does not do rather than what it does do. With respect to a continuum of training, Labor believes that we should be able to access vocational education and training in schools, that students should have access to a program of structured training and on-the-job experience. From there, for those who need it, there should be access to either an apprenticeship or a further education opportunity. That seems simple but at the moment we have schools competing with some areas of the Job Network system. For example, we have schools teaching resume writing and interview skills and we have the Job Network doing the same thing. That is just a small example of a lack of coherence in the system, and I think it is something that we should address. I think special attention needs to be paid to employees who are facing retrenchment. I think one of the positive aspects of the recent Age Counts report is that it does pick up on something we have been saying for some timeand I guess it is commonsense to say thisthat intervention is better than letting things fester and cause greater social dislocation in the long run. Some recommendations in this report actually point to what we talked about in our Workforce 2010, identifying workers and sectors at risk, getting in there and working with employers, working with unions, working with training institutions and asking: what do we need to do to make sure that we do not just dump these people onto the scrap heap of unemployment and treat them as disposable, as some kind of throwaway cigarette lighter? At last we are coming to a discussion in this country of our responsibility towards those who have borne the disproportionate share of the consequences of economic restructuring. This report, with respect to my idea of a continuum of training, would be appropriate. It says:The Committee recommends that the Minister for Employment Services ensure that where appropriate, training components funded under Job Network be given vocational training recognition according to endorsed national competency standards. That is one of the problems in the training system at the moment: young people going to work for the dole. The Minister for Employment Services says that it is only about attitude. Labor has no problem with asking young people to assess attitude, to giving them some meaning and structure to their day. But it is a six-month commitment they are asked to make, and we think part of that six-month commitment should be that at the end of it you come out with more than a certificate that says, `I attended Work for the Dole for six months.' You should come out with a certificate which takes you to the next step in a training continuum and gives you a really basic competency level to take with you. If you are lucky enough to go on to employment, it is part of the steps towards lifelong learning with which we heartily concur. People obviously need lifelong learning. Life is very flexible. People move in and out of different careers these days. But for those who do not have the skills at the very beginning, I think this government could do a better job of matching up what is needed and making that available to those most at risk.That brings me to Job Network. I think that Job Network could be doing a much better job of giving unemployed people access to training. At the moment it really is a wasted opportunity. Last week I was very disappointed to hear the Minister for Employment Services say that training as a means for people to gain employment has been bypassed by events. What kinds of events will wipe out the reality of where jobs growth in the future will occur? It is going to occur in the sales, marketing, retail, health, education, welfare and hospitality sectors. We know this is where future demand is going to occur. Training has not been bypassed by events; training has been made more urgent by the reality of skill shortages and the lack of coherent matching by this government of those emerging shortages and what is needed to quickly skill our population to meet the challenges of the future. I think the one thing that Job Network needs to reassess in its design is that, when people are accepted for intensive assistance, there is an expectation that part of the money will be expended on training, but there is no guarantee. There is very little auditing of what kind of training happens. Despite what the minister for employment thinks, most people who go into Job Network say that they want to come out of it with something to show as being realistic training. Some of the better providers pay TAFE fees for some of their clients; some of the poorer providers give a very cheap version of a very basic outsourced course and call that training. In the moments left to me I want to touch very briefly on mature age people. I started on that subject, and I want to make just a couple more comments. The other thing that this committee draws attention to which is worthy of support or of consideration when we are talking about a continuum of training is the recommendation that the government fund a national computer literacy and training program for mature age people. This does not need to cost a lot of money. Such a program could be provided through a variety of existing government and non-government facilities. When we talk about training for mature age Australians, particularly those who have held down one job all their life, we find that, for a lot of them, there is a lack of experience with basic things like computer skills; their job has not required them to be exposed to that in the past. But now you will find that, even for a storeman and packers job, it is probably more important to have computer skills than it is to have a forklift licence. By denying part of our work force easy access to this kind of basic training we are in fact reducing their opportunity for quick employability. So I think that that is a recommendation on which we should act quickly. Also, a couple of years ago, in its document `45 + The Changing Face of Work and its Impact on Australians over 45', which was a look at the problems of mature age unemployed in this country, Labor said—and this recommendation has a similar flavour—that the government should look at a specific subsidy for mature age people undertaking traineeships or apprenticeships.The overall point I want to make here is that this is a bill about funding training. It makes a very small allocation of funding when you think of the huge and growing needs that are out there. But it is an important area to invest in because it is all about improving employability. It is all about making us more responsive to the demands of globalisation, making us a highly skilled nation. It is also, though, about how we can turn around our strengths—and we have many as a nation. Ireland was able to turn itself around with call centres. When the rest of the world caught on to call centres, they said, `What is our strength in this area?' and they made their call centre training more directly linked to multilingual call centre provision. They were able to quickly turn around the training opportunities in their country, and I think we could do a much better job in this country.Finally, I think the really deficient thing in this bill is that the money contained in it is not even guaranteed to flow on to the Australian National Training Authority or to the states. Dr Kemp has said that funding in 2001 is subject to the finalisation of a satisfactory amended ANTA agreement. I think we have to remember that it is Dr Kemp who has refused to back up the move to a national framework with funding to address serious quality concerns identified by the various Schofield reports on training. It is a good thing that these reports are happening in the states around the nation, and there are some constructive suggestions coming from them. Overall, there is a constructive commitment in this country from the states to work in partnership with the federal government for a national framework. This silly political fighting over the conditions under which the framework will be reached—and it is a position taken primarily by Dr Kemp—really undermines, I think, our chances of achieving this national framework.To make a direct comparison, I think the difference between Labor and the coalition on this point is that we are not trying to deceive people into thinking that we are out there providing heaps of training when in fact we are providing an ad hoc, disjointed system of a lot of often el cheapo basic courses which do not lead people on to that coherent continuum of competency which takes them to the next stage in employment. (Time expired)09:52:0019060Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—No doubt all would agree with the central point made by the preceding speakers on the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000, that central point being that skills education and vocational training are essential in preparing young people in particular—and, in fact, people of all ages—for a rapidly changing job market and for the changing skills needed in that job market. It is essential for the employees and the potential employees themselves. It is essential for businesses to be able to adapt to their rapidly changing market pressures, and is essential for Australia to maintain its competitiveness in an increasingly challenging global environment. I do appreciate some of the suggestions from the two shadow ministers from the other side who have spoken so far, the shadow minister for employment and the shadow minister for education and training. However, two themes seem to have come through in their comments with which I had to take some exception, as the member for Dickson would expect. The theme raised by the member for Dickson just a few minutes ago and last night by the member for Dobell is the same old theme that we hear from the other side, that we need to be spending more money. And, yes, we do need to be spending more money. But the theme that we get from every member of the frontbench opposite when they come to speak on a bill is, `We need more money on this, we need more money on that, we need more money for some other program.' The obvious question is, `Yes, but where does this money come from?' And that is the question that members opposite do not seem to be able to answer.Where is the money coming from? `Sure we are going to roll back the GST. Yes, we are going to give you bigger budget surpluses, and we are trying to spend more money.' How do we do all three at once? How do we spend more money on this program, that program and every other program? How do we roll back the GST and cut some of the tax receipts from that? How do we create even bigger budget surpluses? How do we do all three? The only answer, the only way that you can do all three, is of course to raise income taxes, and that is the old magic pudding approach of the Labor Party: you spend more and tax more. The magic pudding that somehow suggests that we can keep spending money that we have not got is a fallacy. It is a myth, yet it is a myth that the Labor Party seem to want to always fall into. And, yes, there are aspects of vocational education and training that do need more attention, but those areas that need attention have to be funded. There is no magic pudding. The Labor Party's myth of a magic pudding is simply that: it is a myth. Without their efforts to raise taxes we will not be able to fund some of these programs that they keep saying they want to fund.The other theme that struck me was in the comments made last night by the member for Dobell. He had a couple of good suggestions about the sorts of things that he thought should be done in the area of vocational education, training and education generally. Looking back on his comments, it seems to me that some of those things that the member for Dobell was pointing out are things that this government is in fact already doing. The member for Dobell made quite a song and dance about the need to improve literacy and numeracy rates, and he is absolutely right: we do. One of the biggest barriers for young people in terms of accessing employment is illiteracy and innumeracy. Unless we raise levels of literacy and numeracy they cannot hope to have a chance of securing worthwhile, meaningful, fulfilling employment. But the point that I would like to make to the member for Dobell is that the government has substantially increased literacy and numeracy funding over the past three years and, in fact, in cooperation with state and territory governments instituted national benchmarking to make sure that across this country we have raised nationally accepted and uniform standards in literacy and numeracy.The other thing that is interesting is that, in this government's attempt to introduce those higher standards right across the board in the face of some significant opposition from some of the teachers unions, where were the voices from the opposition frontbenchers? Where were their voices telling their union buddies to be quiet and to get behind the government and to support this government's approaches to lift numeracy and literacy standards? We had deafening silence from members opposite, including the member for Dobell. Certainly we need to improve literacy and numeracy standards. This government is on about doing exactly that. The other point made by both of the previous speakers from the other side is that we need to address skills shortages. Yes, we do need to address skills shortages, and this government is doing a significant amount already in terms of addressing those skill shortages—far more, in fact, than was done under the former government. Under the former government apprenticeship levels fell to the lowest level in 30 years. This government has turned around dramatically that tragic decline that we saw under the former government.The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 raises funding previously appropriated for ANTA, the Australian National Training Authority, in order to support our commitment to vocational education and training programs run under the auspices of ANTA. In fact, this bill allocates an extra $13 million to bring ANTA's funding for this year to $931.4 million, ensuring that its funding is maintained in real terms. This is consistent with the 1998 revised ANTA agreement between Commonwealth, state and territory governments to maintain funding in real terms, and that is what this bill does. This bill, this increased funding for ANTA, is a further indication of this government's commitment to education and training, its commitment to assisting Australians, especially young Australians, to acquire the skills necessary and its commitment to maximising their chances of securing satisfying employment and a start on the road to a worthwhile career.This year ANTA is expected to support an extra 160,000 student places over what there was three years ago. So under this funding agreement in the year 2000 there will be 160,000 more young people in vocational training and education than there were just three years ago. That is a substantial and creditable increase in support, increase in funding and increase in places in vocational education and training.Along with the $931 million commitment this year to ANTA is a broader overall emphasis of this government on increasing the effectiveness of vocational education provided through ANTA by working with the states and territories to improve national consistency by establishing national quality assurance mechanisms so that young people who get accreditation and training through any of these TAFE courses, through any of the vocational education courses, will have nationally recognised accreditation, accreditation that will enable them to slot into employment across the country. These measures are aimed at ensuring that training provided best fits the needs of the potential employees, the trainees, the apprentices and the employers as well as the broader community. We need more places in vocational education and training, more consistency, more certainty and greater quality in the training that takes places.This $931 million for this year is but one part of the government's package of measures in the vocational educational and training area, a package of measures aimed at preparing people for employment. It is a substantial part of the $1.7 billion in this year's budget for vocational education and training programs. That is $1.7 billion to prepare the 70 per cent of school leavers who do not go on to university. The other programs—the other $800 million a year—fund many other supplementary and complentary programs, other arms of the government's broad vocational educational strategy. The first of these is the commitment to the New Apprenticeships system. One of the coalition's big successes has been the New Apprenticeships system. We have heard the two former speakers on the other side saying that we need to do something about skills. The government are well on the way to doing exactly that. We have dramatically turned around the decline under Labor, which saw, as I said, apprenticeships fall to a 30-year low, again indicating their appalling lack of interest in the 70 per cent who do not go on to university.The New Apprenticeships system is a streamlined system with a single contact point, the New Apprenticeships centres, which makes it easier for employers and apprentices. It provides greater flexibility for employers to consider arrangements which suit their business needs and provides greater flexibility for the apprentices themselves to find a training course that fits in with their own requirements. The system covers many new skills areas. It provides greater choice in the duration of training and the mix of on-the-job and off-the-job training in a way that suits the apprentice and suits the employer. It provides the option of competency based training so those who have the ability and the determination can move more quickly through their apprenticeship training. It provides again a national framework of training to ensure that we have greater consistency in standards across the board and national recognition of these standards. The government will spend $2 billion over the next four years on the New Apprenticeships system. That is money for New Apprenticeships centres, money as an incentive for employers to take on apprentices, and access programs to provide pre-apprenticeship training for young people with special needs and special difficulties. The government's commitment is to improving and expanding the apprenticeships system.The figures clearly show that there has been a considerable degree of success already. We have seen a remarkable growth in numbers to record levels. This year, currently, close to 270,000 people are in training—270,000 currently in apprenticeships and traineeships—compared with 143,000 people in training just four years ago, in Labor's last year. There was an increase from 143,000 to 270,000. In terms of the more traditional apprenticeship areas, the figure has risen by 17,600, from 114,600 four years ago to 132,000 this year. The runs are on the board. Young people are in apprenticeships and traineeships in far greater numbers than they ever have been before. Last year there were 184,200 new placements in apprenticeships and traineeships in just one year, compared with only 64,500 in Labor's last year.One of the valuable parts of this expansion in apprenticeships has been the growth in school based apprenticeships, that is, students beginning part of their apprenticeship training while they are still at school, starting in years 10 and 11 and even as early as year 9. In fact, this year 7,200 school students have begun their apprenticeship training. This is essential if we are to bridge the gap successfully between school and work. For too long we have had young people leaving school without any clear idea of what they want to do in terms of employment, of what they want to do in terms of a career—leaving school, thinking about it and then falling in that crack between school and employment, often with that crack widening, sadly, in many cases, to long-term youth unemployment. We have to bridge the gap between school and the workplace, and the commencement of apprenticeships and traineeships in the school helps to fill that gap. It helps to focus these young people on employment after they leave school; it gives them a connection with an employer, a training course and an apprenticeship so that when they leave school they naturally flow on to full-time engagement in that apprenticeship, that traineeship and that employment.A second aspect has been the commitment to increased funding for vocational education and training within our school system. We now have 90 per cent of our schools throughout this country involved in some way or another in vocational education and training for young people while they are still in school. We have seen a dramatic rise in the number of school students involved in vocational educational programs, school industry courses, joint secondary school and TAFE courses and the like. In fact, over just the last two years there has been an increase from 26,500 to 167,000 students this year involved in vocational education and training programs while they are still at school. Again, this is critical in terms of refocusing the attention of our young people—focusing the attention of our young people while they are still at school on the training, skilling and employment that they are going to need when they leave school so that the link is there so that automatically they move out of school into full-time training and employment. This is building the links that are essential to ensuring that youth unemployment does not occur immediately on leaving school and that that does not then extend into long-term unemployment.This government has made significant, considerable and substantial progress in this area. It has been assisted by a number of other programs, again, funded by the government—for example, the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation, which seeks to build these links by facilitating work experience placements for school students while they are still at school. I would also like to mention one of my local groups funded under the ASTF, and that is the Hawkesbury Local Industry Education Network, which is doing a tremendous job. This is a network of school leaders and industry leaders making those work placements and is capably run by Catherine Murphy, the workplace coordinator, who is doing a great job making those links and putting young people into work placements that will develop their interest in the careers they will be able to take up when they leave school. The government's commitment of $43.7 million over the next four years will place an increasing number of students in work experience. Last year the number in ASTF was over 57,300, in comparison to 2,800 in 1995. The Jobs Pathway Program is another essential part of this overall approach to vocational education and training. It also assists in providing those essential links between school and the workplace, assisting in the transition from student to employee. It assists students still at school, students from years 9 to 12 or students who have already left school and who are having difficulties in making that adjustment and knowing what skills they have got, what skills they need to acquire and how they can fit into the workplace. Jobs Pathway provides counselling and assistance for those people, and it is committed to maximising the opportunities for these young people from all backgrounds. To reiterate, this year's funding of $1.7 billion is a very substantial commitment to vocational education and training in one form or another. It involves a significant expansion, and we are seeing a very significant expansion within this sector of the number of young people in training—in all, some 1.5 million right across the board in some form or another of vocational training or education.In the last couple of minutes remaining, I think it is worth making the point that all the training, all the skilling and all the education, while essential, do not do the job on their own. Unless there are jobs out there, unless jobs are being created, unless unemployment is coming down, the future is still bleak for young people coming out of schools and coming out of our training programs. And that is why I am delighted, as I am sure the whole of the country is, with the success that we have had over the past four years in generating jobs. The fact that the coalition government has generated over 809,000 jobs in four years provides tremendous opportunities for our young people coming out of school. It means that we have seen a substantial fall in unemployment from 8.6 per cent, when we came into office four years ago, to 6.3 per cent now in seasonally adjusted terms. That is a tremendous fall in unemployment and is providing opportunities for our young people coming out of school.But we do not only need to train young people and have them prepared for the job market, which is what we are doing; we need to make sure that jobs are being generated so that they have a place to go to develop those careers. This is a dual approach to resolving our unemployment problems, to making sure that we have got the training and to making sure that we are generating jobs. I am pleased that this government has been doing exactly that—four years of strong economic growth, 12 consecutive quarters of growth over one per cent, increased labour market flexibility, improved labour market programs and ongoing labour market reform, in addition to skills and training programs. A combination of all of these policies has contributed to providing real hope for our young people by preparing them for the work force, getting jobs, generating jobs and making sure unemployment continues to fall. I am pleased that this government has been successful. There is still a long way to go. There is still too much unemployment, and we have got a lot to do, but we are making substantial progress. The runs are on the board, and we will continue to make that progress to make sure that our young people have opportunities, that they are prepared and that there are jobs there for them to go to when they leave school.10:11:0019065Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 provides a fine opportunity for the parliament to examine the work of ANTA. I want to address three issues in my remarks. The first is the meaning of lifelong learning and how we build a learning culture in this nation, the second is to advocate the development of a national TAFE system, and the third is to examine ways in which government can use its leverage in the corporate sector to gain a greater commitment to training, particularly for disabled people. On the first point, I congratulate ANTA for the development of their lifelong learning project. I would recommend that members of the House read the findings of their study. This is one of the most important reports ever conducted into attitudes to lifelong learning in this country, and it has thrown up some very interesting conclusions. ANTA has found that Australians are indeed keen on learning. They recognise the need for new skills and capabilities in a fast changing economy and also the social benefits of learning. But—and it is a big but—Australians are not so keen on inflexible classroom learning environments. They are looking for learning opportunities which are more casual, comfortable and flexible; indeed, they are looking for learning beyond the classroom. We hear a lot of talk in modern politics about getting the balance right between work and family. If we are serious about lifelong learning, we have to get the balance right between work, family and learning commitments. In many ways, we have become a time-poor society. There are enormous demands on all families in all respects. Government needs to play a role in assisting mature Australians to get the balance right between their work, family and learning commitments. How can this be done? The obvious point is that learning opportunities need to be built around the needs of the public, not the other way around. We need to take learning beyond the classroom to the people themselves.There are some fine examples of how this is happening, examples which should be supported in public policy. For instance, the New South Wales government has established a program where people can learn their TAFE courses on the train from Wollongong up to Sydney. If people have commuting time on their hands—some would say too much time on the New South Wales trains at the moment—why not undertake a bit of adult learning on the train of a morning and afternoon? Another example is that the New South Wales clubs association is establishing Internet cafes in its facilities. Why doesn't government use this opportunity to develop adult and community education courses in the clubs themselves? Again, that is a fine example of taking learning to the people. People are looking for learning opportunities where they feel comfortable, they feel energised, they are not intimidated by big sandstone buildings or a rigid timetable; they can do learning according to their own time needs and arrangements.In Britain, there are some fine examples of this learning beyond the classroom agenda. For instance, the government is working with the Tesco supermarket chain to establish learning centres in the supermarkets themselves. Anyone who goes down for a bit of shopping can put their children into a learning centre for a bit of preschool instruction. That is of course better than having the kids race up and down the shopping aisles, and the kids benefit from it. I see the member for Makin nodding in agreement. She knows that there is a real need for this sort of facility. And why shouldn't the parents themselves take advantage of the learning centre? They can slot themselves in for learning opportunities with tutoring and the use of interactive computer packages. In their busy schedule, they can take advantage of the learning centre. Another example in Britain is the concept of a communiversity. This is a magnificent idea combining the best of higher education and community learning opportunities. The communiversity in Britain is a model where a local community centre buys university courses online and offers face-to-face tutoring in the community centre. It is a fine example of how people can develop a level of comfort, can develop learning opportunities and can develop qualifications according to their own busy timetable.We have a big challenge in bringing a large number of Australians back into the learning system. It is estimated that one in four adult Australians never returns to any form of formal learning after they leave school. Mostly they are big boofy blokes like me. They have looked at the education system and thought that it is not for them. One out of every four adults is not going back to education after they leave school, and that is a big number of Australians. If we are to be serious about lifelong learning and if we are to make learning a reality for all Australians in all parts of their lives, surely we need to do better than that statistic. This indicates the need for learning beyond the classroom agenda. We will not attract the interest and energy of these Australians unless they find learning opportunities with which they are comfortable and find a level of convenience. This statistic also points to the need for and the value of a learning account or a targeted entitlement for these Australians, where they can draw on a bank of learning resources to undertake adult education courses. Of course, with the learning accounts if they do not use the entitlement they lose it, so the incentive is there for people to take up the learning opportunity. This whole model of learning beyond the classroom opens up a partnership function for government; to join with licensed clubs, supermarkets, community centres and transport terminals to develop learning opportunities in a more flexible and comfortable environment; to actually take learning to the people themselves. I would say that this is the first task for a knowledge nation—to build public enthusiasm and to energise public effort for lifelong learning. It will not happen in the traditional institutions. It will not happen in the traditional silos of learning. We need to go beyond the classroom and develop a whole new agenda. We need to embed lifelong learning opportunities in all parts of civil society. There is here a new agenda and a new function for government in developing this partnership model; to actually become an agent for change in civil society; to broaden the learning horizons in Australia well beyond the traditional institutions of schools, colleges and universities.My second point concerning the work of ANTA is about the development of a national TAFE system. Recently at the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party in Hobart there was a magnificent announcement for a Medicare alliance. This is the enlightened view that federal-state funding in key areas of responsibility should be pooled. We should bundle together state and federal funding. I am a great supporter of pooling and bundling. I have been talking about it for years. It of course broadens the horizon for the Australian federal system of government. Once you start pooling and bundling, which level of government is going to run the one pool of funds? It makes no sense to have two or even three levels of government trying to run the one pool of funding. So this concept of a Medicare alliance opens up other issues about the future of Australian federal-state relations.If you ask the question, `Who is going to run the single pool of health funding?' I would argue, given the state government administration, the regional health authorities that are already in place, that these become the logical unit for health administration. If the states are to take greater responsibility in the administration of health, who is going to look after post-secondary education in this country? We have an historic opportunity for the proper rationalisation of federal-state relations. I would argue very strongly that as part of this change all post-secondary education responsibilities should come under the coverage of the Commonwealth government. It makes no sense for state governments to maintain legislative control of universities when they put in just a small fraction of higher education funding in this nation. It makes no sense to have so many diverse funding and administrative responsibilities in the area of vocational education and training.Many people have described ANTA itself as an absolute labyrinth of administrative detail and conflicting responsibilities. ANTA itself should be rationalised by bringing all of the VET responsibilities under the coverage of the federal government. Finally, it makes no sense to have so little Commonwealth government effort in the area of adult and community education. If we are to develop a knowledge nation in Australia, the best structural initiative is to bring all the post-secondary responsibilities under the coverage of the national government. These responsibilities are university funding as well as legislative control, the full coverage of vocational education and training regulations and funding; plus a Commonwealth effort to build up the strength of adult and community education. With regard to TAFE, the ANTA agreement allows this model. It allows the states to transfer their TAFE institutes to the Commonwealth. I support the view long advocated by Senator Kim Carr that over a 10-year period Australia's 84 TAFE institutes should be transferred to the Commonwealth government. This would establish a national TAFE system. It is absurd to think that we all talk about the value of learning and skills and the development of a learning society as a national responsibility when we have not got a national TAFE system. This is the great national responsibility that needs to be discharged by this parliament. Over a 10-year period, using the existing ANTA agreement, it would be possible to transfer the 84 TAFE institutes to the Commonwealth. With the associated rationalisation of Australian federalism, it could be done in a financially responsible fashion. This is not a big spending policy; it is a smarter spending policy for the Commonwealth.My third point in this debate concerns the efforts of the corporate sector in vocational education and training. Unhappily, Australia has one of the worst performing corporate sectors in the world. Our corporate training effort is very low by international standards. At one level this points to market failure: companies traditionally underinvest in the skills of their workers because they have a fear that, if they train up a particular worker and that person is poached by another company, that is a loss of their financial resources and a wasted investment. So there is a market failure and, accordingly, a very strong role for government intervention, particularly for low skill, low income workers. We hear a lot of talk in the public arena about the problems of mature age workers being retrenched and then finding it very hard in their 40s and 50s to find new forms of work. Why is it that the debate is always couched in terms of mopping up the problem after it has occurred? Why don't we have pre-emptive policies in place? Why don't we have a national strategy that pre-empts economic restructuring and gives these workers the best chance to hang onto their jobs? We need a new training scheme targeted at low skill, low income workers as a pre-emptive measure to ensure that these people have the best chance of remaining active in the work force. Some of these things have been tried in the past. The Hawke government's training levy was abandoned in the 1994 Working Nation statement because of problems with its design and implementation. We desperately need a replacement scheme in this country. When we look overseas to try to pick up best international practice, there is no doubt that the best scheme is Singapore's Skills Development Fund. This is a program which places a levy on companies as a proportion of the wages of their low income employees. It recognises that the people who get the least training effort in the workplace are those with low incomes and low skills. They are the people who are retrenched in the case of changing technology. If there is a bit of workplace restructuring, they are the first ones out the door. Companies then try to bring in new workers with higher levels of skills. The Skills Development Fund in Singapore is designed to pre-empt the problem. It is designed to do something about it in practice. A levy is placed on companies as a proportion of the wages of those low income employees, and the money is held by government and then returned to the companies once the companies have produced a proper training program. So it is a win-win initiative. The national interest is served by the fact that low income, low skill employees are getting the training they need to update their skills, to stay part of their workplace. It is also a win for the companies. This is not a levy that they never see again; they actually get the money back. They pay the money to the government and then, once they have an authorised training program, they get the money back so they can train their workers up to be more effective in the workplace. This is a win-win scenario: good for the nation, good for the companies and, further, good for the low income, low skill workers. We all know that in the workplace it is the high-income people who do best in terms of training output. They have the personal income and they have the investment from their companies to take on new qualifications and to cope with the inevitability of economic change. It is the low skill workers who never get the training because they do not have the money in their own pockets to pay for it themselves, and they do not get it from the company. So it is a classic case of market failure. You need to have government intervention. I can assure the House that, internationally, Singapore's Skills Development Fund is the very best way to proceed.There is also an argument for a variation on this scheme to take account of the special needs of disabled workers. This is a topical issue today with the release of the McClure report. We will hear a lot of rhetoric around the place about the need to help disabled workers. But let us do something about it. Australia's training effort for disabled people is appalling: it is an absolute national disgrace. We have virtually no corporate training for disabled workers, and our employment take-up of disabled people in this country is very low by international standards. When you go to Europe you find that those nations actually have quota systems on corporations requiring that four or five per cent of the work force be disabled people. It is an affirmative action policy for the disabled. They are serious about doing something. They are not just placing punitive welfare policies on disabled people but actually giving them job opportunities and making it mandatory in the workplace to employ them. We have had 30 years of rhetoric in this country about treating mildly disabled people as full participants in our society, particularly with regard to employment opportunities. But we have to go beyond the 30 years of rhetoric and beyond cheap ideas about mutual obligation and make a national investment in the skills and employment opportunities of disabled Australians. The European example shows it can be done.I am not known as an advocate of affirmative action policies, and I am not suggesting we adopt the European model in detail. I know my colleague the member for Gellibrand is listening. She does not need to take too many notes because what I am saying is that the Singaporean Skills Development Fund can be modified to take account of the needs of disabled workers here. There should be an expectation in this country that large corporations should employ disabled workers to the level of three per cent of their payroll. If they do not meet that three per cent requirement, they have to pay the extra money back into the Skills Development Funds which is then distributed by government for disabled training purposes. So we can adapt the Singaporean scheme to the needs of disabled workers and at long last in this country do something positive about a national crisis. There is a handful of disabled training providers in my electorate in the south-west of Sydney. I have visited them and spoken to them and they are doing great work, but they are meeting just a small fraction of the public need with the public funding that they receive. I argue that it cannot be done by government alone. Sure, government should do more, but these national crises can never be met by government alone. We need a partnership agenda; we need cooperation between the corporate and public sectors to get better results. So let us have a greater effort by corporate Australia in supporting disabled workers. It is a national disgrace that 30 years of rhetoric about disabled people has never been acted upon. It is a national disgrace that 550,000 Australians are on the disability support pension, in most cases with very weak prospects of ever finding a job and, in most cases, with no chance of getting the training, the rehabilitation or the support they need to get themselves back into the labour force as active participants. I am talking about real mutual obligation. There is an obligation on government to do more, an obligation on corporate Australia to meet its social responsibilities in assisting disabled people, and an obligation on the disabled, people with mild disabilities, to take their best chance in life and to make the effort to get a job and to fulfil their potential in our society.What I have tried to do in my speech during this second reading debate is to outline a program by which Australia can do a lot better in the area of vocational education and training—to embrace the agenda of learning beyond the classroom, to develop a national TAFE system and to develop a skills development fund for the benefit of low income, low skill and disabled people in this country. The good thing about these three initiatives is that I am not talking about higher taxes. I am not talking about some new generation of government spending and government largesse. I am talking about a rationalisation of federal-state relations. I am talking about partnerships with civil society to develop learning beyond the classroom. I am talking about clever ways of leveraging greater training effort from corporate Australia. This is not a big spending, high taxing agenda. This is the sensible, modern, social democratic way of leveraging extra vocational education and training resources. It is the sort of thing that we will not see from the Howard government. It is the sort of thing that should be adopted and acted on by the next Labor government. 10:31:0019069Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise today to speak in support of the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000. This bill supplements funding for vocational education and training provided to the Australian National Training Authority for distribution to the states and territories in the year 2000. It also appropriates funds for vocational education and training for the year 2001. Over 1½ million Australians participate in formal vocational education and training. The minister has advised the House in his second reading speech that by the end of this year there will be an additional 160,000 training places provided nationally over the planned 1997 level. This government is clearly committed to strengthening Australia's vocational education and training system and has committed $1.7 billion to this area. This commitment includes $2 billion over four years for the New Apprenticeships system. Funding includes $342 million for New Apprenticeships centres—of which South Australia has 11—$1.5 billion for incentives for employers to take on new apprentices, $65 million to provide information and strategic intervention programs, and $79 million for the New Apprenticeship Access Program, which helps young people bring their skills up to apprenticeship entry level. The sum of $3.9 billion over four years has also been provided for TAFE and off-the-job vocational training. New apprenticeships have proved to be highly successful, and many businesses in my electorate of Makin are now utilising the New Apprenticeships system. Skill shortages are now being addressed because apprenticeships are tailored to meet industry needs and provide training in an ever increasing variety of occupations. New apprenticeships will also be boosted by further initiatives, including group training targeted initiatives, enhanced educative service arrangements, a strategic intervention program and the wage top-up scheme. More young people than at any time in the past 10 years now have training contracts or apprenticeships with employers. I am also pleased to say that there has been a huge increase in women's participation in new apprenticeships since 1996. The growth in women's participation from December 1996 to December 1999 has been 147.8 per cent. This was an increase from 27,800 to 83,700 females participating in new apprenticeships. When I was first elected, one of the major concerns of small business in my electorate was that there were considerable skill shortages in the traditional trades, and many tradespeople feel that there still are. Many tradespeople are very concerned that their trade and many years of acquired skills and experience will be lost when they retire. Many times I have heard from tradespeople in the small businesses in my electorate how important it is that young people are taught these skills and encouraged into apprenticeships so that these skills are not lost in time all through the generations. I am very pleased that this government is working to address this very issue and is taking the lead in helping to reverse skill shortages and boost job opportunities for our young people. The new apprenticeship centres support business growth and create employment through increasing skill levels in our work force through the vocational education and training system. The new apprenticeship centres provide a central streamlined service for employers and individuals who want to access new apprenticeships. The central service has been very successful in providing information and marketing, promoting and administering these new initiatives. I urge business to consider using these facilities if they are thinking of hiring a new apprentice or trainee. The Commonwealth provided $354.3 million in financial incentives to employers and new apprentices to support new apprentices in the 1999-2000 financial year. Financial incentives encourage trades people and small business to give young people the opportunity to learn unique skills and pass on their skills and knowledge to the younger generation whilst easing the financial burden and on-costs associated with training and teaching someone with very little or no experience. One initiative which has recently been announced by the minister as a result of the National Industry Skills Forum recommendations to the federal government is the expansion of the National Industry Skills Forum process. The building and construction industry and the food, trades and rural industries are currently experiencing difficulties with skill shortages and it is important that this be addressed. Seventy per cent of apprentices are young people and they are getting training and jobs out of it. There are record numbers of young people training in a variety of careers, such as information technology, telecommunications, tourism and hospitality, as well as the more traditional areas such as manufacturing, engineering and construction.An important component of the new apprenticeship system is the Jobs Pathway Program. The Para Hills High School and the Salisbury East High School are two schools in my electorate involved in the Jobs Pathway Program, which has proven to be highly successful. This program helps school leavers to obtain new apprenticeships, vocational education and training in schools, and ultimately a job. The Jobs Pathway Program provides links with existing support mechanisms and smooths the transition for school leavers going from school into the workforce. Examples of support mechanisms include career guidance and vocational work placement activities. The government is leading the way in vocational education and training. The funding which will be provided to the states will ensure that the Commonwealth will still have an influence on vocational education policy, particularly in relation to new apprenticeships. I commend the bill to the House.10:37:0019070Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I am interested in speaking on the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 today probably for the same reasons that you, Deputy Speaker Jenkins, would be interested in the bill. You know that we both represent electorates where the employment statistics lag behind a lot of others. I know there has been some good news for the government and, indeed, for the country about our employment figures but I am very disappointed that in my electorate of Gellibrand the unemployment rate is still double the national average. It is something that we all have to grapple with because, on both sides of the House, we want to make sure that we are not leaving those members of the community behind.This bill is an important one to debate, because the employment prospects in my community and the people in my community seeking employment and training are intimately connected with each other. They are particularly intimately connected when we are talking about post-secondary education—and we are not talking just about tertiary qualifications. From even a casual glance at some of the demographics of my electorate of Gellibrand, it will be clear to people that we are not overendowed with people with tertiary qualifications; we are probably represented in a fairly average way for people with trade qualifications, but we have an enormous percentage of our population that have no qualifications at all. It is these people who are finding themselves in the difficult circumstance that, if they lose jobs that they may have had for 20 or 30 years—as factories close, particularly in some of the manufacturing areas that have been heavily represented in my electorate—they are out looking for work, and they have issues of how they can get training later in life. Their concern to make sure that their children are not in the same position—so that they are adequately and flexibly trained for a future employment history that may actually mean that they change jobs many times—is crucial to my community. The Australian Labor Party, as people on this side of the House know, has done a lot of work on what we expect the work force will look like in the future. In Workforce 2010, the research that was undertaken for the party has indicated some interesting statistics which I think most of us probably know intuitively anyway. I might quote a couple of aspects of that research, because it is something that we need to keep in mind when we are debating this bill and the lack of money that this government is prepared to put into this sector of education.Most of the jobs that were identified in Workforce 2010 will go to people with a recognised post-secondary qualification. It will become more important than at any other time in the history of Australia that young people exit their teens with a recognised qualification and that they continue to learn throughout their working lives. Workforce 2010 suggests that if you do not have a post-secondary qualification you will be at the greatest risk of unemployment over the next decade. That may already have been true in the past, but the patterns that are indicated by this research show that that gap will only be exacerbated in the future.Workforce 2010, after acknowledging that there will not be any increase in employment for those without post-school qualifications, clearly sets out that the challenge for government is even clearer when you consider that 60 per cent of our current adult population have no such qualifications. I will take the House briefly to some comparisons between my electorate of Gellibrand and others. The figures that I am using all come from the 1996 census material, so they will have changed slightly over time. I know of the very good work in my electorate of Victoria University, which has both a TAFE and tertiary component: they have been putting in a lot of effort with a number of other organisations in the area to increase the rates and education levels within the community. So these statistics are out of date, but the trends are no doubt still consistent.In the 1996 census figures, only 13.3 per cent of the population in Gellibrand had tertiary qualifications. A little at random, I guess, I have selected for comparison the electorate of the minister responsible for this bill: 28.9 per cent of his electorate of Goldstein have tertiary qualifications. If we pick the Treasurer's electorate—and he of course is the person who ultimately controls the purse strings and whether or not more money should be put into this sector—35.2 per cent of his electorate have tertiary qualifications. Minister Kemp's electorate of Goldstein and mine of Gellibrand are both shown as having about 10.2 per cent of the population with trade qualifications; but 63.2 per cent of Gellibrand's population have no qualifications whatsoever—compared with 45 per cent in the electorate of Higgins and 49 per cent in the electorate of Goldstein.That is not to say that the issue of post-secondary education and training and the vocational sector is not important in these other electorates, but it is used as an example on my part to indicate why it is of great importance in electorates like mine. We know that there is a link between a number of socioeconomic factors, educational levels and employment prospects in the future. As a national government, that must be something that we are vitally concerned about because it is, after all, the only way that we can ensure in the future that people will be able to provide for themselves and meet the aspirations that their families are clearly able to have and should be supported in achieving, and ensure that the community has a fair go in my electorate and in others.I went a number of weeks ago to a presentation that was put on by Nestle, which employs about 120 people in my electorate. They have just completed, for all of their staff bar one, the provision of a warehousing and distribution certificate. It was extremely interesting to go along to this presentation. I was invited to attend and speak with the workers about the training that they had undertaken and the impact it had had on their employment. It was also interesting to talk to the management, who had made a decision that, if they were going to train some of their staff with this certificate, they would actually make it available to all employees. It was an interesting snapshot of where the community is at in this area, because some of the older storemen and forklift drivers—people who had been working in warehouses for 20, 30 or 40 years—were a little cynical about what they saw as `going off to school' to be taught things that they had known for many years. But they were also, at the completion of their course, very proud that they actually now had a nationally recognised certificate and qualification, and certainly many of their partners were very proud that they were at last being recognised for the skills that they had in this area. But they were all acutely aware—and they said this to me time and time again—that for the younger workers this course was absolutely crucial.In my electorate, the younger workers at Nestle seem to be fairly happy with the sorts of conditions that they have. They may not want to quote me on that at the moment—I think, as is always the way, they are going through some negotiations with their employer. I think they are largely fairly happy with their employment there but are aware that they do not have a job there for life. I believe that they are grateful that the company is prepared to assist them in recognising the skills they have and that they will be able to take that certificate somewhere else in the future, it being recognised across the country as attesting to the skills that they have and helping them to seek future employment, should they be forced or should they choose to move for various other reasons in the future.As for these qualifications, I think the difference between their real use and the way that some people in the community view them is something that is changing, and we need to encourage people at all levels to recognise the importance of this further training. But, if we are going to encourage people in all age groups to have this training, we must be sure that it is going to be flexible in its provision but that we are not going to sacrifice the quality of it. I think it is very difficult to be flexible and to ensure that the quality of training meets an appropriate level, if we do not provide enough money to do those things.It is expensive. The government too often seems to be suggesting that, if we provide flexible training, it will be something that is cheaper to do. It is actually expensive to make sure that you are offering classes at all different times of day, that you are fitting the needs of different employers, that you are meeting the needs of those who are attending from the different age groups and with all of the different sorts of arrangements that people have when working shifts 24 hours a day, seven days a week, when we want on-the-job training and off-the-job training. It is very demanding. To provide it properly and flexibly, we do need to make sure that we spend enough money on it.I am concerned that there are stories of abuses, particularly in Victoria where the TAFE sector has taken a bit of a beating over the years of the Kennett government in combination with some cutbacks of this coalition government. We have seen that there are some employers who are prepared to cost cut and who regard training staff and apprenticeships as a way of getting cheap labour. I think they undermine this program for all of the other participants. They clearly are not the majority. But we need to make sure that we have some quality controls in place so that people are not abused, and that we make sure that the sorts of training and qualifications they receive will be valuable in the future.I know that previous speakers have talked briefly about the Schofield reports that have been done in various states and one, indeed, that has recently been released in May this year on the state of Victoria's apprenticeship and traineeship system. Whilst the system has been given a bill of health in a number of aspects, there are some serious criticisms that must be taken on board. I am pleased to see that one of the local state members in my electorate who happens to be the Minister for Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment, Ms Lynne Kosky, has taken up some of the challenges that were set out in that report and is identifying ways of making the system better.However, Ms Kosky has been reported elsewhere as stating—I think it is worth repeating—that we cannot actually fix the system in Victoria, without the federal government being prepared to put in some extra money and at least meet the growth in demand and the growth in the system. If we do not do that, we will have to sacrifice one thing or the other: we will have to sacrifice the number of people who have access to the system, or we will have to sacrifice its quality. Neither of those seems to be a suitable or an appropriate thing for a federal government to be trying to encourage, when we all recognise the importance of education, training and skills. It seems that on this side of the House our recognition of it is also coupled with our commitment to make it a priority and to spend some money in this area. I would like to refer as well to the Pathways program that has been announced by the Victorian state government. That is a pilot initiative to try and deal with those most-at-risk students who have difficulty in staying at school and who are at risk of dropping out—they are potentially at risk of dropping out of the community as a whole, and they are certainly at risk of not moving straight on into employment. The Pathways program is trying to look at another form of flexible delivery of training that will keep students active, interested, engaged and able to get some skills that will help them move into the work force. I commend the state government for taking that approach and I hope further initiatives will be picked up as a result of the review. I also hope that, in discussions over the appropriate funding arrangements that will be negotiated through ANTA, this federal government will understand the vital importance of properly funding the system.I am concentrating a little bit on Victoria. I am Victorian, as I know is my colleague who is about to speak on this matter. But this is something where perhaps we need some extra attention to make sure that we get the system back in place. In my electorate of Gellibrand—just finally in the comments I want to make on this issue—the Victoria University, as I indicated at the start, has both TAFE and university campuses. I have spoken with those who attend there, students and staff, many times and discovered that one of the great difficulties is that conflicts constantly occur in the different standards, eligibility criteria, funding support and entitlements that are received at the federal level and the state level for access to courses and support for students. It even gets down to the level of support for child-care arrangements, as these are different depending on whether you are at a TAFE campus or a university campus—not even if you are a TAFE student or a university student. I think we need to look at a way of smoothing the system so that there is more consistency. Our object should always be to encourage more participants in furthering their training and education and, hopefully, improving their employment prospects in the future. 10:52:0019073Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—A recent critic of the Blair government's education policy complained that the constant chant was `education, education, education' but there was no sense of what education was actually supposed to lead to. The same lack of understanding underpinned that government's prating about `arts industries' as if art is an industry, instead of speaking about culture. Strategy, the critic said, is no substitute for policy.I do not know what it is about Labor parties but they seem to think if you can put a would-be catchy label on any old piece of policy crock, everyone will start to think it is wonderful. In Britain we can see the honeymoon is over and the Blair government is now being seen as so much spin doctor's hype. Remember `Cool Britannia'. In Australia the Labor Party seem wedded to alliteration as their chief marketing and policy tool. Think up a couple of words beginning with the same sound and Kim's your leader. So Keating's `clever country' is to become the `knowledge nation'. Social commentator Hugh Mackay has pointed out: Knowledge is merely something that you have. It doesn't define who you are. It doesn't suggest what you might do.He gives some amusing examples of knowledgable smart alecs exchanging useless information like, `Did you know there are six rats to every human in New York?' Unless you were starting up a cleaning company in New York, you would say, `So what.' He goes on to ask: which sort of knowledge is the Leader of the Opposition wishing to recommend? Is it liberal and non-vocational or scientific knowledge? What sort of knowledge, he asks, has created our finest poetry, the stump-jump plough and the photocopier? Was it chance, necessity or a policy of egalitarianism that created the climate in which such knowledge emerged? On this side of the House, at least we have left behind empty sloganeering. I have to say that I find it refreshing to read the speeches of the present Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, because they are so free of the jargon that made the speeches of the education ministers in the Labor years impenetrable except to the education bureaucrats who penned them.Vocational education and training is one of the triumphs of the Howard government. It was quite simply a basket case under the Hawke-Keating government. Let me just take you down a trip on memory lane for a few moments. Labor shamelessly neglected vocational education and training. Labor ran down Australia's apprenticeship system. Under Labor, employers stayed away from apprenticeships because of the restrictive regulations and industrial relations arrangements. The result was that under Labor apprenticeships as a proportion of the work force declined in Labor's last year to the lowest level for three decades.During the Labor recession of the early 1990s, the number of trade apprenticeships dropped to the low 120,000s where they stayed until the coalition introduced New Apprenticeships in 1998 and they are now 140,000. Labor neglected quality training that would lead to real jobs for short-term training programs that only served to keep the unemployment statistics down. The then member for Sydney, Peter Baldwin, later admitted that Labor's policies failed young people. He said:Accommodating the needs of those not intending to proceed directly on to university education in the final years of schools is something that we didn't do enough about in government.The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 currently before the House increases the amount previously appropriated for the year 2000 by $13.063 million to give effect to the government's commitment to maintain funding in real terms for the three years of the Australian National Training Authority agreement. The bill takes funding up to $931.415 million. The minister has told us that it has been estimated by the states and territories that by the end of this year there will be an additional 160,000 training places provided nationally over the planned 1997 level. In 1999, over 1½ million Australians participated in formal vocational education and training. The current year's budget provides a total of $1.7 billion for vocational education and training.Let me just quickly run through some of the coalition's achievements in this portfolio. The Howard government has established a new national apprenticeship and traineeship system called New Apprenticeships which offers nationally recognised qualifications. The coalition government has established New Apprenticeship Centres as a single point of contact for employers and New Apprenticeships which combine state and Commonwealth services for employers and streamline the administrative process required for employers and new apprentices. The coalition government has also established user choice so that employers with new apprentices can choose the training provided to deliver the off-the-job training that suits their business. The government has abolished the outdated system of regulation through declaration of vocations which was enormously complex, bureaucratic and time consuming, providing major simplification of regulation through national training packages. The coalition government has established school based new apprenticeships, which mean that in the year 2000 an estimated 167,000 students will be undertaking vocational education and training in schools, compared to only 26,500 in 1998. There will also be 7,200 students undertaking part-time New Apprenticeships while at school, a scheme which did not exist under the previous government. We now have 90 per cent of schools in Australia offering vocational education and training for students. The Australian Student Traineeship Foundation provides help for students making the transition from school to work. The 2000-01 budget provides $43.7 million for work placement, coordination and community partnership projects over the next four years. Students participating in foundation supported schemes have increased from 2,815 in 1995 under Labor to 57,343 last year.The Jobs Pathway Program, which focuses on vocational education to improve school students' transition from school to work, provides assistance to around 70,000 young people from more than 1,600 schools across Australia. The Labor government totally failed to recognise and cater for the 70 per cent of students who do not go from school to university.The coalition government has also created a new initiative, Rural and Regional New Apprenticeships, to be introduced over the next four years. Employers in occupations experiencing skill shortages in non-metropolitan Australia will receive an additional $1,000 incentive payment when their new apprentice progresses from certificate II to certificate III level, about halfway through the training period, bringing the total the employer receives in incentives to $5,000 for each employer.What has been distinctive about this government's approach has been to make the vocational training and education sector demand driven and particularly industry driven. This is an enormous cultural change from what existed under the Labor government when the system was mired in bureaucratic imperatives which actively work against employers taking on apprentices and even finding basic information. Flexibility has been the key to the design of the government's new training framework.There are of course still problems to be sorted out. Many companies are still frustrated with the inconsistencies and bureaucratic red tape that exist at the state level and work against their being involved at all in the Australian training system. It is regrettable that the Labor states have been introducing bureaucratic and complicated systems. Victoria has put a cap on the funding of private training places. A report from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research in March this year showed that new apprenticeship commencements in Victoria had fallen 10.9 per cent since December 1999 and 29.3 per cent in Queensland since June 1999, although nationally commencements were up 2.7 per cent to almost 175,000 in the 12 months ended March 2000.Under Labor, as the member for Werriwa, Mark Latham, has pointed out, vocational education and training was seen very much as Cinderella without a godmother—the second-best option, a type of failure. This government is trying to change that perception. Of the opposition education policy one can only say: a little knowledge is obviously a dangerous thing.11:01:0019075Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in support of the opposition's amendment to the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 because of the critical importance of voc ed and training for the nation and because vocational education and training represents one of the four interlocking pillars for our vision for the future of this nation. Those four pillars are school education, vocational education and training, higher education and research and development in the broad. These four pillars in fact form interlocking components of our vision for the knowledge nation. They are the four pillars that together make up what we believe will be the armoury for this nation's future economic development as well as the arsenal through which we deliver our vision for social justice.We in the Labor Party are excited about the knowledge nation. As a concept, it now permeates everything we do at the coalface of public policy, while at the same time it provides us with a galvanising, overarching vision for what we are about. We do not apologise for having a vision for the nation. We do not apologise for having this work currently in progress. We do not apologise for the fact that the work on this is at this stage incomplete because we know that the direction in which we are heading is the right direction. We know it is right for the nation, we know it is right for our party, and those who are hardheads opposite also know that it is the right way to go. When we look at what we in the Labor Party stand for on the knowledge nation, and we look more broadly at where this fits right across the developed economies of the world—right across the OECD—we on the Labor side of politics fall right within the OECD mainstream. It is what we see emerging as a priority in Blair's Britain, in Schroeder's Germany and in Jospin's France, and we also see it in part in Clinton's America. The common theme is simply this: you cannot build the new economy, the knowledge economy in the absence of a focused effort through the public institutions of the nation to create the skills mix necessary to fuel the new economy—the knowledge economy. You cannot get to that end point by simply abandoning the field and by simply saying that the public institutions of the nation, such as TAFE, have no role. You cannot simply arrive at a conclusion that, in fact, it is all up to the market—that basically it is a matter of once around the dance floor with Adam Smith and it will be all okay in the morning. Let us just watch the invisible hand at work, let us just see the market sort it out—education being no different to any other commodity, good or service, being publicly transacted in a free market. That is not my view and it is not the view of the Australian Labor Party. But it is the view of those who believe that by absenting the field and simply allowing education to be treated thus, the correct mix of skills development machinery will emerge across the nation and we will equip ourselves for the future. That is not my view at all. The basic philosophical and practical reason for that is this: education is not just another good or service. Education is a public good, and because it is a public good it has to be treated in a different way. If you get the concept wrong at the foundation level, everything else by way of policy built on that foundation falls apart at the seams.There are others who have a different view of education markets, and there are others who have a more general view of the role of markets as well. I note with respect the view on the subject of, for example, the member for Werriwa who has a more undiluted confidence in the teachings of Adam Smith on questions like this. I think Adam Smith is a great moral philosopher, even a great moral theologian. He is however a flawed economist when it comes to the operation of markets. He has great teachings for modern Australia, but I have to say that he was not the end of the canon as far as a proper policy mix for such public goods as education is concerned.When we look at where we should be going as a nation on this question, we in the Labor Party, in our call for the development of a knowledge nation, are not Robinson Crusoe. A very interesting document emerged from Europe last year. It is entitled `Aims and ambitions for lifelong learning'. It says:The challenge every country faces is how to become a learning society and to ensure that its citizens are equipped with the knowledge, skills and qualifications they will need in the next century. Economies and societies are increasingly knowledge-based. Education and skills are indispensable to achieving economic success, civic responsibility and social cohesion.The next century will be defined by flexibility and change; more than ever there will be a demand for mobility. Today, a passport and a ticket allow people to travel anywhere in the world. In the future, the passport to mobility will be education and lifelong learning. This passport to mobility must be offered to everyone.Part 1: Basic Principles Meeting our social and economic goals will require a renewed commitment to investment in lifelong learning. —by Governments, investing to enhance education and training at all levels;—by the private sector, training existing and future employees;—by individuals, developing their own abilities and careers The rewards for investing in people have never been greater and the need for it has never been more pressing. It is the key to employment, economic growth and the reduction of social and regional inequality. As we move into the next century, access to knowledge will be one of the most significant determinants in income and the quality of life. The document from which I have just quoted is the summit resolution of the Cologne summit of the Group of Eight most industrialised nations in June 1999. We can see from that document that what we in the Labor Party are arguing today, which is dedicating the entire public policy effort of the Commonwealth towards the creation of a knowledge nation, falls right within the mainstream of what the G8 have enunciated in this document, which they passed in June last year. It falls right within the mainstream of what the OECD more broadly has endorsed as its general policy direction. Where did I come across this particular resolution of the G8? The document in which I actually located it was a very important and worthwhile submission to the current Senate inquiry into the quality of vocational education and training in Australia. I quoted from submission No. 140. In fact this resolution forms a core part of submission No. 140, which comes from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the ACTU. At the forefront of the modernisation push in bringing this nation into the OECD-G8 mainstream is the ACTU. I know it is politically convenient for those opposite, particularly the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, to permanently demonise the ACTU and every element of organised labour. What I remind Dr Kemp of is that when you look at the quality of the submission which has been lodged by the ACTU in this Senate inquiry—which I note parenthetically that Dr Kemp opposed, believing that the Senate inquiry was simply going to be a waste of time—you will see that in the core of the ACTU's submission is a commitment to the paramount importance of directing the public resources of the nation to the development of the skills necessary for a knowledge economy, for a new economy. It becomes very tedious for those of us on this side of politics, and I think those who listen to the debates of this House, to hear day in and day out, as part of some sort of ongoing morality play, the view by both the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business that the epitome of all evil in terms of this nation's future economic development is organised labour and the trade union movement. I would have thought that from the document from which I have read, which is a most progressive document indeed, we see the ACTU strongly looking to the future, looking to a vision for where we need to go in terms of the creation of a new economy, not in the reverse direction. I think it would be very useful for this parliament if the minister for education and the minister for workplace relations finally concluded in the year 2000 that the Cold War is over, that organised labour and the forces of the Left are not out to destroy civilisation as we know it and that they in fact represent some of the most progressive bodies of thought in terms of how we modernise the skills base of the nation. If the government cannot appreciate that in modernising the skills base of the nation they must bring organised labour and the ACTU with them, then it is a very paltry and stunted vision they have for the nation indeed and, at level of practice, it simply will not work.The knowledge nation and the skills of the new economy are critical for our future national economic performance. They are also critical in terms of the skills which individuals will require for their own future quality of life. Again, turning to what the ACTU has put in its submission to the Senate inquiry on the question of the impact of skills levels on the capacity for individuals to obtain secure long-term employment, it says in paragraph 1.10:Studies undertaken in Australia and overseas have reached the clear conclusion that the level of job security and the incomes received by employees are directly linked to the vocational training received/competencies acquired through participation in skill development. In a recent OECD report the correlation between education and training opportunity and employment security was clearly established. The report showed that in Australia for young people between the age of 20-24 the unemployment rate related to education qualifications was:(i) Below upper secondary education 18.4%(ii) Upper secondary 11.1%(iii) University level 5.4%But the submission also goes to the question of levels of income. Again, quoting from the ACTU submission, paragraph 1.12 states: Along with improved job prospects improved education and training opportunities also offer higher levels of income which when translated into a working lifetime amounts on average to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The OECD report also shows the differences between remuneration of workers 25-64 years of age in Australia by level of educational attainment—the report shows that, when compared to the average annual earnings of a male who has completed upper secondary education:(i) Lower secondary completion -10%—that is, 10 per cent lower than the average national income—(ii) Tertiary completion +40%—that is, 40 per cent above the average national income—(iii) Non university tertiary +18%—that is, 18 per cent above the average national income. I have quoted extensively from the ACTU submission to leave those opposite with one single impression: the ACTU, the peak body of organised labour in this country, actually has in the core of its vision for the future of the knowledge nation the need to bring the entire nation along with us, to create the skills base necessary for a new economy. It is not acting as some sort of antediluvian troglodyte out there campaigning against this. It wants to see the democratisation of these skills so that all Australians have access to them, not just a narrow minority. We on the Labor side have a policy vision: it is called the knowledge nation. We are in the process now of turning that into a concrete policy program. By contrast, I ask those opposite to reflect on the direction in which they are taking us in this particular area of policy. I think it is probably best described as what others have called the rowing boat strategy. The rowing boat strategy was a term I think first coined in British politics in the 1960s. It referred to that most forgotten of all post war British governments, that of Sir Alexander Douglas-Home. Basically, the core elements of the rowing boat strategy are along these lines: you keep your eyes fixed firmly ahead while moving as briskly as possible in the reverse direction. That is called the rowing boat strategy.When you apply it to government policy on vocational education and training and, more broadly, to skills development in general, sure you can say their eyes are fixed firmly ahead—they say they want more skills for the economy—but, when you unpack the concrete reality of that which they are doing, they are moving as briskly as possible in the reverse direction. In fact, the rowing boat strategy applies more broadly to what the government are on about. They say, for example, that they, the government, are concerned about reconciliation. That is the language; the concrete actions in which they are engaged take them in precisely the reverse direction. They talk about engagement with Asia. That is the direction in which they say they are going. If you look at the concrete actions, they are in fact heading in precisely the reverse direction. The rowing boat strategy is, I think, an analogy that fits quite nicely with what actually is happening with this government's performance on key elements of knowledge nation policy, including vocational education and training.What are the four pillars of this government's vision for the future as far as skills formation, skills development and skills for the new economy are concerned? I think they have got four pillars: the first pillar is tax, the second pillar is tax, the third pillar is tax and the fourth pillar is tax. We have got the consumption tax, we have got the changes to the income tax rate, we have got the PAYG tax coming in, we have got the capital gains tax changes which have occurred, and I gather that we are going to have, at some stage in the by and by, implementation, in part at least, of the turnover tax. That is fine. All I would say to you is that, as far as tax reform is concerned, it does not matter a B as far as developing the capacity within the nation to provide for the next generation of Australians the skills necessary to participate equitably in the new economy, in the knowledge economy. It again derives from the philosophical point that we were discussing earlier in this debate, that is, if at the end of the day your view is that education is nothing more than a market of goods and services, then the view of those opposite is essentially this: get the price signals right through changes to the taxation mix and everything will sort out in the washthat is, market forces will take over, Adam Smith will give it a rev-up with the invisible hand andbang!it will all be okay in the morning, you will have exactly the right mix of skills training and development institutions, organisations and mechanisms in the economy that you need. It is just not like that because education is, as I said at the outset, a public good. If we look how all this is unpacked on the ground in the key elements of education policy across the country, what do we see? We see this government systematically strangling the resource base for government schools. When it comes to universities, what we see is death by 1,000 cuts; again, in terms of the bleeding of the funding base for this nation's tertiary institutions. We have seen the collapse of research and development, R&D, in the broad. What we have seen also as far as this bill is concerned is a complete hoeing into the resource base of vocational education and training. Let us look at the VET record. Between 1996 and 2000 we had a 22 per cent increase in enrolments in VET and, at the same time, zero growth in effective growth funding. Between 2000 and 2003 it is projected—not by us, but by the ANTA CEOs, and even by DETYA itself—that there will be an increase of between three and six per cent per annum in enrolments in VET across the nation. But, again, what we see in the bill before the House is a zero increase in real funding. I simply ask this question: how long can you squeeze the lemon dry? There is, at the end of the day, a limit to how much you can get out of a single lemon. You cannot just keep going. But, as far as this government is concerned, it sees that its ultimate solution to all these sorts of dilemmas lies in that great old hoary chestnut of the Department of Finance and Administration called the efficiency dividend: keep whacking on the efficiency dividend and something will pop out the end. Let me tell you that, as far as the TAFE institutions in this nation are concerned, it is not working.VET is a critical element of the entire skills formation enterprise of this nation. In 1999, total VET expenditure across the nation, public and private, was $8.5 billion: public, $3.7 billion; private, $3.8 billion; and individual activity, $0.9 billion. This is a large bucket of public resources funding 1.6 million students across the nation. In the private area we had 2,500 registered training organisations. In the public area, of that $3.8 billion of expenditure one-third of it is Commonwealth, two-thirds of it is states. Eighty-two per cent of that goes to TAFE, the rest to non-TAFE. Of the TAFEs themselves, we have 80 across the country. We have 300 campuses and 1.35 million students with a total cumulative public infrastructure value between $6 and $7 billion. The vehicle through which the Commonwealth delivers resources to the TAFEs of this country and to the state training institutions more broadly is ANTA, the Australian National Training Authority. When I first became involved in the ANTA debate in the early nineties, the Commonwealth's contribution to total ANTA outlays was roughly one-fifth. As a consequence of the funding initiatives of the Keating government, that rose to about a third. What we had with the ANTA agreement of 1992—and I was intimately involved in that as the then Director-General of the Cabinet Office in the Queensland government—was a unique instrument of modern federalism: a combined federal and state body with a pooled funding arrangement, but on the condition that shared sovereignty would be augmented by a pledge of continued growth funding from the Commonwealth. On this, Paul Keating delivered: a $100 million additional injection from 1992 on; from 1993 to 1995 an extra $70 million per annum; and, beyond that again, a further growth dividend promised in 1996 and 1997—$422 million in 1991, $846 million by 1995-96. The growth dividend was delivered on by Labor, but the message which has been delivered back to the states of this country is this: under the current government, ANTA may continue but the reality is that the growth funding has gone. It is a fundamental betrayal of the VET interests of the nation. (Time expired)11:21:0019079Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—It is interesting listening to the words of members opposite, even those of the previous speaker, the member for Griffith, who was, it appears, judging the success of a program purely on how much money is spent, and conveniently ignoring the fact that there are far more participants in vocational education and training under this government than under the previous government. It reflects, I think, quite nicely the way that the previous government used to try to solve any problem, thinking that if you just close your eyes and throw some more money at it the problem will go away. I do not think you would have to look very hard to see this—for example, the work programs that the previous government used where a successful outcome cost in the order of $50,000, while a successful outcome under the current government's program costs more in the order of $14,000. Yes, there are efficiency dividends to be made. Yes, I do agree that there are some finite results that can be made with efficiencies. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. There are far more people involved in vocational education and training under this government than under the previous government, and I do not think we need to say any more about that.By increasing the funding to the Australian National Training Authority this government will continue its outstanding success in getting people into work and providing businesses with skilled labour. The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 will increase the amount of money previously allotted to the year 2000 by $13.063 million. Therefore, total funding for this year will amount to $931 and a bit million, making good on this government's commitment to maintain funding in real terms for the three-year ANTA agreement, 1998-2000.This current agreement centres on the realisation of all levels of government—the Commonwealth, state and territory governments—that training increases productivity and competitiveness for industry while helping people to optimise their career potential. As recent job figures and the growth in apprenticeships clearly show, there is every reason to be confident that the impressive list of achievements will be added to in coming years.Between the years 1998 and 2000 the vocational education and training sector underwent unprecedented expansion. In fact, by the end of this year an additional 160,000 more training positions will be available than were planned in 1997, according to estimates by state and territory ministers. Add to this the fact that it is estimated that last year more than 1.5 million Australians received some type of formal vocational education and training and it becomes clear that this government has designed a winning formula for expanding the skilled labour pool in this country.For the next generation of young Australian job seekers in particular this means the opportunity to equip themselves with the abilities and the confidence to help them find real jobs with real career prospects and scope for future flexibility. It will increase the likelihood that the trainee will actively pursue work, because his or her employment options will be more attractive and better paying. The expansion of the skills training network also bolsters the efforts of Australian businesses and industry to pursue the competitive edge provided by a work force with up-to-date abilities in times of rapid change.It could easily be argued that this country's outstanding economic performance in recent times is linked to this government's strenuous efforts to provide industry with the advantage of more skilled employees. The funding received by ANTA from the federal government will only add to the training opportunities currently available. Furthermore, it will enhance the federal government's ability to interact with state and territory governments and the business sector with a view to not only maintaining consistency nationwide but also encouraging higher standards along with more options and flexibility in training programs.In total this year's budget provides $1.7 billion for vocational education and training, including $2 billion over four years for the highly successful New Apprenticeships scheme. For a comparison between the attention that this government pays to putting on new apprentices and that paid by the previous government you only have to walk into any Group Apprentice training centre, Broken Hill Skill Centre, Robinson College, West State Training—any number of them in my electorate—and they will tell you about the fact that it is far easier and they have far more apprentices being involved than at any time over the life of the previous government. Almost one-quarter of a million Australians have received skills and guidance for a career path through this popular initiative. Furthermore, the scheme has expanded on its merits due to the fact that it delivers training that corresponds with the needs of businesses and creates job opportunities in a more diverse range of career paths than has ever been the case. This is the critical factor: that the training corresponds with the needs of businesses. The training does not develop independently of businesses, and this is why the job opportunities that have come up in the last little while are far greater than in the past.This success will be built upon with funding to address challenges such as skilled labour shortages in some fields by backing efforts to attract trainees to newly emerging industries. Such an approach ensures that we are in a strong position to meet the training needs of a rapidly changing economy where the demands on both young job seekers and potential employers are vastly different to those of 10 or 15 years ago. And nowhere is the changing nature of the labour market and industry more apparent than in areas like my electorate in western New South Wales.It is important to note at this point that learning initiatives by this government are not confined to the education portfolio. In the portfolio under Senator Alston there are many examples in my electorate where Networking the Nation funds have been provided, which will again boost the education opportunities of people in western New South Wales. For example, the Orana VideoNet, which has been funded under Networking the Nation to the tune of about $600,000, provides video conferencing facilities to towns like Cobar, Coolah, Nyngan, Gilgandra, Coonamble, Wellington and Dubbo.Besides the obvious advantages to health and other areas by having access to video conferencing facilities, education has been highlighted as the main beneficiary of this link-up. This is not only in the traditional areas of education. I have seen an example where music lessons and so on have been delivered on this videoconferencing facility.It affects other portfolios as well. Money has been put aside for improving the education and training of people in the western region of New South Wales and other regional areas of Australia—for example, in the area of agriculture, where we have recently announced further funding for West 2000 in the program of West 2000 Plus. Probably the most significant aspect of West 2000—perhaps unpredictably—is that the area that was most favourably and rapidly taken up by the farmers in my area was education and further training. It certainly delivered assistance in farm buildup and woody weed control and other things, but the educational component of West 2000 was the critical thing as far as the farmers in my area were concerned, and that has been the focus of West 2000 Plus. There are other many other areas in the agricultural portfolio that focus on education and training as well, for example FarmBis. I am trying to highlight the fact that this government focuses on education not only in the education portfolio but also across a whole range of government initiatives.One of the previous speakers was attempting to compare skill levels in one area to those in another. It is unfortunately difficult to compare skill levels in areas by this mechanism. Up until recently, for people who lived in regional and rural Australia, to achieve higher education one had to actually leave the bush to go to metropolitan areas. Often our best and brightest would stay away. So the figures in the past would have indicated that our more educated people were living in the city and that there were fewer of them in the country. This government is reversing this trend by establishing more regional campuses and universities in places such as Dubbo. We have recently announced $5 million for the Charles Sturt University to establish a campus in Dubbo. They have been working cooperatively out of the TAFE, but soon they will have their own campus. This type of spending is important to reverse the brain drain that has been evident in rural and regional Australia. It is an example of how this government is addressing the need for rural and regional Australia to be right up there, by placing importance on focusing on retraining and education. In Dubbo, particularly, the new university will work very closely with the TAFE and the high schools to build and maintain that critical mass of skilled members of the community which will contribute to the reversing of this trend and the reversing of the perception that if you come to the country you will live in a bit of a cultural and educational backwater. We need to maintain a focus on rural and regional education. I believe we are certainly doing that in the area of vocational education, but we need to maintain and increase the funding of university campuses in regional areas as well. I agree with the words of a previous speaker who spoke of the unnecessary complexity of arrangements when the state and federal governments are both contributing money and have some degree of control—whether we are talking about TAFE, about child-care facilities or about health. As I said, I agree with the speaker who said that we should be looking at different levels of government taking responsibility for greater roles and getting rid of some of the grey areas that not only confuse the people who are involved in the programs but also confuse people like me who are entrusted with promoting values, promoting the areas we live in, and explaining to people who might apply for various types of funding what areas they will be most likely to attain funding for. The continuing education focus of this government has expanded continually on its merits due to the fact that it delivers training that corresponds to the needs of businesses and creates job opportunities in a more diverse range of career paths than has ever been the case before. This government has made great advances in relation to lingering obstacles like the restrictive regulations and industrial relations arrangements that Labor proved unable to reform. The number of apprentices as a percentage of the work force during Labor's last year of office declined to the lowest level in 30 years. This message was not really understood by the Labor government, which, despite their rhetoric, essentially told young people about to enter the job market that their options were university or nowhere. It did lead to a decline under the previous government: it led to the unfortunate neglect and decline of the vocational education system. Australia's apprenticeship system was stagnating and the opportunities for realistic work experience and training were deteriorating. Not surprisingly, by failing to adapt the apprenticeship system, Labor made employers turn away from the prospect of offering apprenticeships. We, in contrast, have had a determination to deliver flexible arrangements for apprenticeships and traineeships and have been consistently praised by the people involved. I understand in fact that there are about 150,000 more people in training than at the time of the Labor government. The blossoming New Apprenticeships scheme has been delivering in spades to the people in regional Australia, because apprentice positions are now available in industries that previously had no interaction with a vocational training scheme. Under this government, training is now based on competency and ability levels as determined by the business and not solely on completing the hours allocated. Today, through a combination of work, education and training, people can attain qualifications that are recognised nationally by relevant authorities and, most importantly, are valued by industry. In my area, vocational education in schools is exploding, and the concept has been embraced by almost all high schools. I understand that there are over 7,000 students in Australia beginning apprenticeship training in years 9, 10 and 11 now. This coalition has put in place real strategies to assist people on the ground and to deliver satisfactory results for both the business sector and our young people. In the light of this outstanding record, I commend this bill to the House.11:36:0019082Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In speaking to the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000, I refer in passing to some of the history which led to the establishment of the Australian National Training Authority. In doing so, I note that when Labor established ANTA back in 1992, with Kim Beazley as the then minister for employment, one of its clear purposes was to secure a relevant funding agreement between Commonwealth and state governments. To a large extent, that was the crux of actually establishing the ANTA processes. On that note, I suggest to the House that a relevant agreement, you would think, would take into account the 2.8 per cent per annum forecast increase in demand over the next three years, which goes to the issues raised in the second reading amendment placed before the House for consideration by the shadow minister for education, the member for Dobell, Michael Lee. The problem is, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, that, under this government, your government, we do not see any relevant agreements. The truth of the matter is that what we see is the running down of regional TAFE colleges. That takes me to the nature of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Dobell, Michael Lee. The amendment notes:(b) demand for vocational education and training is likely to increase by at least 2.8% a year over the next four years ...This is an issue which is not greatly on the mind of the member for Fisher because he does not regard vocational education and training as being very important to his own seat. The second reading amendment then condemns the government and the member for Fisher 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.I would have thought that these issues were of central importance to the thinking patterns of the member for Fisher but, obviously, from his interjections today, they are of very little importance to his thinking when it comes to the concerns of the unemployed, especially the young and middle aged who have lost jobs in his electorate.The issue of VET is of primary importance to the future of this nation. It is for that reason that there is now widespread recognition that vocational education and training is more and should be more than the poor cousin of university or the alternative to leaving school early. Its status in the community and industry and among students, educators and parents will be a major determinant of the nation's long-term future because it is about skilling us as a nation. It is not about competing internationally on the basis of the lowest wages and conditions of employment; it is about Australia as a nation regarding our investment in VET, not as a cost to government but an investment in our future as a nation on the basis that we will compete both domestically and internationally as the most skilled work force in the world. I suppose that is why we have difficulties at the moment. To achieve such an objective in life requires leadership, something that, unfortunately, the member for Fisher's government lacks. Doubts about the status of vocational education and training and limited receptiveness to lifelong learning imply the need to actively promote cultural change. Who would have thought that, in the 21st century, we would have to have a process of seeking to remind this government of the importance of skilling and training based on a lifelong learning concept? But that is the nature of the Howard government: a government of the 1950s, not a government of the 21st century.That is why Labor leader Kim Beazley has staked his claim as the education Prime Minister. I regard this statement by Kim Beazley as a fundamental statement of the priorities of the Labor Party in the lead-up to the next election. It also represents a reaffirmation of our fundamental commitment to ANTA, which goes back to our establishment of an association with the states and territories back in 1992 when Kim Beazley was the minister for employment. As education Prime Minister, Kim Beazley would demand that skills be placed at the centre of the debate. Contrast that approach with the approach of the Howard government. Contrast that with this bill, and the issues raised in the member for Dobell's second reading amendment, a bill which, once again, fails to recognise the growing importance of our VET sector. Through a commitment to vocational education and training, the government had an opportunity to remind the Minister for Employment Services that the supply side of the labour market depends not only on choices but also on capabilities. It had an opportunity to spell out that the barrier for some who cannot find work is not welfare—a total focus purely on the issue of discipline—but a lack of skills. We need to adopt a holistic approach to the complex issue of employability. We must focus on all aspects of employability and not be consumed with one aspect of it, namely, the desire of the Minister for Employment Services to merely focus on the issue of discipline at work rather than front up to the fact that discipline goes hand in hand with having the skills which make you employable in the minds of an employer. I suggest to the Minister for Employment Services that, rather than calling people `job snobs', as is his tendency, and rather than threatening to reduce unemployed peoples' payments, we could be assisting them in developing their skills and actually investing in their future, in the future of their families, in the future of the suburbs and regions in which they live and in the future of their nation, Australia. If we actually adopted that holistic approach to employment and decided that we as a nation should invest in trying to make them more employable, they would actually become more employable. The problem for the last 4½ years has been that the Howard government, along with the Minister for Employment Services and the current Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, and in association with the Treasurer, have spent the whole 4½ years cutting back on an investment which actually makes people more employable. I suggest to the House that this bill confirms that in no uncertain terms because it fails to face up to the real debate, that is, an increase in demand for vocational education and training is likely to occur over the next four years of 2.8 per cent. If you are concerned about that you have got to be concerned about what you are prepared to allocate to assist in meeting that demand.We have a supply side issue in the Australian community at the moment because of our going backwards on the skilled work force front, with shortages of labour starting to occur in both metropolitan and regional Australia in a variety of trades of a skilled and semi-skilled nature. We do not meet that requirement at a workplace level and we actually create bottlenecks in the Australian economy, put pressure on the wages system which, in turn, puts pressure on our inflation front and which, in turn, is of major concern to the future of Australia. That is an issue that escapes the minds of people like the Minister for Employment Services from time to time. The government, rather than investing in the future of Australia, are more concerned in trying to make short-term political points by giving the unemployed a kick in the guts and referring to them in passing as `job snobs'—rather than fronting up to their own ignorance and their own unwillingness to accept that the debate about employability is more than just a focus on the issue of discipline; it is also a focus on trying to ensure that, if a person loses a job, he or she might have to be given more skills and new skills to make them more employable in the future.I also believe that it is not just those missing out on opportunities to develop their skills who suffer. When you start to think about how we can deliver to employers the workers they need, you come to see skills as a common thread. It is the Labor Party that recognise this, and it is the coalition government that fails to recognise this. One of Labor's goals is to increase year 12 equivalent retention rates to counter the falling demand for low skilled labour of recent decades. We know this means closer links between academic and vocational education, closer links between school, TAFE and university and closer links between communities. We need to provide a range of learning options and ensure that they are adequately funded.It is therefore ironic that, at the very time we need to do more for those who are struggling to achieve, the Howard government is increasing the privilege associated with private education and, in doing so, is squeezing public schools even harder. As is generally the case under this government, it is those from poor families, disadvantaged suburbs and poor communities who will continue to lose out. This concerns me in my regional responsibilities. The reality is that there are too many people and places missing out and too many people and places that have simply been forgotten and left behind. With education priority zones, Labor will seek to do something about that on entering government. We cannot as a nation see learning as something that is confined to schools. We need to encourage parents to be involved in learning and to ensure that the family environment is helping and encouraging learning, not hindering school performance—as unfortunately sometimes occurs in such an environment. We also need to be more imaginative in our use of small-scale community networks where family support mechanisms have broken down. As a society, we must make a commitment to all of our youth, not just to some of them from the wealthier suburbs and families. I also believe that we cannot comfort ourselves by assuming that all young people will ultimately make their way into the work force. The problem is that in some places where the Howard government has failed to create job opportunities and where support networks have been neglected kids really are on the outer. I believe Australians do not want further division. They want hope for the future, but that takes leadership. Hope for the future and leadership should be based on genuine compassion and a commitment to actually do something rather than revert to sloganising and attacking the unemployed for being job snobs.The problem is that for many kids attachment to the work force will not happen on its own. It requires leadership and pushing and prodding. That is something that should concern all of us. When young people cannot fulfil their potential, our nation cannot fulfil its promise and creates problems for itself. Our young people are our work force of tomorrow. They are our hope. They are our vision for the future. They will be the ones supporting our ageing population and taking our nation forward in the future. There is therefore a need for Australia to be more active in managing the school to work transition to ensure that this transition effectively links classrooms to careers. One would have thought that was fairly fundamental. I actually believe it is the foundation stone for the future of this nation.Under the present government, we have had a couple of pilots here and there and a lot of rhetoric but no structured, coordinated approach and no proper planning, vision or commitment. Given that the Howard government see our disadvantaged youth as the source of the problem, this should not be a surprise. Such a response is a cruel and bitter distortion of reality. It is the sort of thing that people of little imagination and even less compassion resort to when they discover that the answers are not simple. They would sooner drop an IVF bomb to cause a debate and run away from the real hard policy issues confronting Australia as a nation. Alternatively, unlike the Howard government and unlike the member for Fisher, I would argue that our kids are an asset and that it is only by seeing them as such and supporting their development that we will reap the benefits as a nation.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Hear, hear!LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—As the member for Chifley is well aware, they are a pool of ideas and talent awaiting the opportunity and support they need to make it. As a society, we seem to find it far easier to talk about their responsibilities than our own responsibilities as a nation to them, their families, their suburbs, their communities, their regions and this nation. I strongly believe that by far the best thing we can do as a nation is keep people at school and get in early to try to do something to guarantee that we keep as many of our young people at school as we can for as long as we can.That is a theme that we have been vocal about on this side of the House for some time. That is why we have ANTA, and that is why Kim Beazley pursued the establishment of ANTA so rigorously way back in 1992. It is because there is a common recognition that labour market programs cannot remedy a problem stemming from years of educational neglect. The truth is that early intervention is the key to avoiding the requirement for labour market programs over time. We must therefore as a nation develop targeted strategies to assist those who are not part of our current prosperity but who are critical to ensuring our continued prosperity—a more long-term vision than the short-term debate pursued by the Howard government. I believe that left behind kids in left behind suburbs in left behind communities are a problem for which we all share ownership. We must ensure that young people from rural areas have a chance and that youth from the outer fringes of our cities are in the inner circle of opportunity, not in the outer circle of opportunity. But to do that we require a commitment that resources for vocational education and training will be forthcoming. It is a commitment that this government has run away from yet again in the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000. At the other end of the spectrum, the labour market performance of our older males in recent decades also offers us an important lesson. The current cohort of older workers began their working lives with different expectations about the labour market and a view that they had a job for life. These older workers, often located in declining industries, are being asked to bear the brunt of economic change and are receiving precious little assistance. The truth is that they are not being assisted under the Job Network because they are no longer a profitable investment for employment agencies which are driven by the profit motive. They have limited access to retraining because they face cultural and economic barriers when trying to re-enter the education and training system, and they have very little in the way of social support networks because this group has typically been seen historically as the provider rather than the recipient. If the idea of shared responsibility is falling down anywhere in our society it is here. Our training systems should be more accessible in both institutions and in opportunities in workplaces, but again I suppose that will require a commitment beyond the Howard government's capabilities.We must ensure that generations to come are more adaptable. More flexible career structures imply a need to improve occupational mobility, and a solid skills base is critical to that. In particular, the past decline has seen a major rise in the use of people's computer skills, a shift our institutions are still struggling to respond to. That is why the Labor Party is openly talking about a school week based on three days in school, one in the workplace and one in TAFE. This is the way of the future. We must develop new options for the financing of lifelong learning in and out of the workplace.While the bill before the House reflects the government's neglect of VET financing, the issue is also more than just money. It is about getting the incentives right and about doing it early, not leaving it until it is too big a problem. In the past the Labor Party confronted the educational challenges of the day. When the need to increase school retention rates became clear, Labor introduced Austudy and promoted school retention. When we had to confront the need to expand higher education, Labor introduced the Higher Education Contributions Scheme. In both cases the nation reaped the rewards with a rise in year 12 completion rates and greater access to higher education. We have met these challenges successfully before and we must now meet new challenges in the area of vocational education and training. We must get it right as a nation. We must ensure that our systems are both accessible and responsive. Accessibility requires fairness in funding and marketing of information to ensure that this is getting to the people who need it.The bill before the house is exceptionally important. The problem is that it is actually inadequate when it comes to looking forward and facing up to our responsibilities for growth in the VET sector. I support the second reading amendment. It properly condemns the government for walking away from its responsibilities. It is a bill of fundamental importance to the future of Australia because it is about the skilling of our work force, and it is also about a focus on education in a tertiary sense beyond universities and back to the workplace level. (Time expired)11:55:0019086Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I must say that it is an honour and a privilege to follow the contribution to this House of my friend the member for Batman, nailing Labor's colours to the mast. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you will be indulgent toward me before I get to the detail of the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000. I take a great deal of interest in educational issues, and particularly in my electorate. As you may be aware, this government established Australian student prizes, some 500 of them nationwide, for achievements in the final and most demanding years of secondary education. Each prize included a certificate and a cash award of $2,000. You can understand my joy and delight in presenting three of these awards to young students in my electorate. I need to thank the Mayor of Penrith City Council, Councillor John Bateman, who hosted the ceremony in council chambers with the students and their families. Two of the students came from Mount Druitt and one came from Colyton. Adam Trevor Eslick attended Colyton High School in 1999, and is now undertaking a medical science degree at the University of Sydney, after which he will study medicine, a four-year course which will qualify Adam to practise medicine. Adam would like to be a doctor. Wael Hana attended Grantham High School Saturday school and Christ Catholic College, Loyola Campus, in Mount Druitt in 1999. Wael is studying the telecommunications engineering course at the University of Technology in Sydney, UTS, and hopes to work in the telecommunications field, including working on satellites, upon completion of his studies. Last but not least, Sonja Shuttleworth attended Penrith High School in 1999. Sonja has commenced studies at the University of Sydney studying subjects such as sociology, art history theory, English and German. She is also interested in French and Russian languages and enjoys playing the piano and guitar.In addition to that, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that this parliament selects two students from Australia to attend the UK parliament. I might say I am indebted to Mr Speaker and to Madam President because Adam Trevor Eslick was selected to be one of two students to go. I regret to say that, after deep consideration, Adam reluctantly was forced to decline that opportunity. Nevertheless, I think it is a great honour for Adam and for all young people in my electorate that he should have been selected in the first place. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will understand that when people think of an electorate such as Chifley they do not often think of academic excellence to the degree I have spoken of to the House.If I could again crave your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I recently had a fundraising function in my electorate at which the Hon. Con Sciacca was our principal guest of honour. Each year we try to select an association or group in the electorate of Chifley which has made an outstanding contribution. This year we selected the Mount Druitt District Council of P&C Associations. I was really delighted that Robyn Reeves, Carol Trevarthen and Chris Dyer accepted the Chifley FEC Community Appreciation Award. Unfortunately, Pam Slade was not able to make it on the night. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall a notorious article in the Daily Telegraph which highlighted the HSC outcomes of Mount Druitt High School students. Following that the P&C council, Jim Anderson, the local member for Londonderry, Richard Amery, the member for Mount Druitt, and I embarked upon ensuring that out of such a negative story something good would come. The Mount Druitt District Council did not eat out of our hands, I might say. They were at various stages highly critical of the Minister for Education, John Acquilina. In trying to develop solutions they had to confront the entrenched opposition of the teachers federation to any change. To suggest that all we needed to do in those five high schools was to add more resources or teachers was no solution to the problem. But out of their efforts, my efforts and the efforts of my parliamentary colleagues, we got Chifley College, which is a new model of senior high school—five high schools with one executive in charge of all five high schools. I am very proud to be wearing the Chifley College badge in the House today. I celebrate the efforts of the Mount Druitt District Council of P&C associations. It went through all the consultations, all the negotiations, all the ups and downs, and in the year 2000 saw Chifley College start. Since it started the minister has announced an $11 million program to build a completely new senior campus alongside the Mount Druitt TAFE. Along North Parade we are going to have an educational precinct, if you will. We are going to have Mount Druitt TAFE, with more than 8,000 effective full-time students, alongside that the senior campus of Chifley College, Loyola campus, and then Rooty Hill High a little way away. These are all exciting developments and the council can be rightly proud of its achievements. The bill we are discussing today is the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000. Vocational training has been a focus of the Chifley College. When 10 years ago we were arguing for a senior college in Mount Druitt it would be fair to say that vocational training was not such a focus. The first subcommittee I ever chaired in this place was an educational subcommittee that looked at the issue of retention in years 11 and 12. The report was entitled `The Restless Years'. To quote our shadow minister: The Vocational Education Training Funding Amendment Bill provides for supplementary funding for this year in line with price movements. It also provides a base 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 appropriate for next year, is that those funds will not automatically flow to the states and territories. The Minister for Education and Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, makes it clear in his second reading speech that the Commonwealth funding is subject to `finalising a satisfactorily 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 national vocational education funding. The total number of vocational education students grew from $1.3 billion in 1996 to $1.6 billion 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 the growth in the system, but vocational education and training has suffered destructive cuts in both the 1996 and 1997 budgets ... 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. Every question time we listen to the minister get up and boast about the increase in apprenticeships and traineeships. The first thing you have to understand is that he collapses these two together. The point about it is this—there have been increasing numbers of apprenticeships and traineeships but not one dollar of Commonwealth money has led to that. The states have funded the expansion in the system, not the Commonwealth. This is a tragedy. Surely in a period of unparalleled economic growth this government should be guilty of investing in the young people of Australia—being a net investor in the skills of our young people to ensure that they are able to enter the world of work. I want to make this point—getting back to the Chifley College. One of the really great things about the Chifley College is that we are offering courses in seven core areas: business services, construction, information technology, metal and engineering—primary industries is not being offered this year but will be next—a retail curriculum, tourism and hospitality. But if a student who goes to Chifley College does not want to do any of these, they can pick up some courses at the Wyndham College in the Nirimba Education Precinct or at the Werrington TAFE. There is a revolution occurring in entry level training.It is true that the Labor Party has always been critical of the failure of businesses to adequately train people in apprenticeships or traineeships. But what is occurring increasingly is that, in years 11 and 12, students are able to undertake these traineeships, or part thereof, and have their qualifications recognised, or are able to commence their apprenticeships in years 11 and 12 and have their qualifications recognised. What does this mean? It means a couple of things. Firstly, such students will be at a premium compared with the rest of their peer group, because they will have already got some of that training under their belt. That is, the employer who takes them on will see less time taken up with these students going away to TAFE to finish off their training.Secondly, it is going to revolutionise what we understand as work experience. Why will it do that? At the moment and at best, work experience is a vicarious activity where students may select an industry or an employer that they have a vague interest in and where they are really testing out whether or not this is the career they wish to pursue. But, once they are really starting their entry level training in years 11 and 12, schools have an opportunity to place those students with a prospective future employer, and the period of work experience can be much longer. Indeed, we need to think in terms of whether it is appropriate that there should be some work experience allowance. This is what will happen: the socialisation that occurs once people leave school and go into the workplace will commence in years 11 and 12. A couple of other really good things have the potential to occur. Employers will be able to assess how well trained these people are in years 11 and 12. Businesses will be able to provide positive and fairly quick feedback to the schools to see what needs to be adapted and modified to make these students even more valuable in the workplace. One of the criticisms of Labor's years in trying to lift the numbers of people who were staying on in years 11 and 12—and just remember that the conservatives left it at 30 per cent of students who stayed on in years 11 and 12; what a disgrace—was that often those students who were encouraged to go on to years 11 and 12 really did not find subjects that they saw as meaningful. It is true to say that in my state, for example, there were Department of Education vocational courses. But these courses led nowhere; they actually gave you nothing and you did not get a jump start on anyone. Once students who are in the junior years of high school can look up at the senior campus and see the interesting things that those senior students are doing in vocational education and can understand that they will be credentialled for their work and that they will get part or all of the way through a traineeship or apprenticeship, that will transform what years 11 and 12 are all about. This is a particular problem with young men students; it is also a problem, I might say, with some female students.These developments are exciting; but let us not lose sight of this: we are actually cost-shifting off employers and onto the public education system. What is this government doing in this bill? Is it providing greater investment for young people? Is it facilitating the changes that are already occurring in state education systems? It is not. Regrettably, this bill and this government have led to cutbacks in vocational education. This bill and this government have penalised young people. In the honourable member for Hunter's electorate and in the honourable member for Bendigo's electorate, that is what it has done. I know that, just like me, those members are intensely proud of their young people. They can see the contribution that they can make not only to themselves but also to this country.What a waste of talent it is to have young people with potential and not tap into it. Whether we are in the government or in the opposition, we all have a responsibility to young people, as the shadow minister said in his contribution. We have a responsibility to them but, if we are being selfish, we have a responsibility because they are the future contributors to this nation. For every dollar that we invest in them, we are going to get so much more back.I should have made this point, and I apologise: in relation to vocational education students, once they see that what they are doing is meaningful and interesting it assists them in their general academic subjects; it gives them new motivation, new insight. The point I should have made about Chifley College is that you can take a university course, a TAFE course and traditional HSC subjects and get recognition for all three. I can imagine a student taking, for example, first year Economics, doing a suite of computer courses and doing their traditional HSC subjects. What flexibility, and how exciting! We are going to see this spread right across the land, particularly in New South Wales but in other states too.Perhaps I could finish on this parochial note. I am very pleased that we have successfully held our first meeting of the Chifley Youth Advisory Committee. It is not a political operation: it is young students from my high schools, private and public, and youth in the community who have come together not to listen to me tell them what is required but to have me, my colleague Jim Anderson and my councillor colleagues listen to them and understand what it is that we can do together to improve the lot of young people. (Time expired)12:16:0019090Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise to take part in this debate on the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000. The precise purpose of this bill is to add a mere $13 million to the funds payable and previously appropriated to the Australian National Training Authority, or ANTA, as a price adjustment for the year 2000. The bill raises the funding for this year from $918 million to $931 million. The bill also sets the new funding level for 2000 as a basis for funding for next year.In speaking on this bill, I wish to indicate that I believe a flourishing system of vocational education and training is vital to the prosperity of Australia. It is also vital for education and training opportunities for younger and older people alike, not just once in their career but frequently in their careers, with the changing nature of the economy and work. Vocational education and training opportunities are especially important in regional centres like Bendigo, where the opportunities provided locally are often crucial to regional and country people.I point out also that, in regional centres like Bendigo, the TAFE college and its campuses play a particularly important role in the regional economy because of the college's injection of funds into the district by way of salary and remuneration of staff, local purchases and contracts, on top of which there is the substantial impact on local spending by the large TAFE student population. Thus a well funded system of vocational education and training is especially important to regional and rural communities. And a secure future for the system is essential to the secure future of the regions of Australia.We cannot underestimate the significance of the Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE, or BRIT as it is called, for the region it serves. The institute is one of the region's big employers, having some 463 employees. Of these, 214 are full time and 249 are part time. It has a total income of $29 million, and its salary expenditure is around $14 million. Its student population adds up to 16,431 as of last year. Of these, 14,301 are full- and part-time students, 1,289 are apprentices and 841 are engaged in open learning.Geographically, the Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE is a vital regional operation. It is not only important to its big regional centre at Bendigo, where it has some 10,500 students; it also has campuses at Castlemaine, Maryborough, Echuca, Kerang and Kyneton. In my own electorate, the number enrolled at the Castlemaine campus last year was nearly 700, and the number at the Maryborough campus was nearly 750. The Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE also plays a major role in providing vocational education and training at corrections facilities, including the Bendigo, Loddon and Tarrengower prisons and the Malmsbury Juvenile Justice Centre.I want now to highlight the importance that the Labor Party attaches to vocational education and training. I refer in particular to the following section of the Labor Party's national platform as it was recently endorsed:Labor recognises the role played by the private sector in vocational education and training. The diversification of the labour market, however, must not be allowed to damage quality. Australia's current and future workforce must be provided with sound, transferable skills, and our international reputation for quality education and training provision must be protected.Labor will work with the States and Territories to ensure that all providers of vocational education and training are subject to an efficient, comprehensive system of quality assurance.Labor supports the development of a truly national TAFE system, with improved resourcing and emphasis on further education and the quality of education provided. Labor will support TAFE in its dual roles of training provider and key access point for community education.This bill is basically a disaster. It is yet another reminder of the way this government has cut and frozen funding for vocational education and training. The bill continues for yet another year the outrageous freeze that this coalition government has clamped on funding for vocational education and training for the three years of the current ANTA agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories. This agreement was finalised in 1998 and played havoc with the then existing ANTA agreement. The result was that the Commonwealth agreed then only to maintain the then level of funding—which, with the coalition having come to office, had already been slashed—and to do so in real terms for the three years from 1998 to 2000. Under that agreement of 1998, the states and territories had to maintain their level of activities and the funding of 100,000 new places each year through so-called efficiencies. So what we got inflicted on vocational education and training were, at the federal level, the slash and freeze policies of the coalition after it had taken office in 1996, coupled with the slash and burn policies of the then Kennett state coalition government after it had taken office in 1996.Now the education minister says that he has achieved wonders through this choking of funds for vocational education and training. He demands that the states and territories go on copping it after the current ANTA agreement ends this year. He wants the states and territories to submit to another three years of financial starvation from Canberra, without an extra cent from Canberra—just as they went without an extra cent during the previous three years of the agreement.I note in the minister's boasting in his second reading speech on this bill he tried to claim the credit for the Commonwealth for the increase in training positions that has taken place in Australia since 1998. There has in fact been a 22 per cent increase in the total number of vocational and education students since 1996, but in reality not a single cent of the increase was funded by the Commonwealth.The Commonwealth's recipe therefore adds up to an abandonment of the national responsibility for growth in training positions. That was the recipe for the last three years and that is his answer for the next three years. He is happy to demand more so-called efficiencies as the way to fund more places because he is happy to see TAFE budgets, already cut to the bone, facing more cuts. The minister for education has an obsessive dislike of public institutions, and the TAFE institutions are not exempt from this paranoia. His refusal to boost funding for ANTA flies in the face of growing demand for vocational education and training throughout Australia. In fact ANTA CEOs commissioned a report which was released in April this year and showed the growing demand for vocational education and training. The report showed that the growth in demand was likely to be up to 5.7 per cent per year for the next four years. This makes it all the more irrational and ideological that the minister is not prepared to supply new growth funding to the Australian National Training Authority.I note in the case of Victoria that there was a 9.2 per cent increase in apprenticeships and traineeships in the state over the last year, compared with the national increase of 2.7 per cent. So in my state there is a big growth in demand, yet the Commonwealth will not help fund it. The present Commonwealth minister for education was a great admirer of the former Kennett coalition government of Victoria. This minister often held the Kennett regime up as the model state for vocational education and training in Australia. But what the minister calls efficiency in Victoria was all too often just a cover for running down costs, slashing funds and jeopardising quality education and training.Indeed, the Victorian vocational education and training sector was so run down by the minister's idol that by the time the Bracks government took office late last year it had to receive a big injection of new state government funds. The Bracks Labor government in Victoria has committed an extra $177 million over the next four years for the vocational education and training sector. This is a rescue operation and it is designed to get the sector back on its feet after the financial and ideological vandalism of the years of Dr Kemp's favourite state government. The Bracks government in Victoria has shown its commitment to vocational education and training with a substantial injection of new funds. Why then can't the Commonwealth government play its part and do the right thing? Honourable members would be aware that the Bracks Labor government in Victoria commissioned the Schofield report, an independent review of the quality of training in Victoria's apprenticeship and traineeship system. The report was commissioned in January this year and was brought down in May. The report found that in Dr Kemp's model, the previous Victorian state government, under former Premier Kennett, presided over a significant weakness in the way the training had been delivered. The report cited evidence of abuse of the apprenticeship and traineeship system by some unethical organisations. It found that nearly half the trainees it surveyed, some 46 per cent, and one-third of the apprentices, 34 per cent, were not sufficiently challenged by their training. Twenty per cent of trainees did not believe they were learning new skills. The report stated that this was leading to views that the apprenticeship and traineeship system is `dumbing down' the work force when its essential task is to lift the expectations of all involved, to challenge apprentices and trainees and to make possible new pathways not only into the apprenticeship and traineeship system but from it to a life of learning in an increasingly global environment. I will not go into all details of the Schofield report, nor do I wish to misrepresent it by highlighting only the critical aspects, but the criticisms are there. The criticisms are a warning against the obsessively ideological attitude that this Commonwealth government has had when it has been belting into the public institutions that have played so big a role in providing vocational education and training in the past. The report, in my opinion, is a warning against the blind adulation of any private institution just because it is private. This is the sort of attitude this minister and his government have taken in their mindless pursuit of economic rationalism and their inflicting it on any sector of public activity they can hand it over to. It is also up to the Commonwealth government to respond to the criticisms of its performance where there is a role for the Commonwealth as spelt out by the report. I noted the comments of the Victorian Minister for Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment, Ms Lynne Kosky, when the Schofield report was released in June this year. Ms Kosky said that the state government had agreed in principle to the report's findings, but she called on the federal government to take some responsibility for the training sector and match its rhetoric with dollars. Ms Kosky said at the time:We've got a real concern that the Federal Government expects us to continue to grow the training system without additional dollars, and one of the reasons the Schofield review has raised concerns is because there has been a major encouragement to cut corners.I am sure honourable members will take note of these criticisms by the report of the Kennett-Howard record in vocational education and training in Victoria. The same kinds of criticisms emerged in the Schofield reports on Tasmania and Queensland. They raise very serious questions about the quality of vocational education in Australia under the economic rationalist regimes of the federal coalition and its state coalition allies. That is why at the start of this speech I referred specifically to Labor's recently endorsed national platform as it relates to vocational education and training and especially to the issue of quality.The present Prime Minister and his frontbench rubbish former Treasurer and Prime Minister Paul Keating at every opportunity, but what a dramatic contrast there is between the creativity that Mr Keating brought to the vocational education and training sector and the misery that Mr Howard and Dr Kemp show towards it today. Following the big steps forward taken under the Whitlam government for federal funding for vocational education and training, the succeeding conservative government of Malcolm Fraser slowed the momentum. The big leap forward was taken during the succeeding Labor government years—firstly, under Prime Minister Hawke then under Prime Minister Keating, who gave federal funding and federal commitment a major boost with the `One Nation' commitment. The result was that between the 1990-91 financial year and the last year of the Keating government, 1996, federal funding doubled.The election of the Howard coalition government resulted in a loss of $240 million to the vocational education and training sector, and it meant the slashing of funds to the Australian National Training Authority and then the freezing of those funds for the three years to the present. Here we are today in this parliament still debating the hateful policies that this coalition government has towards vocational education and training. The Howard government has clearly learnt nothing. Australia is a big country, but it has a little government with a little head. In that head, there is not vision but vitriol; it would rather revile than revive. Its leader would rather bury the achievements of the past than build for the future. That is why Australia needs a new Labor government and a new agenda for the nation an agenda which recognises the talents and hopes of Australians and the place that vocational training and education must play in achieving them.12:29:0019093Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 that we are debating is an important bill, and we have the opportunity to discuss vocational education and training and what has happened in this area. Besides what is going on in the political debate on this issue, this is a very good example of just what happens when bureaucracy runs rife. It is even difficult to follow all of the various bureaucratic manoeuvres that have taken place in the attempted delivery of programs for vocational education and training. This is not the only area of government administration where we have problems in this country but, if one recalls some of the things that have been happening, one can see that it is a very good example of so much money being spent on bureaucratic nonsense where so little is achieved in outcomes.I want to begin by saying something about the bill's actual funding measures. The bill's funding measures are a minuscule increase. One wonders why you would bother with a bill for such a minuscule increase on previous funding—$904.144 million to $908.352 million. That is a great increase, isn't it: a 1.57 per cent increase in a program which the government says is very critical to Australia's future. I mentioned how both the government and the opposition in this place are now struggling to get support from the community for their commitments to education and training. What happens? We see that, from the government's point of view, the commitment in terms of dollars is pathetic. It is not good enough. This is not the only problem, but I think it is a problem worth highlighting.As colleagues, Labor people, have made it clear, the government in fact, when it came in, cut the funds of the Australian National Training Authority. One wonders what sort of message that was sending out to the Australian community. The whole ideal of the Australian National Training Authority—involving the participation of the federal government, the states and the territories—has not been working very well in recent times. In fact, one might say there has been a bit of a fiasco. Apparently there was a meeting of the ministerial council at the end of June in relation to the ANTA body, and the state governments came with one proposal and the federal minister came with another proposal. What you think they did? Do you think they worked out a positive resolution to the issues? Not at all. Each accused the other of not giving enough notice of their proposals. In fact, Dr David Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, accused the states of coming up with this idea `out of the blue'. But then he also produced his own idea for a new national quality assurance body for the VET system which had not been discussed with the states. One wonders why we pay the bureaucracies that run these bodies such huge amounts of money in order to come to outcomes like this.I was appalled when I examined this and found out the details. It was only when I was researching this bill that I found out about these events. Although these issues and problems appeared in a couple of places in the newspapers, they were not publicised by the mainstream media. This is just another example of very real problems in government administration—especially when federal and state bodies are involved—and where things go wrong and where they are not sufficiently publicised in the Australian community. Obviously, it is the responsibility of parliamentarians to highlight these things, but it is also the responsibility of the mainstream media. They do not do a good enough job in these matters when administration goes haywire or gets stalled or when there are real problems with it. I have no idea what is going to happen now with these alternative proposals between the state ministers and the federal minister; I guess some compromise is being worked out. But why should the situation have reached this point, anyway? It is important to note that one of the reasons why the states came up with a proposal is that there was a critical report on this country's performance in respect of vocational training and education. One might ask what happened to that report. It seems to have disappeared without a trace. Certainly it was not sufficiently publicised and of course the federal minister, Dr David Kemp, told us that there were absolutely no problems and that everything was going smoothly in relation to vocational education and training. He keeps talking about what a wonderful job he is doing. On that point, the minister would do well to have other people examine his performance and praise him for what he is doing, rather than constantly blowing his own trumpet in relation to these matters when there are such serious problems in vocational education and training in this country.The report appeared and the state ministers raised a number of questions and made certain recommendations. For example, they talked about issues concerning clearer national standards for registered training organisations. They talked about making training package qualifications available immediately upon endorsement of the package, rather than having delays. They talked about amending user choice policies to ensure common regulatory arrangements. They talked about ensuring that all states and territories have necessary legislative provisions to underpin a consistent national framework. Can you believe that after so many years of ANTA we still do not have a consistent national framework? That is very interesting, isn't it? And here we have the federal minister telling us what a wonderful job he is doing. A start might be to try to get a consistent national framework, Minister, to try to get things done in this area instead of talking in general terms about what a great job you are doing.Vocational education and training has to be rethought in this country from the start. The whole philosophy of vocational education and training has to be spelt out. There have to be consistent national standards. The country has to be informed about not only the aims of the government's policy but also what the federal and state governments agree on in relation to this matter. Let us get clear goals in place. Let us get a clear philosophy in place. Rather than arguing about a few of the technical issues in this matter, let us look for some vision. What are we trying to achieve in vocational education and training in this country? One of the things we are trying to achieve—and I would think every member of this House would agree—is that Australia should be able to keep up with international developments in newer technologies, new systems of learning, the computer revolution and the Internet. Australia should be able to use the latest technologies, and we should be able to train our people to have access to those technologies. What does that involve? It involves vocational education and training not only for those who are out of work but also for those who are in work who wish to improve their skills and to move to other jobs either within their own company or organisation or outside their own company or organisation where there may be other opportunities for them. These kinds of training opportunities need to be made available to the work force in general, not just to some specific categories of individuals. The pace of change in the technological revolution that is taking place means that all of us need training and retraining throughout life. Why don't we actually think about this and put it into place? I think a good idea would be a government white paper addressing these issues of a vision for vocational education and training. As I said, it is not just a question for students or people who are unemployed; it is a question for all of us. With the pace of change that has taken place in the 21st century with respect to new technologies, with respect to the importance of not only information but also the ability to work with that information, to think about it, to use new forms of technology in relation to information—all of that is very important—we all need training and we all need training opportunities. So let us try to put that into place. Let us try to overcome the bureaucratic nonsense that happened at the last meeting of the Australian National Training Authority, ANTA. Essentially what happened was that the federal government was attacked for not giving enough money, which is true, but the states had a new proposal which the federal government claimed it did not know anything about. So we had all this bureaucratic nonsense and hardly any progress on this very important matter. I think we also need to think about systems of delivery of training in this country. This government talks about how it is interested in flexibility—different arrangements whereby you can deliver training. But we are not actually using all the opportunities that are available. Sure we use TAFE colleges, and they do very well. We have the system of apprenticeships, which is a good system. We have some other forms of formal education. But one of the things the former Prime Minister Mr Keating tried to encourage was on-the-job training by employers. How much are we doing at the moment to encourage this kind of thing? I do not think we are doing very much. If we are committed to keeping Australia at the forefront in education and training, especially in the area of changing technological developments, I think we need to bring in employers as part of this national commitment to training. There are some things being done in this area, but nowhere near enough. I talked about the possibility of a white paper. If there were such a white paper, one of the things that could follow from it is some kind of summit to discuss with employers, with trade unions, with governments and with other organisations in the community ways and means of making this issue of training and retraining a high priority in the consciousness of the nation. I think that is something that can be done. The federal government need to show some leadership on this. They ought to think about ways and means of making training an important issue in the consciousness of the people of this country. There are many countries around the world which are far ahead of us in this matter. There are many countries around the world which spend a lot more money on training and vocational education. But where they have succeeded even more than by the expenditure of money is in making the citizens of their nations aware of the importance of training and retraining in the modern world and of competing in the modern world, in the globalised economy. The government talk about their commitment to globalisation, especially economic globalisation. But how can we really be part of economic globalisation if the government are not serious about providing the dollars for the training and retraining of people in these important areas, especially when new technologies are being developed all the time?I hope that the government will come to a point of rethinking its whole strategy and philosophy in this area; that it will try to involve everybody in the community—from schools right through to TAFEs, university systems, employers in the public and private sectors and even the general media—in the consciousness of the issues of training and retraining, the need for knowledge and information and the importance of ensuring that all our people have access to knowledge and information. I do not know if people read about this the other day, but the government of Singapore has just announced a program to make every single citizen, from young children to old people, computer literate so that they understand and are able to use computers. Obviously this involves a hell of a lot of training programs for people. This is a very ambitious program by the government of Singapore. I am not saying that Australia is at this point yet, but I am saying that it is an example of how far governments are prepared to go to ensure that training and retraining opportunities are there for all their citizens. I might say that this includes citizens who are not working anymore but who can make a contribution to their society by having access to training opportunities, particularly in the use of new technologies.I hope that the minister will take on board the spirit of my comments, which essentially is constructive. Let us have commitments from the major parties in this parliament to education and training, especially from the government. Let us see a new vision, let us see some action, let us see more resources in next year's budget than were supplied in this year's budget for opportunities for vocational education and training, and let us encourage a much greater consciousness in the Australian community of the importance of these matters. (Time expired)12:50:0019096Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Calwell, particularly in light of his long interest in and association with education. I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000, and I rise to support the second reading amendment as circulated by the shadow minister for education on this side of the House. On the surface, the bill looks fairly innocuous. It provides for a so-called increase in funding for vocational education and training, yet in reality it does nothing more than maintain the current funding levels. It is pretty typical of the smoke and mirrors approach of this government to Commonwealth funding, be it for education, for aged care, for health or for any number of public institutions.In this bill, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is again complicit in stifling funding for vocational education and training. I can hear the minister quip, `What's the problem? We're providing more money.' There is a problem, and that kind of response is wearing very thin, particularly on this side of the House, and particularly as we investigate the issue a little bit further. In this instance, it could well be argued that the level of Commonwealth funding for vocational education and training is a case of more being less. The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 allows funding to be topped up this year, in line with Treasury estimates, from $918,352 million to $931,415 million. It also makes provision for base funding for next year of $931,415 million. Sure, it means an increase of $13 million, but it provides for nothing more than the impact of the CPI. It covers inflation but the bottom line is that there is not one extra dollar of growth funding.This is in stark contrast to the former Labor government's commitment and recognition of the importance and growing demands of vocational education and training. Let us cast our minds back to the establishment of the Australian National Training Authority in 1992, an initiative of the Paul Keating government. ANTA, as it is known, was the body set up to distribute vocational education and training funds to the states and territories. To demonstrate Labor's commitment to vocational education and training we need only look at the massive increase in funding of a decade ago. In the 1990-91 financial year the Commonwealth provided $422 million in 1999 dollars. By the time the coalition came to office that had more than doubled, to $846 million. The then Labor government not only dramatically boosted base funding for vocational education and training but made provision for an addition $70 million of growth funding a year for the 1993-95 triennium. These arrangements were subsequently extended to 1996-97. That was funding for growth, as opposed to the current policy of simply keeping pace with inflation.But we all know what happened when the coalition came into office in 1996. How things have changed for vocational education and training since then. In its first budget the new coalition government not only introduced efficiency measures which resulted in a five per cent reduction in funding but discontinued the provision for real growth funding. With a stroke of the pen it wiped out $70 million a year in funding to vocational education and training. But it got worse. In its next budget, of 1997-98, the government cut funding to the states and territories again to provide an incentive `to the states to achieve efficiency gains in the VET operations'.This reduction, which took effect from 1 January 1998 and into subsequent years, was estimated to be about $20 million a yearanother $20 million a year lost. True to form, the coalition revised its funding agreement with the Australian National Training Authority in 1998 in which it agreed to maintain funding—no real increases, just to maintain funding—for the three years 1998 to 2000—that is, the states and territories were bullied into agreeing to the principle of growth through efficiencies. The only conclusion I can make as far as efficiencies in education are concerned is that this government is very efficient at pulling money out of the system.In essence, what the Howard government said to the vocational education and training sector was, `You will be expected to do more without any additional funding.' So, in effect, the agreement locked in the reduction in annual funding announced in the 1997-98 budget. That is what I mean about more being less, and members opposite cannot deny it. Clearly, this is not an outcome the Australian National Training Authority is happy about. It goes against the spirit of its formation, but under this government it had no choice. Negotiations are still under way for a new ANTA agreement. I suspect it is by no means a done deal, nor should it be, given the government's attitude. The government not only fails to recognise the need for growth funding or real funding increases but does not recognise growing demand for vocational education and training, despite its rhetoric. If vocational education and training is important to our nation's future, it is absolutely critical for regional areas in electorates like my own, which are striving for a foothold in the new economy. It is all about employability and continuity of employment. Even on the government's own internal estimates of growth and demand for vocational education and training, the funding as it stands now will fall well short of what is needed.The latest statistics from Australia's principal research and evaluation organisation for vocational education and training, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd, give an insight into the dramatic growth in this vitally important sector of our education system. For example, over 1½ million students undertook vocational programs in 1999, an estimated increase of 111,900, or a rise of 7.3 per cent, over the previous year. Of Australia's working age population, 15- to 64-year-olds, 12.7 per cent participated in VET programs. It is projected the VET system will grow by 16 to 33 per cent over the next five years.In a report yet to be released the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs estimated an additional $234 million would need to be pumped into the system by 2005. However, many believe even that is far too modest an estimate given the changing employment landscape throughout Australia. As we all know, in this day and age employment is less stable, and training or upskilling is in most cases no longer optional; it is a necessity. Not only people gaining work who come off employment benefits require training straightaway; when people become unemployed they still need training to give themselves the best chance of returning to the work force. Needless to say, there is also demand from people who are already in employment.A working party report by CEOs from the Australian National Training Authority which looks at the future demands of the VET sector predicts that kind of growth would necessitate an injection of $1.5 billion by 2005. That, I understand, is a much more realistic figure than the DETYA estimate that I produced earlier. So, rather than supplementing funding for this year and using that as the base funding for next year, this bill should really be looking at an instalment of growth funding to meet future needs. However, that appears beyond the capacity—or the will—of this government's thinking.The current Senate inquiry into vocational education and training has seen both Labor and non-Labor state governments calling for growth in VET provision and in the Commonwealth's share of funding, yet this government remains unmoved. The inquiry has been told time and time again that the acute skills shortages facing this country are a looming crisis for our economy. A wide range of industries are having difficulty finding suitably qualified people to employ. At the same time we see unemployed people who are not receiving the training they require under the Job Network and certainly under the Work for the Dole scheme.Last week it was pleasing to see improvement in the national employment rate, but the fact remains that there are still 178,200—in seasonally adjusted figures—long-term unemployed people in Australia. This means these people have been out of work for one year or more. In addition, 112,300 have been unemployed for over two years. There are concerns any employment gains that are made may well be unsustainable in the long run unless they are backed up with quality training. Vocational education and training may not be a fashionable topic for this government, but that should not mean that it abandons its responsibility to the working men and women of this country and to those unemployed people who need retraining and upskilling. In regional areas, in communities like those in my electorate that stretch from Latrobe to Smithton, the level of economic and social wellbeing is often the barometer of how well they are going. Economic growth and jobs growth are fundamental to our future prosperity. We are only too well aware of that in my electorate. Yet it is against a backdrop of a continuing decline in our traditional industrial base, a shrinking population and double-digit unemployment that the north-west coast must rise to meet the challenges and opportunities of the future. It is by no means an easy task, but it is not impossible.There are many industry and business success stories in my electorate. They are spread across the north-west coast, from carpet manufacturer Tascot Templeton to Australian Weaving Mills, Serv Ag, Chas Kelly Transport, Fairbrother Pty Ltd, Simplot, McCain, Lactos, Caterpillar Elphinstone, Bonlac and Classic Foods, to name just a few. Together with our forest based industries and agricultural producers, they represent a diverse range of interests, but all have one thing in common: they have grasped opportunities and prospered and grown through innovation by making old technologies work better and more efficiently through world best practice, and they have employed genuine partnership between management and employees. The key in that is partnership. What we also need is a federal government interested in true partnership with all levels of government, industry, business and community—the kinds of partnerships foreshadowed by Kim Beazley at Labor's recent national conference in Hobart, the kinds of partnerships proposed in the education priority zones that would provide for government, local schools and communities to help improve educational outcomes in disadvantaged areas. It was particularly heartening for me to hear of the north-west region of Tasmania becoming part of a national network of priority zones under a future federal Labor government. The coalition, it seems, may finally be starting to realise the value of genuine partnership, but it is being dragged kicking and screaming all the way. Partnership in education and training needs to be above politics. Australia does not need the confrontation approach of this government, particularly as far as the broad spectrum of education policy is concerned; it certainly does not need an educational minister of the ilk of the one currently in the job. I suspect he should be looking for another job or, at the very least, for some retraining. I wonder whether our vocational education and training system would offer a suitable course. It is essential that our regional communities in particular keep pace with information technology and telecommunications so they will have a stake in the new economy. In this context, the importance of vocational education and training cannot be overstated. How often do we hear nowadays that there is no job for life? People will change jobs and careers and will be required to retrain and upgrade their skills to keep ahead of the changes in each and every workplace. But unless this government changes its tight-fisted approach towards vocational education, in fact to education across the board, it will remain out of step with the growing demands of the system.Take the demand for vocational education and training in Tasmania. In my home state the total number of students in the vocational education and training system rose by 9.7 per cent last year, to 31,800 participants, compared to the previous year. It was well above the national average of 7.3 per cent over the same period. An interesting aspect of that was the dramatic increase in the number of female students in Tasmania. While the number of male students rose by 2.5 per cent, we saw an increase of almost 20 per cent in the number of females. Almost seven million hours of vocational education and training were delivered in Tasmania, an increase of two per cent on the previous year. So in my home state we are seeing increases in participation rates for both males and females, and a rise in the number of hours of training and course enrolment. But is there an increase in funding? No. Operational expenditure in 1999 decreased by two per cent, and the Commonwealth's contribution dropped by over nine per cent. Nationally, funding declined by four per cent in 1999 compared with the previous year. This government can talk about efficiencies as much as it likes, but there is a human side to this debate, and, as so often, this is overlooked. I find it rather ironic that, for a minister so committed to efficiencies in the vocational education and training system, there was such a stink last year over the alleged rorting of traineeships under his stewardship. I remind the House of the huge question mark over the use of taxpayers' money for traineeships under the so-called New Apprenticeships scheme. At the time, I informed this House of people in Tasmania being signed up for traineeships but not in fact undergoing any training at all, of existing employees being put on traineeships despite the fact that they had already been trained, and of allegations that training funds received by some employers were spent not on providing training or upskilling workers but on buying things like office equipment, filing cabinets and fax machines. I recognise the importance of financial incentives for employers to offer legitimate traineeships and to upskill their workers and for employees to have the opportunity, but surely there should have been more accountability by the federal government. Concern over the operation of Tasmania's traineeships prompted the Schofield report last year. Similar reports were also produced in Queensland and Victoria. From the review of Tasmania's traineeship system undertaken by Kaye Schofield, I note the findings that: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.The dramatic uptake of new traineeships last year, whatever the motives, might have provided the government with a good-looking statistical outcome, but was it efficient use of Commonwealth funding? In instances where the money was misused, I think not. Along with efficiency, `flexibility' is an often used word in many workplaces nowadays, and one this government is eager to use. A case recently brought to my attention in a college in my electorate that was taking part in the VET in Schools program highlights the need for more flexibility in the system. I ask the minister to take into account what I am saying on its behalf. St Brendan-Shaw College in Devonport decided to diversify career options for its year 11 and 12 students by introducing vocational education and training programs in 1990. Over the past 10 years it has increased training programs for students from one to eight, and I believe it has done so rather successfully—in fact, probably too successfully, because the college is now suffering under the current guidelines. The college receives general recurrent funding which is provided on a dollar per student basis and is calculated at the beginning of August each year. At the start of this year, St Brendan-Shaw had 182 senior secondary students, of which 48 were in VET. To date, nine students have been fortunate enough to join the work force in apprenticeships or traineeships or through work in their relevant VET vocation. Congratulations. The college's concern is that, by being proactivethat is, providing a pathway for its students into employmentit is being disadvantaged because of the VET funding formula. It raised with me the following questions. Again, I put on notice to the minister that I ask him to take these on board and to respond. The college's questions are as follows. First, is the college able to get pro rata payments for students up to and including the total time spent at the college, that is, from February to July? Second, is there a possibility of setting up a scheme for payment to colleges for apprenticeships and traineeships according to the number of competencies achieved before gaining full-time work? Finally, could colleges be asked to sign off documentation for apprenticeships and traineeships and/or work placements as a justification of employment to gain a subsidy for the training provided? I again ask the minister to consider these questions in the interests of greater flexibility. I also think the minister has squeezed enough so-called legitimate efficiencies out of the vocational education and training system; now it is time to give something back. I would like to conclude by raising another issue in terms of VET in schools, particularly in the colleges in my electorate, related to the full service school program. Basically, that is to provide support for students who came in under the common youth allowance; it was a softener for this. Effectively, it was to help those schools cope with the added influx of students who, in the main, had left school or were leaving school. The problem is that those funds are drying up, yet those colleges are still required to support those students, students who are most at risk and take more resources for support in terms of per capita funding than students doing traditional courses. (Time expired)13:10:0019100Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 provides supplementary funds to the Australian National Training Authority, ANTA, for distribution to states and territories for this year in line with price movements—$931 million for 2001. It is of vital importance to note that this legislation provides no growth funding whatsoever and does not restore the $240 million that the government slashed from the TAFE system. The TAFE system is at the very heart of vocational education. Vocational education, as we all know, is really at the core of the skill development of a lot of people within our country. You could hardly say that the government has made a commitment to vocational education, a commitment to expand vocational education, when it is cutting funds to TAFE and cutting the opportunity for young Australians to enter those TAFE colleges and get the essential skills that they need to be able to enter into the work force in this country. I am sure all members in this place have been faced with parents and young people at the beginning of the year or at the start of a semester who have come to see them because there are insufficient places for these young people who are qualified to enter TAFE colleges but are unable to access these colleges simply because the colleges do not have the funds to provide the vocational education to the students who would like to access those colleges.The government's commitment to education has been to cut funds whilst it articulates that it is committed to education, committed to vocational education and committed to young Australians. The Howard government's big funding initiative in the area of vocational education has been to put an emphasis on efficiency: `We will be able to provide better education and there will be more opportunities for students, for young people, if providers, and TAFE colleges in particular, become more efficient, if we have more competition.' But the vocational education system can only achieve a certain level of efficiency. After that, the number, the quality and the availability of vocational options start to decline. In other words, there are fewer courses, the quality of those courses is questionable, to say the least, and, as members on both sides of the House would know, there have been many incidences of people who have been involved in vocational education courses where the provider has been much more interested in making a profit out of that course than actually funding a course that will set the student up to enter the work force.The implication of this is disastrous for Australia. It is really disastrous. I do not know how members on the other side of this House can be silent on such an issue of vital importance. In the global economy, with the world the way it is now, the way we live today, the countries that have knowledge, that invest in knowledge and that invest in a skilled work force are the countries that will thrive and will be able to take advantage of the opportunities that exist. This means that those countries will enjoy the standard of living that we in Australia have enjoyed for many years. Knowledge and skills really equal wealth. They both equal wealth. Without being a country that invests in knowledge, invests in our population—in our greatest resource, Australians—and giving them the knowledge and skills that they need to operate in a work force in this 21st century, we as a country have a very dim future. The government's response to the challenge of providing knowledge and education has been to cut funding in real terms to vocational education. I have already touched on the cuts to the TAFE system. What do the cuts in funding to research and development mean? It is a brain drain. All the people with the knowledge and the research take it offshore because this government refuses to invest in it. Companies in Australia cannot thrive and be as competitive as they would like to be, because this government will not invest in research and development. In education we find that the government is cutting funding to public schools and this has an enormous implication for the 70 per cent of young people in Australia that attend public schools. Universities are struggling for funding. Money for research in universities has been slashed. Now we see that the minister is making a move towards privatising our university system, in the same way that he is moving towards privatising our school system and privatising our vocational education system. I will touch on that more a little later. Whilst other countries are investing in education for all, this government is selectively investing in education. Private schools are doing very well. In university fees, we are hearing about a system where students will be able to apply for loans by which their education will be paid for, and on the other hand the HECS system will be abolished. We will have young people, once they leave university, faced with the decision of whether or not they will ever be in a position to have a family of their own, because they will be paying off the $100,000 loans that they have had to take out to access that education. Similarly, we have a government that feels, `Well, if you have a little extra money, we may let you attend a university if you get a lower TER than a bright young student that comes from a working-class background.' This is a government that believes in education if you have money, if you can afford it.This is a very narrow approach. It will divide the nation. It will disadvantage Australia in the current world and global economy. For the workers and the people that live in Australia it will mean that we will not have an educated and skilled work force at the level that the people of Australia are capable of achieving. The Howard government supports this privatised education system. The minister has been quoted as saying—I am sure I read this somewhere—`If you can find it in the Yellow Pages, then government should not provide it.' Therefore, it is a natural progression that this government feels that it should not have to provide education.We on this side of the House strongly disagree with that approach because there are other costs that do not come into the equation. If you do not invest in education, you are not going to have a quality work force with the skills that are needed to exist in the current world environment. The greatest investment any government can make is in education, because that is an investment in our future. It is the right of every Australian to have equal access to that education. I know that those of us on this side of the House believe in that so passionately. That is one of the core beliefs we have. We would really encourage the government to please rethink the direction of their policies. It should not be your socioeconomic status that determines whether or not you can have education; it should be ability. And the type of education that you decide to undertake should also be determined by your ability. An educated population is best for the country, and a country that shares the wealth between all is a country that thrives and prospers.The government, in particular the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, has boasted about its success in creating apprenticeships under its New Apprenticeships scheme, but on closer examination we find that in actual fact, because the government has lumped trainees and apprenticeships together, the growth is mainly in the area of traineeships, not in the area of traditional apprenticeships. That is why owners of service stations and other people that need to employ motor mechanics cannot fill those positions: the skilled workers are not out there. This is creating a real problem for Australia. In addition, it is important to note that the New Apprenticeships scheme is extremely restrictive.I will take this opportunity just to talk about two constituents that live within the Shortland electorate. Young Katie has a disability. She has had lots of input—very supportive parents, who have helped her. I actually have her working in my office at the moment as a volunteer, because she has been unable to get a job. Her parents were so supportive of her that they helped her go to TAFE and she completed a certificate level III course. Guess what that means? Katie is now unable to access a traineeship. Here is a girl who is a prime candidate for a traineeship, who would thrive and be a wonderful employee, but is ruled out of being able to access those courses because her parents sent her off to TAFE and she completed a level III course. She is not the only person; there are a lot of people in this position. The parents think they are doing the right thing by their children when they leave school, and what they find is that actually they have cut off an avenue for them to access employment. There is also young Peter. Peter is a prime example of how the New Apprenticeships scheme does not work. He was offered a traineeship with an employer who has offered traineeships to a number of other young people. They finish their time and then they are unemployed. During this time, Peter was offered no proper training. I believe that this employer is now being investigated. The several employees that he had before all suffered the same fate, but the employer got the incentive that was offered. When Peter finished there, another employer in the area who ran a plumbing business, with a real apprenticeship, took young Peter on. He is just a one-man operation and a good tradesman. When he put in to get his incentive payment, something that was actually going to keep Peter in a job, he was told, `Forget it. This young man has already attracted a payment to one employer.' So for the rest of his life he is prohibited from ever accessing that scheme again.If the scheme is about training for workers, if the scheme is about getting young people into the work force, why is it judged on whether or not an employer has got a bucket of money? I am nearly lost for words. I feel some urgent action is needed by the government. This is hardly an indication of a successful apprenticeship scheme. It is inflexible and it is geared to the employer, not the trainee. These were two motivated young people—and the system failed them both. I have spent a large part of my working life working with people who needed to access vocational education before re-entering the work force. I worked for many years as a vocational counsellor and I know the importance of vocational education. I have also worked casually lecturing at university in the area of vocational education and I was involved with Skillshare for many years. This government's approach to vocational education is really piecemeal. It is based on mutual obligation, cost cutting, minimum intervention and short courses provided by private providers. Mickey mouse courses are the order of the day, rather than real courses based on market analysis and the skills that are needed for young people or other people to enter the work force. These mickey mouse courses do not look at the individual abilities, the literacy level, the potential of the workers, the interests or the values that those people have. If you do not examine all these things, vocational education is going to be a failure.To provide successful vocational education you need to know the types of skills that are going to be in demand. You need to know the kind of market you are operating in. You do not need to say, `Well, computers are a good thing—let's put a whole heap of people through computer courses,' because those people may not have the aptitude for working with computers, they may not have the ability, they may have a value system that relates to working outdoors and doing something totally different to being locked in a room with computers. Unless vocational education addresses these needs, it is going to be a total failure. If the government ignores all this, who suffers? Australia and our future.The government abolished Skillshare, as I said, and directed funds from TAFE to private providers. Some private providers do a really good job, but there are others that do not do such a good job. Sometimes the government loses track of whether or not it is about providing quality vocational education or just providing the cheapest option. This directly impacts on the quality of the education. The providers are sacrificing quality for profit. Whilst I was working in the area of vocational counselling to help people enter the work force, a large part of that time I worked with people with disabilities. In no other area is it more important to look at the assessment and the training process. At the moment this government is examining people that are on the disability support pension and looking at implementing a mutual obligation component. I really recommend that you approach this very cautiously. This is a government that disbanded the disability review panels, a government that has moved away from the support that people with a disability need to enter the work force. You have to have a coordinated approach. You have to look at the person's physical as well as academic abilities, and then you have to have a coordinated approach to that vocational education and entry to the work force.The current system is set up under a principle where providers are competing against each other rather than working together for that person. Any system that is going to be based on that approach, with a bit of mutual obligation thrown in, is going to fail. It has got to be about the individual and about the opportunities that exist in the community. The government's response in dealing with the long-term unemployed shows its commitment in that area and how successful it has been. Lifetime learning is something that we as a country must come to terms with. There is going to be a need for us as a nation to continue learning and upgrading our skills. Failure to recognise this will see Australia becoming a second-class country, a country of haves and have-nots, a country of missed opportunities. If Australia is to thrive as a nation, we must embrace education and assure all Australians have the skills they need to make Australia a successful nation. (Time expired)13:30:0019103Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—Mr Deputy Speaker, the Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992 provides for a maximum amount of general funding for vocational education and training to be provided to the Australian National Training Authority, or ANTA, as it is known, for distribution to the states and territories and for national projects. The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000 will amend the act to supplement 2000 funding in line with real price movements reflected in Treasury indices and appropriate general vocational education and training funding for ANTA for the year 2001. This bill increases the Commonwealth contribution to vocational education and training in the states and territories this year by over $13 million, bringing the total to more than $930 million in 2000. It also appropriates the same amount of funding for 2001.In summing up this legislation I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this debate and address some of the misinformation presented by the shadow minister and other speakers from the opposition. The ANTA agreement is founded on a recognition by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments that vocational education and training is integral to the development of an Australian work force with the range and depths of skills necessary to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry. A key feature of the agreement is that it has provided a stable basis for funding vocational education and training. The Commonwealth has undertaken to maintain funding in real terms for the duration of the agreement and is fulfilling that commitment in this bill. For their part, states and territories have undertaken to achieve growth in their vocational education and training systems through improvements in efficiency, and this has been extraordinarily successful. In 1999 the National Centre for Vocational Education Research estimated that there had been 110,000 more people taking up training places than in the year before. This was not just a one-off; the sector as a whole has grown by about 30 per cent since 1995. This is really a great result especially for young Australians who benefit from the additional opportunities to undertake vocational education and training that will help them gain real jobs.Of course, it also benefits those already in the labour market by enabling them to maintain the competitive advantage that up-to-date skills provide. Not only are the states and territories planning to provide more places but they are also planning to do so more efficiently with an estimated 6.9 per cent improvement in efficiency achieved by the end of this year compared with 1997 levels. This is good news for the taxpayer who can be assured that the vocational education and training sector is providing better value for money. A reduction in costs certainly should not mean any reduction in quality. The state and territory efficiency plans themselves identified many quality enhancements, such as investments in technology, benchmarking and equity measures. These enhancements are in addition to the significant reforms to the vocational education and training sector this government has fostered in recent years. Key elements of this reform have been the implementation of a national training framework and the development of training packages expressly designed to ensure training quality. We have achieved a great deal in the last few years but it is not time to rest on our laurels. We should continue to strive to raise the quality of all training in Australia to the highest possible standards. Alongside the improvements in the general vocational education and training sector there have, of course, also been improvements to apprenticeships which have given rise to an unprecedented expansion in numbers. New apprenticeships are now expanding real work based training into new industries and occupations. In a flexible way they are delivering training that responds directly to the needs of businesses and they are opening up opportunities for many young Australians in high growth industries as well as in traditional trades. The National Centre for Vocational Education Research has estimated that in March this year there were well over a quarter of a million new apprentices in training in Australia. This is an increase of 12.3 per cent over the previous year. The system has been designed to meet the needs of industry and has focused on providing choice to business and to students to ensure that the skills they are delivering meet modern industry standards and needs and are delivered in a way that meets the needs of both business and trainees. This system has overwhelming support from industry. This system, of course, gets criticised in the chamber by an opposition determined to oppose every constructive reform that this government takes on. But the chamber may be interested to know that the system has overwhelming support from industry. David Buckingham, Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, said:There is strong industry support for the overall thrust of the training reform agenda including the greater flexibilities and choices provided by it.He is not alone. Bob Herbert, chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, has said:They are very sound fundamentals in our current system ...He went on to say that he believed very strongly that the most important ingredients were flexibility and choice and that these were certainly offered within the national framework. Mark Patterson, chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said:The review has highlighted very strong business support for the training reforms across the full agenda.As I say again, the opposition can only knock, but those who are at the coalface, those who can see the way trends in Australia are going and those who can see the opportunities for young people support government initiatives.In turning now to New Apprenticeships, what has Labor got to say? What Labor has said is not real. This is ridiculous. Labor is trying to take the high moral ground, but let us look at history, a snapshot of the number of apprentices and trainees in training. In 1991—and guess who was in government then—there were 160,200, and in 1995 there were 135,800, but under this government in the year 2000, and this is only so far, there are 264,000. The member for Dobell was lamenting the fact that traditional apprenticeships have grown by only seven per cent. This is laughable given Labor's record. In looking at traditional apprenticeships, another snapshot will inform the House. The number of traditional apprentices in 1991-92 was 143,000. In 1992-93 it was 122,700. You will note that that is actually a fall. Guess who was the Minister for Education and Training at that time? It was none other than the Leader of the Opposition. However, the Howard government has been steadily fixing up what Labor destroyed. I do hope that the shadow minister is listening to this because he has a habit of asking questions when he really should be doing more listening because then he would know what was really going on. In March 1996 there were 125,300, and in March 2000 there were 134,100. It is quality training. Over three-quarters of new apprenticeships are at the higher Australian Qualifications Framework level. The fact is that new apprenticeships have modernised the apprenticeship and traineeship system that was left in disarray by Labor. The shadow minister and the member for Gellibrand talked about the Schofield reports in Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania. They tried to use isolated examples which were loosely based on anecdotal evidence to start with to say that the entire system is in disarray. We have a system of 264,000 new apprentices. They are talking about less than 0.1 per cent of the system in these reports, even if those allegations were true. The Member for Dobell quoted examples from the report. He did not say that the vast majority of apprentices, trainees and employers valued their experience and strongly endorsed the system, as was said in the report. The report tells us that 96 per cent of apprentices, 93 per cent of trainees, and 96 per cent of employers would recommend apprenticeships and traineeships to others. This is a common experience across Australia. MG4Lee, Michael, MP8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—The shadow minister unwisely interjects because this is exactly the same report that he was selectively quoting from. As I say, even if the examples were found to be accurate it would still be only 0.1 per cent of all those taking part in these programs.Looking at skill shortages, the member for Dickson takes up the battle lamenting skill shortages and uses an article in yesterday's Age newspaper to talk about skill shortages in the electrotechnology industry. What she did not acknowledge was that the report was undertaken as a result of Dr Kemp's own initiative, the national industry skills initiative, which Dr Kemp embarked upon last year with the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Australian Industry Group. The electrotechnology industry has publicly congratulated Minister Kemp on this initiative. The same things are being said by other industries that are being assisted by this initiative. These industries include the automotive and engineering industry, rural industries, the food trades, and building and construction.VET in schools has been a very important part of reforms undertaken by this government, but the member for Dickson says that Labor believes students should have access to VET in schools, including access to apprenticeships. Therefore, it is very clear that the Australian Labor Party does not know what is going on. In 1995 there were 26,000 students doing VET in schools. This year, 2000, there are 167,000. In 1995 there were no apprenticeships in schools but now, introduced by this Howard government, there are 7,000 this year. There are over 300 school industry clusters involving 30,000 businesses helping 60,000 students per year. Labor does not know what is going on. Despite claiming to be knowledgeable, the knowledge nation, it does not know what is going on. Even the Leader of the Opposition, who was praising a school in Victoria on the weekend, did not seem to realise that this was a Commonwealth initiative. I have had some wonderful experiences visiting schools myself. Only a few weeks ago, during the break, I visited Urrbrae Agricultural High School in the member for Boothby's electorate. I congratulate that school. I was there to present a certificate from the Prime Minister for a national environment award that they had been successful in winning. While I was there I had an opportunity to speak to a lot of the teachers, students and parents to see what was going on in that school. That is one school which has strong links with industry. There is fantastic VET undertaken in that school. I have no doubt whatsoever that the students, like those in other participating schools, will be the beneficiaries of that curriculum and that agenda. There is no doubt that links with industry give students a better understanding of industry and what the work force is like. From talking to people in industry I know that it enlightens them about young people because so often the stereotypes of young people that we see in the media are less than desirable. The more dialogue, cooperation and interaction there can be between students, young people, industry and others in the work force, the better.It is appropriate to turn to retention rates. The Commonwealth has introduced a range of initiatives to encourage a major stream of enterprise and career education supported by business and community organisations to greatly expand opportunities for the 70 per cent of school leavers who do not go straight from school to university. School retention is rising because school is seen as more relevant and worth while by many students who would have previously left. Young people are increasingly gaining industry recognised skills, improving their employability and contributing to lower youth unemployment. The culture of school is changing, with many schools now being more proactive in ensuring their students have an education experience that better meets young people's needs and aspirations. As I have been alluding to, closer relationships are being built between schools, local businesses and the community encapsulating the spirit of a social coalition or partnership with those in their own local communities.This funding will help to increase the number of training opportunities available and will promote continued improvements in the quality of training provided by Australia's vocational education and training sector. In doing this the bill gives effect to the Commonwealth's undertaking in the Australian National Training Authority agreement to maintain funding in real terms for the three-year period of the agreement, 1998 to 2000. Funding provided through this bill, together with the government's continuing reforms to vocational education and training, will establish a sound basis to meet the training challenges that the economy and community will face in the new century.Again I thank those who have taken part in this debate. I commend the member for Menzies in particular for his very thoughtful and, as usual, very well-researched contribution to this debate. And I thank my other colleagues. I urge those in opposition to learn the lesson that it is not always smart to oppose just for the sake of opposition. Often the community will admire you if you are prepared to use the right and accurate figures and to be seen to be truly interested in the young people of Australia rather than just simply knocking for the sake of opposition. All young people will benefit across the range of these training initiatives. The funding is here in this bill and I commend the bill to the House.13:48:0019106Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—On indulgence: I indicate the opposition will not force a division on our second reading amendment, but we will be voicing our support for that second reading amendment on the voices.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.19106Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:49:0019106Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, you were not in the House yesterday when I explained that it is my personal view that this House needs to expand the time it devotes to the consideration in detail stage to ensure that members of the House of Representatives have an opportunity to debate in detail measures that are before the House. It is my view that we spend too long listening to people reading and delivering long speeches during the second reading debate and not enough time on interaction across the chamber through opportunities such as this. I am just explaining to you my reasons for seeking to have a consideration in detail stage.The parliamentary secretary knows that yesterday I expressed concern about the fact that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs was not present yesterday for the consideration in detail stage of the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. I am not sure if he is back in Canberra—I assume he is because it is 10 minutes before question time. Given the fact that he was away from the House yesterday afternoon, I can understand why he was not in the chamber last night, but I would have expected the minister to have been prepared to front today for the consideration in detail stage for funding for vocational education and training. He has decided not to appear—and that is his call—but the parliamentary secretary knows that we will continue in this forum to press for answers to detailed questions that have been raised in the second reading debate. The first issue I wish to raise is the whole question of whether the funding allocated in the bill is sufficient. Basically, the parliamentary secretary's response to the debate confirms to me that the government is simply providing the same level of funding as was provided in the previous year, but with an adjustment to take account of changes in the CPI. Therefore, there is nothing provided in the bill for growth. That is my understanding of the funding that is provided in the bill. So I ask the parliamentary secretary if she will confirm that that is the fact—there is no provision for growth other than for changes in prices or for changes in costs?13:52:0019107Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—The funding is maintained in real terms because it does allow for CPI and other increases. It is maintained, therefore, in real terms and it is in accordance with the ANTA agreement, which has been signed up to by all state and territory governments with the Commonwealth.13:52:0019107Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I ask the parliamentary secretary: do you dispute my claim that your own department has an estimate for growth in vocational education which is that there will be at least 2.8 per cent growth annually in coming years? Hasn't your own department estimated that that is the level of growth that is expected? I made the point last night during the second reading debate that not only had the minister's own department estimated growth at 2.8 per cent annually but the chief executive officers of ANTA throughout the country had done their own estimate of growth and it was even higher—it was at 5.7 per cent. Does the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the minister for education, wish to challenge either of those two figures?13:54:0019107Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I can inform the shadow minister that work is continuing in this area—examining figures by the Commonwealth, the states and territories—because it is a complex issue. The ANTA CEO committee will continue examining the issues. Any report that has been referred to thus far is only a draft and has not been endorsed by the Commonwealth or by the ANTA CEO committee which commissioned it.13:54:0019107Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—But does the parliamentary secretary confirm that the draft contains those figures—that is, that the ANTA CEOs predicted growth of 5.7 per cent while your own department's draft was 2.8 per cent? Whilst the government may not have accepted the draft, can you confirm that the draft contains those figures—2.8 per cent according to your own department and 5.7 per cent according to the ANTA CEOs?13:54:0019107Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I confirm what I have just said. A draft report is a draft report and work is being done on it. I suggest the shadow minister, as I mentioned earlier, take note of the good results and await patiently any further work being undertaken.13:55:0019107Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The reason I have raised this is that the government is not providing for any real increase in Commonwealth funding for vocational education and training and yet its own department says there is going to be an expansion in demand of at least 2.8 per cent. The people who are even closer to the ground, the ANTA chief executives, the heads of vocational education and training in each of the states and territories, are saying it is even higher at 5.7 per cent. We have market research being done by ANTA to indicate that there is a need in our country to promote vocational education and training. If that campaign is successful, we will get even higher demand for training throughout the country. How can we expect the nation to do more in vocational education and training if the Commonwealth government is not prepared to fund its share of the additional resources that will be needed to ramp up vocational education and training in Australia? Basically, the position that has been outlined by the government at the moment is that none of this growth should be funded by the Commonwealth. I ask the parliamentary secretary: how can you expect this parliament to accept the government's position that there should be growth in vocational education and training throughout the country but that the Commonwealth government should not meet any of that cost—that the states and territories should meet all of the costs of funding growth in vocational education in Australia? How can you argue that that is reasonable?13:56:0019108Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I again inform the shadow minister that work is being done in this area—figures are being examined—and, as I have mentioned already, these funding arrangements in the ANTA agreement have been signed up to, have been agreed to, by all states and territories along with the Commonwealth. I would also like to remind the shadow minister of the figures I had given in the chamber today which very clearly demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever the successes of this government with apprenticeships and traineeships in all different areas. It will not matter how often the shadow minister might like to utter lines hoping that, if he mentions them often enough, people will actually believe him. There are figures which cannot be refuted that show just how successful this government has been in the whole area of training and apprenticeships. It is seen with the growth in employment for the young unemployed and it is seen in the change of curriculum with VET in schools. There is one success after another to show that the programs that this government has put in place are working. No amount of nitpicking—what if this; what if that—will work because the Australian people will expect some honesty and they want what is good for the young people of Australia.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—They're not getting it from the current government.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to roll back everything but at the same time have more money for everything and bigger surpluses.DT4Crean, Simon, MP84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—They are waiting for their $1.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—We are debating a bill on vocational education and training funding and I have been able to demonstrate to the chamber today just how successful this government has been. The shadow minister actually has a pretty poor record because he just rattles off the same lines and nothing adds up. Even the Leader of the Opposition has left him off the committee to come up with the policy for the so-called knowledge nation. No doubt he will be trying to say things over and over again to impress his colleagues and achieve some political hits. But the people of Australia want programs that work. They want to see unemployment figures and statistics coming down. They want to see more young people in work and that is exactly what is happening. What we have been achieving has been fantastic for young Australians and not just those who might aspire to the highest level of education but all young people in Australia. I am certainly proud to be a member of the government that has put in place such programs and such funding arrangements.13:59:0019108Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—In the 30 seconds remaining to me let me make the point to the House that the Howard government has cut funding for TAFE and VET throughout the country by $240 million. We have a Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs who is not brave enough to come into the chamber and debate the detail of his own legislation during the consideration in detail stage. He sends in the parliamentary secretary because he does not have the courage to come into this chamber to debate over the dispatch boxes this important level of funding. We are going to hold that minister accountable. We are going to ensure this government puts in a legitimate amount into vocational education and training. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Dobell will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice191091910914:00:0019109Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, will you guarantee that the government will not use the McClure report to reduce the financial assistance given to lone parents when their children turn 13—yes or no?19109Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—On behalf of the coalition I would like to thank Patrick McClure for the excellent report he delivered today. I think it provides not only a blueprint for welfare reform—there are some very good suggestions for the short term, medium term and long term—but also many recommendations. There is a lot of substance in that report. The government will be considering the report and presenting its deliberations at the end of this year.1910914:01:0019109Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the final report of the reference group on welfare reform presented to the Minister for Community Services today? Could the Prime Minister outline to the House the benefits of reform for people of working age and for the wider Australian community?19109Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Sturt for his question. He has long had an interest in intelligent and compassionate reform of Australia's welfare system. This report is all of a piece with that goal. The Labor Party's life is filled with disappointment. They thought the world was going to come to an end with tax reform on 1 July and they were wrong, and they thought the world was going to come to an end with welfare reform and can I tell them that they are wrong on that again. We are not in the business of cutting benefits for needy Australians; we never have been and we never will be. Needy Australians will always be protected under this government.We are equally determined to ensure that, where it is possible to do so, greater encouragement and help is given to people on welfare to return to the work force. It is a fundamental given of our welfare system that the more you can do to prepare people on welfare for re-entering the work force, the better are the future prospects of those people and their families. On behalf of the government I want to thank Mr Patrick McClure and the other members of the group that put together this report. It is an excellent document. The government endorse the broad thrust of the goals outlined. As the Minister for Community Services indicated, we will be giving a detailed response. We will examine all of the recommendations and I repeat the assurances previously given that the social security safety net will remain. The Labor Party predicted 4½ years ago that it would be taken away. It has not been. In fact we have created opportunities for 800,000 more Australians. Our policies have enabled people to get off welfare in a dignified, life enhancing way—that is, by finding work. The best gift you can give to people on welfare is a job, and there are 809,000 success stories in this country as a result of the policies of this government. Just as you were wrong about tax reform, you are wrong, wrong and wrong again about welfare reform.1910914:04:0019109Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, will you guarantee to increase funding for welfare to work programs for lone parents in areas like child care and education and training before increasing their mutual obligation requirements?19109Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—It is interesting that the member for Lilley should be asking questions about child care. Certainly the indicative evidence that we have received since the new child-care benefit has come in is that more families are receiving increased child-care assistance and more centres are almost reaching full capacity due to the increase in child-care benefit. There are a number of child-care centres, including the Gumnut Child-Care Centre in Sale in the member for Gippsland's electorate, where there has been a huge increase in the interest of child care. In Merimbula in Smarties Long Day Care Centre there has also been a large increase. Interestingly, St Paul's Lutheran Child-Care Centre—and you may know that one, member for Lilley, because it happens to be in your electorate—have noticed a big difference in that they are now full. There have been no fee increases, parents are happy and things are a lot better. The tax system has demonstrated that with the increases in family assistance and the substantial increases in child-care benefits, Australian families are much better off with the introduction of the new tax system—not to mention the substantial reductions in personal income taxes that they have been receiving. Indeed that is why it takes a coalition government, a Liberal-National Party government, to embark on welfare reform, recognising that we do not want to see people trapped in welfare dependency where it is becoming intergenerational, which was ingrained when the Australian Labor Party had stewardship of this government.1911014:06:0019110May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the latest Westpac Melbourne Institute consumer survey? What does this survey indicate about the reception of the new tax system and can the Treasurer comment on any threats to the new tax system posed by alternative policies?19110Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for McPherson for her question. I can inform her that the Westpac-Melbourne Institute index of consumer sentiment increased by another 3.1 per cent in August to 114 per cent, coming on the back of an 18 per cent increase in the previous two months. Westpac itself described this as a surprising jump. In commenting on it, Mr Bill Evans said this:One can only assume that the strength in the index has been due to consumers reinforcing their initial positive response to the new tax package.I do not think that Mr Bill Evans would mind me saying that he has not been the most effusive supporter of the government and its policies, but that is the comment that he made. One can only assume that the strength of the index has been due to consumers reinforcing their initial positive response. He says:The July consumer survey was conducted only one week into the new tax package. There are risks that the positive response would be reversed, but this survey indicates that, after six weeks to assess the package, consumers appear to have become even more comfortable with new arrangements.Isn't that good news. The reform of the Australian tax system has now been greeted with a huge surge in consumer confidence and, as time goes by, consumers get more confident of their position as it improves.I am asked whether I could comment on any alternatives to that. The first thing I should say is that there has been a quantum leap in this parliament. Since we got up in June, the Australian Labor Party, which used to oppose goods and services tax, have now become a supporter. We welcome their support for goods and services tax, and we thank them very much. I do not think the occasion should pass without us recording that the Australian Labor Party, along with the government of Swaziland, were the last defender of wholesale sales tax in the modern world. But even they have been modernised, notwithstanding the Whitlamite leadership of Beazley and Crean. What would be a threat to the positive response of this new taxation system?MG4Lee, Michael, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—The shadow minister for education interjects. You have forgotten that the tactic is that you are supposed to turn around and talk to each other when I give an answer. That was the tactic you were engaging in just for a moment. We welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition now joins us and listens to the answer. What a wonderful thing that you are now a supporter of goods and services tax. You are now no longer supporting wholesale sales tax. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind the Treasurer that the use of the word `you' is not appropriate.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The modernisation of the Australian Labor Party—beating the government of Swaziland as the second last political movement into the modern world—means they have now come to support the goods and services tax. We welcome it. The only thing we would like to say is that it took them so long to do it. As the Prime Minister says on welfare reform: Let me make a prediction. The Labor Party will oppose welfare reform to its last dying gasp, and, when it is successful, say, `We were always in favour of it. In fact, we would have gone further.'It is like the surplus. After voting against every single savings measure, after first denying the budget was in deficit, after secondly saying that we would go into recession if the budget was balanced, after thirdly voting against every savings measure, the Labor Party says—guess what?—that they were in favour of bigger surpluses all along.Yesterday we had the most amazing performance from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who alleged in this place that he had supported tax reform. He nods again. He has always been a supporter of tax reform. From 1 July of this year he became a supporter of tax reform. This is a lazy political movement. The Australian Labor Party can lead nowhere, it has no ideas, it is the greatest threat to the modernisation of the Australian economy, and it must really be regretting the positive consumer sentiment which has greeted a much better tax system for Australia.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that he is straining the chair's grace.1911114:11:0019111Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—My question is to the Minister for Community Services. Will you guarantee that the government will not use the McClure report to force pensioners with psychiatric disabilities to look for work or risk losing part of their pension?19111Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I am glad you are taking an interest in the McClure report. It is an area in which you took very little interest in the 13 years you were in government. What I am interested in is what areas, particularly in welfare reform, will you be rolling back—or will you be rolling forward? The only thing that is predictable about the Australian Labor Party is that you have rolled over on policy issues—you are bereft of policies; you do not have any policies.The Prime Minister has said consistently that the welfare reform process is about assisting people, about building greater capacity; it is about not looking at people's disabilities but looking at their capacity; it is about assisting mature age unemployed people and the long-term unemployed; it is about looking at new ways of helping lone parents, at new ways of building greater capacity for sole parents—particularly for the disabled. Obviously you are not interested. Watching the press conference, the Leader of the Opposition was pretty bereft of any novel ideas.1911114:13:0019111Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In light of recent listings on the Australian Stock Exchange, would the Treasurer please comment on the extent of share ownership in Australia.19111Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Bradfield for his question. I can report to the House that share ownership in Australia today is wider than ever before and that Australia has the highest level of direct share ownership in the world. In 1997, 20.4 per cent of adult Australians owned shares directly. By 1988 it was 31.9 per cent and, according to the Australian Stock Exchange, today 40.6 per cent of adult Australians own shares directly. That is the highest level in the world, with the UK at 39 per cent, the US at 32 per cent and New Zealand at 31 per cent.Undoubtedly what has attracted people to share ownership in Australia is the number of first-time floats, with the NRMA bringing in 300,000 new shareholders for the first time. The first tranche of Telstra added 560,000 new shareholders to Australia, and the second tranche of Telstra added 320,000 shareholders. Nearly one million Australians were enfranchised as shareholders by the float of Telstra. Today the all-ordinaries index has reached an all-time Australian record intraday high of around 3,298. I notice that the Australian Labor Party has now adopted as a policy the fact that it wants to increase share ownership. As Michael Gordon, Phillip Hudson and Darren Gray reported in the Age on 8 July: The Labor Party will commit itself to promote share ownership for the first time in its history ...We welcome that. That is the Labor Party supporting another one of our policies. Let us make this observation: if you wanted to increase share ownership amongst the Australian public, the greatest single thing you could do would be to float the remaining part of Telstra. The first and second tranches of Telstra brought in a million new shareholders. Labor is now in favour of promoting share ownership. Labor should support the privatisation of Telstra. Did I say `should support'? There is a respectable view that Labor does support the privatisation of the rest of Telstra. I welcome the Financial Review's interview with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, `Simply Simon', where he was asked about these matters on Monday. The Financial Review is now expanding its readership with a comedy column called `Simply Simon'. This was very revealing. It says:... he is ... grappling with contradictory elements of Labor policy such as those relating to the sale of Telstra and GST.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It relates to the Treasurer using derisory language against a member of this place. I would ask you to bring him to order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If I hear the Treasurer using any language which I deem to be unparliamentary, I will of course take action. I will not tolerate any member being derisive of other members of the House. The Treasurer was, as I observed, quoting from a newspaper article.CT4Mr COSTELLO—All I was doing was quoting from a story called `Simply Simon' in the Australian Financial Review of 14 August. It said:... he is ... grappling with contradictory elements of Labor policy such as those relating to the sale of Telstra and GST. He goes off the record quite often to express a personal view, or to expand on reasons for policy constraints ...All we would like to know is what he told the Financial Review off the record. He comes to Telstra and the GST and he goes off the record to express a personal view. There may be some Labor backbenchers who really believe that if Labor got into government it would oppose the sale of the remaining part of Telstra, but I do not think there are any Labor frontbenchers who believe that. There may be people who say for the sake of the record that the Labor Party will not privatise Telstra, but off the record they say something completely different. Those of us who have been around for a while remember Labor members pledging on their hearts that Australian Airlines would never be privatised and that the Commonwealth Bank would never be privatised, and we know that in relation to Telstra `off the record' is what counts and not what is on the record.All we would ask is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition tell us what he has told the Financial Review and, what is more, that he tell the Australian public what he has told the Financial Review. There is one way that Labor can marry its new commitment to full share ownership and that is to get behind the government, to support it on privatisation and give all Australians the opportunity to own a piece of the stock market.'1911214:19:0019112Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, will you guarantee that the government will not use the McClure report to extend mutual obligation to force unemployed people over 55 in receipt of mature age allowance to seek a quota of jobs each week?19112Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—We can certainly see the tactics of the Australian Labor Party today. These are the only tactics they know: if they cannot convince people they try to confuse people, and if they cannot confuse people they try to scare people. That is no doubt exactly what all the questions will be about for the rest of question time today. What the Prime Minister and the government have said is that we welcome the McClure report. We are about maintaining a sustainable and adequate safety net for people who are in genuine need, but we also recognise that we have to do more. That is why we commissioned the report. The coalition government commissioned a welfare reform report, not you. We realise we need to do more for opportunities for social and economic participation. The Australian Labor Party want—and this is what their whole policy platform is about—to allow many people trapped in welfare dependency to languish on that support. That is why it takes a National-Liberal Party government to provide a framework for sustainable welfare reform, and that is exactly what the government will be doing when we respond to the McClure report in due course. 1911314:22:0019113Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House how the government's policies are benefiting people in rural, regional and remote Australia, like those in Mallee? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies that would reduce their impact?Opposition member—Tell them about the higher petrol prices.19113Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—We will tell them what we have done to reduce the taxation burden on fuel—and we will keep on telling them. I thank the honourable member for Mallee for his question. I certainly point to the fact that over five budgets now we have done a great deal for rural and regional Australia. I will also point out that Labor's tax policy platform is remarkably devoid of practical detail and solutions. But I will say this: we do know that their approach to taxation would be a real threat to rural and regional Australia. Whether you want to talk about our reforms that have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of savings in interest costs, lower inflation and so forth to rural and regional Australia; whether you want to talk about the $1.5 billion that has gone into the Natural Heritage Trust, the $1 billion that has gone into the Telstra social bonus, including Networking the Nation, the $800 million that has now gone into Agriculture Advancing Australia with income support, farm business skills development, support for intergenerational farm transfer and farm management deposits; whether you want to talk about our delivery in areas such as quarantine, drought relief or meat inspection; whether you want to talk about services such as Medicare Easyclaim, higher service delivery standards for Telstra, extending the USO to digital data line for Internet, new mobile phone services after you contracted to close the analog system down, rural transaction centres, rural health programs, the Bendigo Bank and other community banking ventures, the Job Network for hundreds of country towns; or whether you want to talk about the $1.8 billion, including major regional initiatives in the last budget, the $90 million rural and regional solutions fund or the education initiatives, the fact is that, in terms of practical outcomes for rural and regional Australia, we have done a great deal. You can add to that, of course, the invaluable contribution now made by tax reform, with a massive slashing—around $2 billion in all—of taxes on transport, and the fact that we support the abolition of indirect taxation on exports. They do not. We are up against a Labor alternative. At last we have seen something from them and I have it here. I suppose I can offer to table it, but there is not much in it. Do you think I should? CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Yes.4K4Mr ANDERSON—We can table it, all right. We waited for a very long time, amidst a lot of rhetoric, while the member for Dickson was huffing and puffing to bring forth a regional policy statement, put together and researched extensively during those two trips to regional Australia. We waited while the member for Batman was supposed to write a policy from his suburban office in Melbourne. Now we see the platform, we can see that there is no policy. The Leader of the Opposition, it has to be said, gave it all away. He gave his major policy speech down there at the Hobart conference but he made no reference at all to a regional policy initiative, let alone any mention of regional Australia. None. That is perhaps not surprising because there was no policy to launch. Labor's platform talks about believing in this, acknowledging that and recognising the other. It is long on motherhood but it is missing when it comes to solutions. So we can ask some questions. Does the ALP support continuing the Medicare Easyclaim facilities? Do they support them? Do they support rural transaction centres? Do they support them? Do you support putting more doctors in rural areas and, if so, how? What attitude will you take on long distance education? What will you do on the question of telecommunications services? Silence: there is nothing in your platform at all. But what we do know is that you support higher taxes, as the Treasurer has clearly identified. What we do remember is what it was like when Labor was in charge. We had surging debt, we had surging interest rates and we had surging inflation. Indeed, the only conclusion you can draw is that Labor's solution to the problems of regional Australia is simple: you make it too expensive to live there.1911414:26:0019114Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, isn't it a fact that the McClure report recommends extending mutual obligation to the mature age unemployed and that this comes on top of the revelation that under your Job Network only half of the long-term job seekers actually receive intensive assistance and, of those, the mature age get parked in the too-hard basket? Minister, will you now concede that you need to take urgent action to fix up the Job Network and to give priority to resourcing training for mature age job seekers before you impose obligations on them which, if breached, will see benefits withdrawn? Isn't this your side of mutual obligation?19114Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Dickson for her question. What the member for Dickson needs to understand is that the percentage of long-term unemployed job seekers in Intensive Assistance, which is our main program for hard-to-help job seekers, is in fact slightly higher than the percentage of long-term job seekers who were in Working Nation programs in 1995, so we are doing more and better for long-term job seekers now than members opposite did when they were in government. Intensive Assistance is our main program for long-term job seekers, but it is certainly not the only one. There is Work for the Dole: there are 50,000 Work for the Dole places a year. There is Jobsearch: there are 90,000 Jobsearch training places a year. There is the Community Support Program: there are 15,000 of those a year. And then there are other things that long-term job seekers do under mutual obligation. I think that the government's record with long-term job seekers should be judged on—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. This is specifically about mutual obligation for mature age Australians who are now being brought in under the mutual obligation network.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister was responding to the reference in the question to the Job Network, as I understood it, and I was assuming he would come to the matter as well of mature age unemployed people.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. This government should be judged on its record. The number of long-term unemployed is currently 178,000. Obviously that is too high. But the numbers of long-term unemployed are down 18 per cent on March 1996 and they are down 50 per cent on May 1993, when the minister for employment was none other than the current Leader of the Opposition. If you are asking us about mature age job seekers, mature age job seekers constitute 20 per cent of the job seeker cohort, 30 per cent of intensive assistance commencements and 25 per cent of intensive assistance outcomes. As I said, 30 per cent of intensive assistance commencements are mature age. This compares with just 15 per cent of New Work Opportunities commencements being mature age job seekers, 12 per cent of Jobstart commencements being mature age job seekers, 16 per cent of Jobtrain commencements being mature age and 19 per cent of Skillshare commencements being mature age. So not only are we helping long-term job seekers better than members opposite ever did; we are helping mature age job seekers better than members opposite ever did. Distinguished Visitors1911510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I recognise the member for Curtin—I have to say with an apology to representatives from the Republic of Poland, who were in the gallery—I should also recognise that we have in the gallery this afternoon representatives from the People's Democratic Republic of Laos. I extend to them on behalf of everyone here a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice191151911514:32:0019115Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of recent press reports outlining union opposition to individual agreements? Would you inform the House of the benefits that flow from individual agreement making and the impact their removal from the agreement making stream would have on key industry sectors? 19115Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Curtin for her question. Agreement making and whether or not you can have an agreement at work as an individual is a pretty important question because it refers to how flexible a system we will have in the future. It has been generally agreed that a more flexible system means higher productivity. If we have higher productivity we can enjoy higher wages. In the federal system, as people know, we have AWAs. I am pleased to report to the House that the number of AWAs filed over the last three months is 59 per cent higher than for the same months in 1999. Despite the efforts of the Labor Party to kill them off or reduce them by uncertainty, they are extremely popular. They are growing in number—about 5,036 in the month of July. There is a widening usage of AWAs because they are common sense. They are good for employers, and good for employees because they earn more. The whole idea of individual agreements may be anathema to the union movement but they provide opportunities for higher wages for workers. That is why the member for Curtin's question is pretty interesting. There is now quite a debate going on within the Labor Party in Western Australia, her home state, about the use of individual agreements. As reported in the Perth edition of the Australian this morning, the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Gallop, is advocating individual agreements in Western Australia. I qualify that by saying he will probably do a Beattie on them and basically knock them over anyway, which is what has happened in Queensland. But all the same, credit where credit is duehe at least has been prepared to say: What we are looking for is a system that recognises the flexibilities you need. He makes that statement in support of the idea of having individual agreements. The reason he does that is pretty clear. In Western Australia in the mining industry we have seen the use of a lot of agreements, and they have been very good news for everybody in the industry. This is what the Chamber of Minerals and Energy has had to say about AWAs and individual agreements: Workplace agreements under Western Australian labour relations legislation have been embraced by the industry. Labour relations within the WA industry have improved significantly in recent years, industrial disputes have declined, work practices are more flexible and more attuned to the particular needs of individual enterprises, pay and productivity are much higher. The changes that have resulted from the implementation of workplace agreements are to the benefit of employers, employees and the broader community. Even Geoff Gallop, the Labor Party leader in Western Australia, has now publicly acknowledged the good sense of that statement. That just shows you what economic vandalism it is for the federal Leader of the Opposition to roll over to the unions and to undertake to implement a bizarre policy in a modern economy, and that is to reject the option for workers to have individual agreements. It is about time the member for Brand listened to good sense on this issue of the need for flexibilities acknowledged by Dr Gallop. Don't hold your breath everybody, but just for once in your life why don't you stand up for the rights of workers to have a choice, to be able to choose to have higher productivity and higher take-home pay? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the Leader of the House that the reference to `you' is not appropriate when he is addressing comments to the Chair. 1911614:36:0019116Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, given that the McClure report states that mutual obligation should provide alternative approaches to punishment before financial penalties are imposed, can we have any confidence that you will give serious consideration to this proposal when you are the one responsible for the system of harsh quotas on breaches for the unemployed under the Job Network—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson may not enter into argument in phrasing a question. XW4Ms KERNOT—Minister, can you assure us that you will give serious consideration to this proposal for alternatives to financial penalties before action is taken? Can you convince us that you will find room for this in that little old compassionate, conservative heart10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson will resume her seat.19116Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I can assure the House that the most compassionate thing anyone can do for a job seeker is get that person a job. The next most compassionate thing you can do is put that person into a program that will get them a job—and that is precisely what this government is doing. I can guarantee that the changes that the government is contemplating are designed to boost the social cohesion of this nation. The changes that we are looking at are designed to produce happier and more fulfilled individuals living in more dynamic communities. What this government is on about is renewing the threads of kinship and common purpose that constitute the social fabric of a great democracy. That is what we are doing.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—You've convinced me.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thank you, Prime Minister. What the member for Dickson is doing is peddling a lie that this government is somehow victimising job seekers. We are not. The member for Dickson is peddling a lie that job seekers face an $800 fine—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will restrain his language.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Peddling an untruth that this government is fining job seekers—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the grounds of relevance. The question is about the government's attitudes to breaching and to alternatives to financial penalties—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson will resume her seat. Before I recognise the minister, comment was made earlier in the day about the language used by the Treasurer, and I indicated that derision was not the sort of thing that I or anyone in this chamber would want encouraged. I have to say that on both sides of the House there has not been the level of courtesy that we would want to extend to each other.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The member for Dickson is suggesting that this government is imposing $800 fines on people who do not turn up for interviews because, for instance, they might have a sick child. This is completely untrue. We do not breach anyone who has a reasonable excuse. What the member for Dickson and her allies are suggesting is a smear against the 22,000 good people who work in Centrelink who are doing their best to help the job seekers of this country, who deserve support and not the kind of smear that is coming from the member for Dickson.1911614:40:0019116Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister outline to the House how the Howard government has strengthened Medicare, especially in rural areas? Is the minister aware of any alternative views which would undermine the right of every Australian, especially those living in rural areas like Gilmore, to access Medicare?19116Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. Medicare is a system of health financing. It does leave gaps in health care such that, if they are not addressed specifically, the public certainly misses out. There are eight areas where Medicare needs specific strengthening as a method of health care financing. They are programs to coordinate care amongst individuals, programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, programs to tackle the special needs of mental health, programs for health promotion and early intervention, measures to control the rising cost of technology, initiatives on rural health and, backing all and underpinning this, a commitment to biomedical research. The government has an extraordinarily strong record of achievement in every single one of these eight areas. In the program of coordinated care, we commenced in 1998 coordinated care trials that have been described by Professor Chris Silagy as the largest experiment in public health in the world. Twelve major trials have run around Australia—including four in Aboriginal communities—that are changing the way we deliver health care in Australia in giving people better care for long-term illness. In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, our funding has gone up 51 per cent in direct funding—and 70 per cent, if you count indirect funding—and is projected to go up to $220 million by the year 2003-2004. We have frame care agreements in place with every state and territory, an army-ATSIC infra-struc-ture program, and special programs on sexually transmitted disease, immunisa-tion and mental health, amongst others. Looking at the special needs of mental health, we have the National Depression Initiative, the National Suicide Prevention Initiative and the second National Mental Health Strategy, which was funded in the 1997 budget.In health promotion, we have been particularly successful. In immunisation, we have taken Australia's immunisation rate from 68th in the world to one that is now quite acceptable internationally with a figure of nearly 90 per cent of completed childhood immunisations in kids 12 to 15 months of age. In controlling the rising costs of technology, we have very successfully introduced therapeutic group premiums and have a Medical Services Advisory Committee to bring new things onto the Medicare benefits schedule. In consumer information, Health in Sight is up and running as a major mega-hub. In rural health, the number of doctors has increased in rural Australia. We have a Wagga clinical school and university departments of rural health in every state and, earlier today, I launched with the member for Gilmore a new expansion of the clinical school in Canberra, with 25 places funded out of the federal budget for rural doctors. That means Canberra will inevitably go towards its own medical school. This will enable Canberra to have outreach into the south coast of New South Wales and the electorates of Eden-Monaro and Gilmore. Those two members should be very proud, because they have been pushing for this very hard for a number of years. In biomedical research, we have doubled the amount of commitment to Commonwealth funding.The reason I mention these areas is that even the Labor Party recognises that these are areas that need to be strengthened. In a press release on 22 July 1999, the health spokesman Ms Macklin said that the ALP was about to enter an intensive phase of health policy development in the lead-up to the ALP's national convention. Ms Macklin said she had some specific areas where she wanted to have policies to strengthen Medicare in time for the national convention. I wonder whether honourable members want to guess how she went on her own measure: policies to develop publicly funded coordinated care programs—nothing about those whatsoever; policies to overcome major inequities in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health—nothing whatsoever; programs to tackle the special needs of mental health—nothing whatsoever; a focus on health promotion and early intervention—nothing whatsoever; to control the rising costs of medicine by ensuring that technology is used appropriately—nothing whatsoever; to have greater access to information for consumers—nothing whatsoever. There are six areas where she marked herself a measurement, with a fail on every one and not even a bare attempt to address the most basic of policy issues.The fact is that, when it comes to Medicare, Labor has basked in smug complacency. Labor's Medicare left Australian children dying of measles; Labor's Medicare sold out rural Australia; Labor's Medicare had 36 Aboriginal communities without any access to health care services whatsoever and with no plans for access to health care whatsoever. Labor in government showed that it was incapable of having the intellectual clout to make policies in this area and, by its own measure in opposition, it has not even begun. 1911814:46:0019118Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it the case that the McClure report has identified lack of incentives as a key barrier for those on welfare to move to work, including your government's decision to axe the earning credits scheme in 1997, cut the JET scheme, reduce by 25 per cent the take-home pay of low income families receiving youth allowance in 1998 and continually reject Labor's tax credits? Prime Minister, will you now follow the advice of the McClure report by addressing these issues and adopting Labor's tax credits to reward work over welfare?19118Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Let me say that the McClure report is really posited on five key areas of reform. The first of those is that service delivery should be more tailored to individual needs. The second is that there should be a simpler and more flexible benefits structure. The third is that there should be better incentives and more assistance for participation. The fourth is that there should be better recognition of the principle of mutual obligation throughout the income support system for working age people. Finally, there is a need for better social partnerships to strengthen communities and provide more opportunities for participation.The government will examine this report very carefully. I am encouraged that, unlike in some of the earlier questions, the Leader of the Opposition actually used some words that were a little welcoming of McClure. Let me say that is good, because it may mean that on this issue the Labor Party will not do what it did in relation to taxation reform.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Well, it is your political future that is involved in this. What you have to understand is that, in relation to tax reform, you forecast social Armageddon—and it did not happen. You said that the world was going to come to an end on 1 July. And in relation to welfare reform, which is the basis of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I would counsel the Australian Labor Party not to go down the path of negativity.You see, within the Australian community, people believe in a couple of things about welfare. They believe that we should have a decent social security safety net. That is now a bipartisan `given' in Australian politics. Even people like Michael Raper of ACOSS, who in the past have been critical of the coalition when we were in opposition, now recognise that it is no longer an issue of dispute and that there is bipartisan support in this country for delivering a proper social security safety net. Nobody is going to take away needed sustenance from deserving Australians. This government is not going to do it, and I do not believe that any decent aspiring political leader in this country is going to do it.So the debate now moves onto a different plane, and that is how best to deliver an effective forward-looking modern welfare system, just as the debate in relation to tax should have been how you deliver a forward-looking modern taxation system. We took up the challenge with taxation and we faced obstruction, sabotage and negativity from the Australian Labor Party at every point along the path. Against the fierce and tenacious opposition of the Australian Labor Party, we have now achieved taxation reform. We are now turning our attention to welfare reform.Let me make it very clear to the Labor Party that you can run a fear campaign. Having repulsed your fear campaign on tax, you need not think a fear campaign on welfare is going to frighten us one bit. I can assure those who sit opposite that, if you really want to be a serious participant in this debate, instead of adopting a negative, carping, snide, obstructive attitude, as you did in relation to tax reform, you will adopt a constructive attitude in relation to welfare reform.I believe that McClure's report—and I want to thank Patrick McClure and the members of the committee for the report—provides the platform, the foundation for a very positive and constructive debate about the future of Australia's welfare system. I welcome thus far a number of the remarks that have been made on behalf of ACOSS by Mr Raper. He has generally expressed some positive views about the report. Obviously, he and the welfare community will have views they will put to the government very strongly. But we enter this debate in good will. We enter this debate determined to protect the vulnerable in the Australian community. We enter this debate determined to give to the unemployed of this country the greatest gift any government could give them, and that is the opportunity of a job. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: throw away the negativity that failed with tax and join us in a constructive debate to give this country a better welfare system.1911914:52:0019119Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Is the minister aware of any recently announced policies relating to fuel prices in rural and regional Australia? What would these policies mean for the people in my electorate of Page?19119Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Page for raising this issue and providing me with an opportunity to say something in the House today. On 1 July this year, the government introduced a Fuel Sales Grants Scheme that will be available to all retailers of petrol and diesel in non-metropolitan and remote areas. That is one cent a litre for sales of petrol and diesel to consumers in non-metropolitan areas and two cents per litre for sales in remote areas. So that grant helps to address, but of course not remove, the price differential between cities and the country.At this point, I remind the House that the ACCC is supervising the implementation of this scheme. The fuel scheme holds the fuel retailer accountable for passing on the full grant to consumers. The grant was prescribed under the price exploitation legislation, and any failure to pass the full benefit of the grant to final consumers can result in fines of up to $10 million. At the same time, the ACCC is monitoring petrol prices at 4,000 sites around Australia, including 1,400 sites in country Australia covering about 70 per cent of the rural population. I take this opportunity to remind the House that there was an announcement in this House yesterday, as the member for Page asked, about policy from the Labor Party.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Stop lying, Joe. You're spinning a lie.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business.DK6Mr HOCKEY—It gave us a little taste of what roll-back really means.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—You're peddling a lie, Joe.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business. DK6Mr HOCKEY—I take this opportunity to remind the House of what the member for Hunter said on—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You're peddling a lie.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. By any measure, the chair has been tolerant of a number of interjections, including a comment yesterday that was raised about the use of the word `fraud'. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition could not expect the chair to ignore the comment he just made. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will withdraw his remark.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was making exactly the same point as was made by Mr Abbott in relation to the member for Dickson. Now if you are going to ask me to withdraw, get him to withdraw.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I in fact intervened when the minister was making the comment that I thought was inappropriate to the member for Dickson and required him to cease using that statement.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You didn't ask him to withdraw it, just to stop using it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am not challenging the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am not claiming to have asked the minister to withdraw. I did intervene. I have now intervened on the remark made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I ask him to withdraw because I had on two previous occasions required the Manager of Opposition Business not to use that term. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: are you ruling that the phrase `peddling a lie' is unparliamentary, or is it only unparliamentary when we use it?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am indicating to all members of the House, as I indicated earlier from the chair, that it is a term that no-one would find acceptable in the parliament. For that reason I intervened when the minister used it, and for that reason I intervened when the Manager of Opposition Business used the term in response to the minister. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition then persisted with the term, I asked him to withdraw it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I am prepared to withdraw it if he is as well. It is only fair: if you are requiring me to withdraw something that he said exactly the same in relation to the member for Dickson, then you should require him, in fairness, to withdraw as well. As an act of faith, I withdraw it, but I require you to require him to withdraw it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn the remark he made. The remarks exchanged between the minister and the Manager of Opposition Business have been dealt with in a similar fashion, and the matter is now dealt with. I call the minister.DK6Mr HOCKEY—I would like to remind the House—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—DK6Mr HOCKEY—This answer must be cutting deep; you don't want to hear it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.Honourable members interjecting— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will of course recognise the Leader of the Opposition when the House allows him to be heard.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I ask the Minister for Employment Services to withdraw the accusation he made against the member for Dickson that she was peddling a lie.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, to assist you and to please others, I am happy to withdraw.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the minister.DK6Mr HOCKEY—I will just remind the House what the member for Hunter said on radio station 2NM on 24 July. He 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.He went on to say:I say that if we want to be serious about petrol issues in the bush in particular, we need to take a policy direction that I argue will fix it, or at the very least certainly improve the situation.Yesterday in the House during the MPI—in fact, the Leader of the Opposition was at the table at the time—I challenged the member for Hunter to explain what the Labor Party would do on fuel prices. He said: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. There we had the member for Hunter giving us a taste of what roll-back really means. It means ripping $500 million out of subsidies for people in the bush. The Leader of the Opposition has set new ground because he normally sacks people for telling the truth, but on this occasion the member for Hunter is still sitting on the front bench. I will tell you what roll-back means in this situation, Mr Speaker—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—I rise on a point of order and it goes to relevance, Mr Speaker. I was specifically interested in the question from the member for Page because he asked about the effect of this statement on the petrol prices in Page, an electorate very similar to mine. I have not heard the minister utter one sentence about petrol prices in Page.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question and I call on him to continue. DK6Mr HOCKEY—I inform the member for Paterson that under the Labor Party's new policy petrol in Bulahdelah is going to go up 1c a litre, and it is going to be directly due to the Labor Party. Petrol in Nguiu, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs in the Northern Territory is going to go up 2c a litre; and petrol in Middlemount in Capricornia is going to go up 2c a litre. It is going to go up 1c a litre under the Labor Party's roll-back in Bass. It is going to go up 1c a litre in Macedon in Burke. It is going to go up 1c a litre in Muswellbrook in the member for Hunter's seat. That is what roll-back means. It means more expensive fuel in the bush. It means the Labor Party cutting $500 million—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.1912115:03:0019121Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. By way of preamble and preface, I agree with him.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has the call, and whether that question is in or out of order is in the hands of the chair.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I agree with the Prime Minister that there is a great deal of good in the McClure report, but for its implementation it needs a government with a generous heart. In the light of that, Prime Minister, do you support the proposal contained in the McClure report for a common work force age payment? If so, will you guarantee that no genuine pension or allowance recipient will be financially worse off as a result of the adoption of a common work force age payment?19121Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—We are in danger of an outburst of cooperation on this issue. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition welcoming something I have said. I also welcome the fact, and no doubt the Leader of the Opposition will welcome the fact, that Mr Raper has said that this is a very positive framework set forward in this report. It gives real direction for the government to actually build that bridge so that long-term unemployed people, people with disabilities and parents of work force age can get across that river into the world of employment.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition is trying to be cooperative, and you are being off cue, Cheryl.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition asked me for an explicit guarantee. Can I say, with the greatest of goodwill, we got the report this morning, we endorse its general thrust, and we are going to give a detailed response when we have had a look at it.Opposition member—When?ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is the sort of idiotic interjection that destroys any kind of possibility of a constructive bipartisan approach on a very important matter of public policy. Social welfare reform deserves more than that kind of on-the-run interjection. Social welfare reform deserves a bit of mature response from both sides of politics. We intend to give it, and we are going to give it. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to do the same. I am encouraged by the fact that he is taking a constructive approach. He appears to have listened to John Della Bosca. I welcome that fact because, at the end of the day, the vulnerable in the Australian community will benefit from a bit of maturity from the government and the opposition on this very sensitive issue. That is the attitude we are going to take. We are going to examine the report. We think McClure has done a first-class job. We endorse the general thrust, and if the thing can be processed in an intelligent fashion on the basis of the principles laid down in the report, I think that would be a very good thing for the country, the underprivileged and the vulnerable. That is the goodwill, the heart and the decency that this government is going to bring to the report. 1912215:06:0019122Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to allegations concerning the future of defence facilities at Graytown in my electorate of McEwen? Would the minister inform the House of the government's policy with regard to defence facilities at Graytown and Puckapunyal?19122Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—I am very pleased that the member for McEwen raised this issue. Not only does she follow defence issues generally; she also follows defence issues within the electorate of McEwen in particular. In the electorate of McEwen there are two significant Defence establishments. One is the Graytown ammunition facility and the other is the Puckapunyal base. Last night the member for Bendigo, in typical Labor Party fashion, got out there and started a smear campaign in which he claimed the government was proposing to shut down the Graytown operation. That is not true. The government's position is well known. As the Prime Minister has said, the government is not into reducing service facilities in regional areas, and the member should know that.1912215:08:0019122Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is also directed to the Minister for Defence. I refer the minister to reports this morning of instances of alleged criminal assault in the 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment. Can the minister inform the House exactly when he was first made aware of these allegations, what directions, if any, he gave to the Army in relation to them and whether he directed that these matters not be disclosed to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade when it was conducting its military justice inquiry last year? Is it also correct that charges against 14 soldiers were laid more than a year ago following the investigation of these matters? Finally, will the minister give the House an assurance that nothing in what he said or did in relation to this matter contributed to at least two court martials being abandoned?19122Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The article referred to by the honourable member is false. I issued a statement before question time, confirmed by General Cosgrove, that neither he nor I spoke about the matter. As it relates to other personnel matters, you should refer that to the assistant minister. 1912215:10:0019122Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Is the Attorney aware of any recent consideration of the government's 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act? Is the Attorney aware of any alternative policies on native title?19122Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Moore for his question. He is well aware that I have come to the preliminary view that the proposed Western Australian alternative right to negotiate native title provisions comply with the Commonwealth Native Title Act. In fact I intend to consult with Aboriginal representative bodies on the subject in Broome next week. If the determinations are finally made, they will then be tabled in parliament and open to disallowance.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory! IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned. 7V5Mr WILLIAMS—Members will be aware that the Senate currently has before it a series of determinations relating to Queensland's proposed alternative native title regime. These relate to mining exploration permits, claims and leases. However, the Democrats have moved a motion of disallowance, which is due to be debated by 30 August. It is the case, I regret to say, that the federal Labor Party have still not indicated whether they will support their Queensland colleagues and allow the legislation to pass through parliament. Premier Beattie has been pleading for months for federal Labor to deliver certainty to the people of Queensland. Caucus had the opportunity yesterday to reach a position on this issue, but we have heard nothing. Maybe it will go to the national executive. I was asked about alternative policies. I expect that Labor will continue to leave this question unanswered. They will leave it open to conjecture whether they will reopen a divisive debate on native title by rejecting Queensland's provisions in the same way that they rejected the Northern Territory's. So where do we look for their native title policy? You might suggest the ALP platform debated in Hobart. I am afraid the answers are not there; there are only questions. The ALP platform says that the 1998 amendments are `unjust, unworkable and open to legal challenge'. But what does the platform say they are going to do about it? The platform vaguely commits Labor to refinement of the legislation in the future, but it does not spell out how this is going to be done. It leaves open still the question of whether Labor are going to repeal the amendments. Of course there is a minority report of the parliamentary joint committee on native title recently delivered which may provide some answers. The majority of that committee found that the 1998 amendments were consistent with Australia's international obligations and are not discriminatory and represented a fair balance between all stakeholders. But the minority report, endorsed by Labor members, condemns the 1998 amendments as racially discriminatory. The minority appear to be proposing a whole raft of provisions to be added to the Native Title Act. The minority report also introduces a completely new concept of traditional title, which sits over and above native title, which is incapable of extinguishment. Is this Labor policy? Time is ticking away. Queensland native title claimants and resource developers need to know what Labor is going to do. But it looks like Labor is going to run to the death knell. With only two weeks to go, when is Labor going to get its act together? 1912315:14:0019123O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, are you aware that the member for Dawson, the head of your Sugar Industry Task Force, said on 8 August about potential federal government assistance to the sugar industry:The totality of the request made to the Federal Government was for $580 million of which the Federal Government would contribute $225 million. That gives you some idea of the quantum of numbers we're speaking about.Are you also aware that on 7 August the member for Leichhardt said:Cabinet's ... deliberating on hundreds of millions of dollars.Will you now confirm that the government will provide a package worth hundreds of millions of dollars to sugar producers and their families who have been hit by low prices, poor markets and cyclones?19123Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The government is certainly well aware of the problems confronting the sugar industry in Queensland. Those concerns have been raised frequently by the honourable member for Dawson, the honourable member for Leichhardt and the other sugar seat representatives—none of whom, I might add, are on the opposite side of the House. We have not heard one word, actually, from people opposite in relation to the concerns of the sugar industry. In fact, the Labor Party federal conference has just been held in Hobart. Since this is such a significant issue for agriculture, one would have expected that the Labor Party might well have announced what they would do in relation to aid to the sugar industry. But they sat there silently while the free traders rolled the fair traders and no offer of support was forthcoming.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I did not ask the question so that the minister could go over the points. I asked in the question whether the minister would confirm the hundreds of millions that it has been indicated the federal government is considering.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has been answering the question for less than minute. It is reasonable, therefore, to presume that there are parts of the question asked that he has not covered at this stage. The minister is relevant, and I call him. GT4Mr TRUSS—I can also confirm in response to the interjection—or repeat of the question—that the industry has put to the federal government and to the Queensland state Labor government a detailed package seeking significant amounts of funds to support the industry in the planting of cane for next season. The amounts of money were of the order of magnitude suggested by the honourable member for Dawson.The federal government has been endeavouring to have the Queensland government respond to that package over a long period of time, but the state government has of course been unwilling to discuss these sorts of issues. Finally, last week, without any consultation with the federal government, the Queensland government announced that, in response to this request for loan funds in the order of $580 million, they would transfer money from some of their existing farm programs to a loan scheme for Queensland sugar producers to a total value of $10 million. So Labor's response to a significant issue of this nature has been to transfer funds from one program to another to a total value of $10 million. The actual cost to the Queensland government of that action will be about $1 million.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question asked the minister to confirm what the government will do about this. We have heard from the minister what everybody else is doing, but we have not heard what the government will do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Has the minister concluded his answer? I call the minister.GT4Mr TRUSS—The federal government is concerned about the issues that have been raised by honourable members. We will address them appropriately and make an announcement in time for the industry to respond to the need to plant this season's crop.1912415:20:0019124Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, when the Refugee Review Tribunal was set up it was anticipated it would reduce the amount of litigation in the immigration portfolio. Would the minister inform the House whether there has been a reduction in the cost of litigation as a result of the formation of the tribunal, and what it costs to run the tribunal in his portfolio?19124Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for the question. I am sure the honourable member for Deakin was prompted to ask this question when reading a press release from the shadow Attorney and the shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs where this quote can be seen. It relates to the issue of a tribunal to deal with what are called `reparations issues' in relation to separated children, and says:While it is possible that there would be some initial administrative challenges arising from the findings of such a body, experience shows that, once the parameters of the system are established, such further administrative challenges would be rare.That is what we were told by Gerry Hand when the Refugee Review Tribunal was set up—and the Migration Review Tribunal. At the time when the Refugee Review Tribunal was set up, in the year 1993-94, 52 matters were the subject of judicial review, notwithstanding a decision by the tribunal.This year—1999-2000—684 cases have been taken before the courts at first instance for judicial review, and that does not include the further matters that have gone to the full Federal Court. It does not include the matters that have gone to the High Court. It does not include the running costs of the courts themselves. And the costs of litigation to my department in the last financial year have been $13 million. When we look then at the costs of running the tribunal—the tribunal that was meant to save us the cost of litigation—we find that in the year 1993-94 it cost $11.8 million. In this year's budget papers it is estimated to be $16.7 million. So it is certainly flawed to suggest that tribunals on their own would substantially reduce costs. If the Labor Party is serious about the issue of costs, the issue of costs can be addressed. It can be addressed by a privative clause which boosts the validity of the tribunal. That is how it can be addressed. And we have got legislation in another place to do just that. 84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Where is the Labor Party when it comes to putting that reform in place? They are opposed to it.Honourable member interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Justice, he says. I ask the Labor Party: are you serious about containing the cost of litigation in relation to separated children? Are you serious about containing that cost by setting up a tribunal? How would you contain it? Would you use a privative clause? Are you saying—if you would use a privative clause to be able to contain that expenditure—that you would have one view in relation to indigenous peoples' claims and another for people who have come to Australia unlawfully in allowing them to access our courts? Is that the sort of approach that you would take?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker191251912515:25:0019125Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Mr Speaker, under section 150 of the standing orders would you write to the Prime Minister asking him to answer my question regarding the colour posters of the Queen his department circulated to MPs, question 1599 on the Notice Paper?19125SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Melbourne Ports.1912515:25:0019125Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. I have just come from seeing a school from my electorate, very young children who have travelled a long way. There must have been at least six schools booked into the hospitality. I had very great difficulty in even welcoming anyone—let alone speaking to anyone—in there. I know you, Sir, and the President of the Senate with the Parliamentary Education Office do a wonderful job in running that, but could we investigate so that in future where we have young students who wish to speak to their member we could perhaps have even up to two or three schools, but not six, in one half-hour? I commend and congratulate the guides. They were finding it absolute bedlam up there. I just had to say goodbye to my school, because we could not even hear ourselves think, let alone speak.19125SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Prospect—PE4Beazley, Kim, MP7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—The other five schools could hear me.10000Mr SPEAKER—I understand the amusement of the Leader of the Opposition, and I thank the member for Prospect for raising the matter. All members of the House should be aware of the fact that the Presiding Officers are conscious of this. We are conscious of it because in the year 2001 as part of the Centenary of Federation there is a proposal to have a significant number of schools visit the House. For that reason, that significant number would not be adequately catered for unless we were to review what we are doing. So the matter is currently being looked at.1912515:27:0019125Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—In view of the importance of next year, I would be most grateful if perhaps you and the Presiding Officer in the other place could review the subsidy that is provided to students from schools in outlying states like Western Australia to ensure that they can take the opportunity to visit this place during the most important celebrations which will take place next year. I am sure I speak on behalf of every member of parliament from the states more removed from Canberra.19125SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Cowan. I will take up the matter. I would of course point out to him that any dramatic increase in the number of students would in itself put strains on the budget, as I am sure he is aware.1912515:28:0019125McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—Mr Speaker, I just want to refer to your answer to the question from the member for Prospect. It is not that I have any objection to it—I think the review is appropriate—I just wish to suggest to you that you might establish some informal group of backbench members from both sides who might participate in the review, because I know a number of members have had both very positive in the main and sometimes some difficulties in the conduct of the exercise with visiting schools. While we welcome the review and in no way criticise the fact you are undertaking it, I hope you might undertake some process of consultation with both our backbenchers and those on your side. 19126SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Let me briefly clarify the matter. I used the term `review' in no way mischievously. A review has not been set up, but the very fact of the increased numbers proposed for the Centenary of Federation has meant that the existing facilities are in the process of being reviewed by Madam President and me. I will take on board the comment made by the Manager of Opposition Business and, if appropriate, consult with an existing parliamentary committee or establish one for the purpose.Matters of Public Importance191261912610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Corio proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to adequately assist Australian sugar cane growers hit by cyclones, falling sugar levels, low prices and a corrupt international marketplace.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—15:29:0019126O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The cane growers of Queensland got their answer today, loud and clear, from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on the package that they have presented to the federal government for consideration to address their very dire needs. The minister said today that he would respond in good time. Minister, time is running out for the Queensland cane growers because they have suffered and been devastated over not only the past year but several years. We had the really telling situation here today when I asked a question and raised a point of order because when the minister retired to his seat the Treasurer tried to muzzle him. The Treasurer said, `Warren, stay in your seat.' The Prime Minister said, `Warren, you have said enough.'What was the question? The question asked the minister to confirm whether in fact the federal government is considering a package of assistance worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the sugar industry. I asked that question because the honourable member for Dawson and the honourable member for Leichhardt have been out there in Queensland raising expectations about the level of assistance this particular industry can receive in its circumstances. The minister is very brave to have a crack at the Queensland government about the $10 million of emergency assistance—very specific assistance—it has provided over the last few weeks. The question we are asking is: when are you going to come forward with your package of assistance that your Prime Minister indicated in May he was going to deal with as a matter of urgency?Early in 1999, Cyclone Rona devastated Northern Queensland. Throughout the length and breadth of the Queensland coastline communities were devastated by the effects of that cyclone. The impact was very severely felt by cane growers in those regions, especially the northern regions. I happened to visit the area with the then agriculture minister, Mark Vaile, the member for Lyne; the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter; and the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch. Let me say that the government was very generous at the time in taking me along. I enjoyed the company of the then minister for agriculture. But I know that he had his arm twisted by the whip to get me on the plane because the honourable members for Kennedy and Leichhardt wanted to accompany him to big-note themselves in those sugar producing regions and, of course, the Labor whip said, `We will not pair you unless the shadow minister goes along to see in a bipartisan way what the damage was to those committees.' We visited Cairns, Innisfail, Townsville and Mossman and saw first-hand the devastation that had been caused by this cyclone. It had a huge impact on cane growers. Many of those growers had experienced poor climatic conditions over several seasons previously. They had not enjoyed good sugar returns over many years. They were having problems with pests and diseases and having to suffer a string of years of very low world sugar prices. That was the scenario the minister observed when he went to Queensland. The National Party minister and member and the Liberal member for Leichhardt made very strong noises about a sympathetic government—a government that was sympathetic to the plight of the cane growers. Yes, they had been devastated by the cyclone and by low world prices and they were suffering pests and diseases and low sugar content in their crop as a result of those cyclones and other factors. Yes, there was a bundle load of sympathy for them in the National Party and the Liberal Party and yes, the government would look sympathetically on their request for assistance.What did they get? They got nothing. They got nothing from a government that really knew about this problem before Cyclone Rona in February 1999. Minister, nothing has changed for those growers since that visit by the then agriculture minister. In fact things have got worse, decidedly worse. As the situation has deteriorated, as their incomes have suffered and as they have had to come to grips with the effects of cyclones on their crops and communities, you have done nothing. Yet you knew about this situation at the earliest in February 1999. This MPI is brought against the government today to focus attention on the plight of these growers in Queensland. I bet you at the end of this particular exercise in the parliament today you will rush before the cabinet some semblance of a package to get out there in the field in Queensland.Why should you do that? Because time is running out—the window of opportunity for planting is fast running out. According to the head of the Canegrowers, cane growers now have four to six weeks to plant and this particular assistance is urgently needed. But let me tell you how you are received in rural and regional Queensland and what cane growers think about you in many of the cane producing areas. You went to the Burdekin in August 1999—so we are looking back about 12 months—and the local growers had this to say:But while local sugar growers appeared to have been left cold, Mr Truss seemed to think his time in the Burdekin had been productive.“This visit has certainly broadened my understanding of the sugar industry.”I would imagine that he got a fair gist of the problems that were being faced by growers in the Burdekin. I was in those regions in February 1999, and the previous agriculture minister had listened to the problems and said that he understood them, although the government did nothing about it. Your visit there, according to this report in the Ayr Advocate was categorised as follows:A lacklustre visit by former federal agriculture minister Warren Truss ...That is the reporter's view. The cane growers might have had a view, but I suppose that was water off the duck's back as far as you were concerned. This is what the growers had to say:Despite this optimism, Burdekin Canegrowers Executive Manager Peter Kooyman said Mr Truss' “words” simply weren't enough.“Growers were hoping for some action and all they got were words,” Mr Kooyman said.“Yes, he was decent enough to visit and spend time listening but he didn't point to any light at the end of the tunnel.“His answer was: `You're on your own'.”Tell us in this MPI, Minister, whether you in fact told the growers of the Burdekin on that visit that they are on their own. It really does explain why you have done nothing since the visit in February 1999 by the former agriculture minister. It was not only the minister's visit. We go to some comments that were made by your colleague the honourable member for Kennedy, in December 1999:Outspoken National Party backbencher Bob Katter today called on his colleague, Agricultural Minister Warren Truss, to either provide emergency funding to the sugar industry or resign. Back in December, one of your own said: if you cannot act quickly on this problem you ought to resign. We think you ought to resign because of your failure to act on this particular problem for the Queensland industry.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The chair would be most grateful if you could address your remarks through the chair.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I certainly will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will address my remarks through you to the honourable member for Dawson. We know that she is lining up at the gate. She wants to be the minister. She is in cahoots with the honourable member for Kennedy. That is why he made the statement for him to resign. In December 1999, he said: if you fail to act on this, you ought to resign. That is not me; that is one of your own colleagues. You have done nothing since then. You lined up with the Prime Minister in May to say some platitudes to the industry, and since then you have done nothing. You have done nothing after repeated calls from the opposition and the Queensland Labor government. You have had the package, and that is typical coalition government. You go to the industry and you say, `You come up with the package, and we will consider it.' The time for considering is long gone; the time for action is right now. This is what Warren Martin, the President of the Australian Cane Farmers Association had to say about this delay:... despite the crisis, the federal government was dallying over an assistance package.The Herbert River Canegrowers general manager Peter Sheedy was reported in the Townsville Bulletin as saying:John Howard had promised growers a prompt response in May ... Mr Sheedy said planting costs were around $1000 a hectare and growers were anxious for the PM's response.He was reported as saying, and I am not sure what he was referring to:“We've had more than our share of rats and grubs and orange rust ...”They have had all of those, and then they have had the problem with the National Party. Not only do they have to put up with the rats, not only do they have to put up with the grubs, not only do they have to put up with the orange rust; they then have to put up with the inaction of this minister and the National Party.Opposition members interjecting—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I didn't say that, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am delighted that you did not.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The industry have some very real concerns about these delays. The industry have put a series of proposals to the government for loan funds: they want them capped at low interest and want a repayment period that goes over a period of 10 years. They have asked the government to assist in business planning and for growers to be able to seek professional advice on the operation of their farm enterprises. They have asked for an adequate level of qualified staff, available to process loan applications to growers, and they have asked for some grants to examine the feasibility of ethanol production. How long does it take to consider a very reasonable and rational set of propositions that the cane growers have put?Let me tell you what the members and minister of the National Party have been doing up there. They have been wandering around talking up the prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPWU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—She is sitting there; she wants to take the minister on, even in the MPI. I say to the honourable member for Dawson, who heads the sugar industry task force, `Is the government considering hundreds of millions of dollars?' You are the minister in-waiting. I asked the minister that today, and I could not get an answer. So, if I cannot get an answer out of the monkey, I will ask the organ grinder. Is the $200 million that you referred to as being considered really being considered? I suspect it is not. I suspect you will come out with a package of somewhere between $50 million and $100 million and then call on everybody else to join you in the funding, like the minister did today. The honourable member for Leichhardt has been at it too, talking up the prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars. This is what Canegrowers said on 18 July: Harry Bonanno, Chairman, CANEGROWERS, warned today that government tardiness in responding to a joint industry submission ... could result in reduced plantings, substantially diminishing the industry's capacity to take advantage of rising world prices ... He called on the government to make an urgent announcement ... We second his call. Make the urgent announcement, announce your package and get on with the job. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the minister, I just want to say to the member for Corio that I thank him for occasionally attempting to observe standing order 59.15:45:0019129Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Matters of public importance provide the parliament with an opportunity for an exchange of views on how issues of importance should be addressed. We have now had the opposition's contribution to the debate, and there has not been one single suggestion as to how Labor would respond to this matter of public importance. Not one single suggestion has the member for Corio made about what Labor would do to respond to the problems confronting the sugar industry. They have just had a federal conference in Hobart, a gathering of all the wisest people in the Labor Party to deal with all the important issues of the nation. This is an important issue, and it has been raised only a few days later by the opposition as a matter of public importance.One would have expected today that the Labor Party—fresh from their think tank and fresh from their discussions about how to resolve the important issues confronting the country—would have provided a response to the problems confronting the sugar industry, but there was not one offer of a single dollar in the Labor Party's next budget. There is plenty of money available, we are told, for initiatives in a whole range of areas and to roll back the tax system. We are told that we are going to have higher budget surpluses and all these sorts of things. All of those detailed financial arrangements have been determined, we are told, but how much of that included aid for the sugar industry? There was not a word today from the honourable member for Corio about how much he has asked the Labor shadow Treasurer for. This is the former agriculture minister, I might add—one who might even be able to pronounce the names of the sugar towns without too much difficulty. How much has he asked the former agriculture minister, the now shadow Treasurer, for by way of aid for the sugar industry?Perhaps he may have taken the lead from the state Labor governments, which actually manage most of the Australian sugar industry—there is a tiny bit in Western Australia. We have state Labor governments in Queensland and New South Wales. With all of the sympathy it expressed today for the plight of the sugar farmers—so much sympathy that the shadow minister was even prepared to go and visit the sugar farmers as long as the government flew him up on a VIP jet; that was three years ago and that is the basis of his expertise on this whole matter—we might well have thought that the Labor Party would have some kind of response to these issues. Bear in mind that the industry's concerns are not fresh. There has been the difficulty of declining prices confronting the industry for quite some time, and there have been a number of occasions when the sugar industry in Queensland has sought support. The member for Corio rightly referred to the problems in relation to disaster relief. There have been four cyclones. In fact, there have been four natural disaster relief declarations. On four occasions, the federal government have responded with our state colleagues to deliver relief and support to those farmers and other people in the business community who were confronting cyclones, floods and other similar difficulties.Most recently, there has been the problem confronting the South Johnstone sugar mill. This is an example where a mill was at the point of closing, so the crops of several hundred farmers simply would not have been able to be crushed this year and that cane simply would have been lost. The local farmers, the members of this cooperative, went on hands and knees to the state government to seek a little bit of support—just a guarantee of a loan—to see them through these difficulties. What was the Queensland government's response? Opposition members—None!GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—There was absolutely nothing. They were not prepared to do a thing. This is what Labor feel about the sugar producers of the South Johnstone region. They did not even care about the workers in the mill who were going to lose their jobs. We hear all the time about how Labor are the friends of the workers, but not a finger was lifted to help keep the jobs of the South Johnstone sugar mill workers. It was only when the federal government intervened and agreed to provide the sort of assurance that the banks and the industry needed to ensure that the crushing could occur this year that that mill was able to open. What a contrast there is, therefore, between the approach of the coalition, the Liberal and National parties, towards these difficulties and what the Queensland Labor government have been prepared to do. They do not help the workers, they do not help the farmers and they could not care less about the regional sugar communities that are so vitally dependent upon this industry.Now we come to the current situation, where there is a need for aid because of poor yields and problems, particularly with the outbreak of orange rust on the variety 124, which is probably the most significant of the sugar varieties being produced in Queensland and even in New South Wales at the present time. The situation includes the lowest price historically that the industry have ever seen, the problems associated with the cyclones, the high rainfall, the rats, the disease and other matters that have really affected this year's yields. Those have certainly placed financial stress on many of the state's cane farmers. Quite some time ago, the industry again appealed to the state government for support. They said that it was essential for there to be some assistance so they could find their way through these difficulties. Finally, several weeks after the Prime Minister addressed them at their conference in Cairns, the industry put together a package, which they submitted to both the state government and the federal government at the same time, seeking both state and federal contributions towards planting next year's crop in particular and towards the other financial needs of the industry.As federal minister, I have sought on many occasions to engage the Queensland government to reach a joint response to the industry concerns, and the Queensland government simply have not been interested. Then, last week, out of the blue they announced with much fanfare a $10 million assistance package to support the farmers. When it came to the crunch and we started to have a little bit of a look at this package, it was not a $10 million grant. It was not even a $10 million allocation of new money. It was funds transferred from existing programs. It led to a maximum allocation of $10,000 to individual producers by way of loans for three years at a six per cent interest rate. The average loan was going to be only $5,000—enough to plant perhaps three, four or five hectares of cane. It was a very small contribution indeed.Even then, the state said that their offer is conditional upon the Commonwealth doubling it. On top of that, we have to produce real money while theirs will just be loans that will be paid back. The actual net cost of the Queensland government's contribution is about $1 million, and most of that will probably go into their own coffers by way of administration. In fact, the honourable member for Dawson, who has been very active and very forthright in presenting the particular problems of the sugar producers in her area and indeed of cane growers right across the nation as head of the government's Sugar Industry Task Force, told me that the Queensland government's contribution to the plight of the state's sugar growers works out at an average of $170 per farmer. It is hardly the sort of thing that will restore confidence to the industry in the state. Queensland is offering $170 per farmer.This government does have a record of supporting the cane industry over the years. Over four years, $13.45 million has been provided for research dealing with one of the other major problems that has been confronting the sugar industry over recent years, particularly in some of the northern areas, and that is the declining sugar content. That contribution is in addition to the $6 million that we provide each year to support their research and development efforts. Nineteen million dollars are provided to the Queensland industry under the Sugar Industry Infrastructure Program and about $1.76 million of that will be spent this year. Under the New South Wales component of this infrastructure program $944,500 will go to New South Wales, and there is $550,000 to help the industry in Western Australia to improve loading facilities at the port of Wyndham. We have provided $4 million in recent times from the Greenhouse Office renewable energy program; $1 million for a major project in the electorate of the member for Dawson, and $3 million to support an innovative biomass co-generation plant at the Rocky Point Sugar Mill south of Brisbane. So they are real measures providing assistance to the industry. I have already mentioned our support for the South Johnstone mill; our work that is being done through the Agriculture Advancing Australia package; support for farm planning—the very kind of response that the industry asked of us in their package; support for those in particular need, for those who do not have sufficient income to put bread on the table for their families, through the Farm Help Program; and support through the social security system to ensure that farmers are able to provide basic sustenance when they have reached the situation where their economic circumstances are so troubled. That is something Labor never did. They never did any of these sorts of thing when they were in office. They were not prepared to provide that kind of support for farmers. Farmers were specifically excluded from those sorts of measures. So those sorts of initiatives demonstrate what happens when you have a government that cares. The reality is that the Queensland sugar industry, and indeed the industry in other states, is a very significant contributor to the national economy. Fortunately the price of sugar is improving. It is good to know that the latest figures are of the order of 10.5 to 11c a pound, and that gives real hope for the industry for the next season, and indeed for future seasons, but it will not be of much help for incomes this year because most of the crop, in accordance with usual practice, has been forward sold, so the returns to farmers this year will be poor. The prospects, though, for the industry are encouraging. World stocks seem to be much lower than expected and—particularly as a result of the initiative of our Minister for Trade, who himself has a strong personal interest in this industry as a former minister for agriculture—significant initiatives have been taken internationally to put together a coalition of sugar producing nations around the world. We have launched the Global Alliance for Sugar Trade Reform. This is something that might well interest members opposite who were so passionately involved in the free trade versus fair trade debate recently in Hobart. I did not hear too much about what the views are of the shadow minister for agriculture on the free trading agenda, but perhaps he might like to go and explain them to the sugar growers in the Burdekin next time he is in that area. But the reality is that this government is actually seeking to address those longer term issues that are fundamentally important to guaranteeing the long-term prosperity of the sugar industry in Australia. This alliance, which involves some 14 countries—most of the major sugar producers of South America, Central America, Canada, India and countries like Thailand—will be working together to try to achieve a fairer trading regime for sugar around the world. That sort of thing is very important to countries such as Australia where production is efficient by world standards but where returns are unacceptably lowered as a result of the corrupt world trading environment. So it is essential that we develop a fairer international trading regime for sugar.So, in the longer term, the prospects for the industry are more promising. There is a short-term difficulty which this government has addressed in the past and is addressing now by way of assessing the proposal that has been put before us. Unfortunately, the Queensland government's response—in seeking to be pre-emptive or smart or in trying to attract a little bit of attention for themselves—has not been helpful. CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPGT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—In fact, I suggest the honourable member who interjects might like to go back to the Queensland Labor minister and ask him why he wants to charge the federal government more money to administer a Commonwealth scheme than he is actually prepared to give to the sugar producers themselves. His response to these sorts of things, and to the real concerns of the industry, have been shameful. Labor have never been prepared to respond to the concerns of the industry, just as at South Johnstone they were doing nothing for the workers, nothing for the farmers and nothing for the communities and just as in the case of Queensland and New South Wales, in response to this package, they have been prepared to do nothing. The sugar producers of Australia know full well that Labor cares little about their concerns and will never do anything. That is why they come to us. They have given up on Labor. They know they will get nothing. That is why they expect so much of this side of the House and why we have delivered so consistently in their interests. (Time expired)16:00:0019132Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—We have now seen, with this government's inaction in regard to the crisis facing the Queensland sugar industry, the final and ultimate betrayal by the National Party of even their most loyal supporters. You could not get more traditional and loyal supporters of the National Party than the cane growers. I grew up in a sugar town, Mackay, and I know that those cane farmers who came into my family's shop and whose kids I went to school with were always rusted-on National Party voters, if not members. What must they be thinking now? The Queensland government, the Beattie Labor government, has announced an assistance package for Queensland canegrowers. What have we heard from the federal coalition government, a government in which both the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry are National Party members? We have heard nothing, and the canegrowers of Queensland have heard nothing.I know how much we are struggling in my electorate of Capricornia—businesses are barely keeping their heads above water, rural towns are fighting the withdrawal of services and the decline of population. But at least our agricultural industries are in recovery, and there is some hope that we have turned the corner. That, sadly, cannot be said of the sugar industry, which is on either side of my central Queensland electorate. The sugar industry and all those who make a living from it have copped a huge kick in the guts in recent years. The sugar industry is still reeling from extensive unseasonal rain across North Queensland, not to mention a couple of cyclones as well. Sugar content in cane crops has fallen, large portions of the crop have been hit by an outbreak of orange rust disease, and the price of sugar is only just recovering from record lows earlier this year. The statistics are very grim. There are reports of cane crops in parts of Queensland being half the size of a normal harvest. One example given to me was from Mackay Sugar. Mackay Sugar needs to mill eight million tonnes of sugar to break even at current prices. So far this season only a little over five million tonnes has been crushed. The industry is understandably crying out for support and assistance. This is not mickey mouse stuff we are talking about. The sugar industry represents a $2 billion export industry for Queensland. We have 6,500 canegrowers in Queensland and, according to the chairman of the canegrowers association, Henry Bonanno, half of them are understood to be in need of financial assistance at present. Add to that the 26,000 people in Queensland estimated to be indirectly reliant on sugar cane for their employment and livelihood, and you are talking about something that is pretty hard to ignore.With John Howard and John Anderson in charge, we have a government that has raised ignoring regional Queensland and regional Australia to an art form. Actually, it is worse than ignoring us. This government's modus operandi is to go around raising expectations and promising the world, and then to do nothing—sweet FA. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I beg your pardon! 83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE—Excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, I won't excuse you. Please withdraw that phrase. 83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE—I withdraw it. This government does nothing, zero. This year there have been numerous government ministers travelling through North Queensland looking at the plight of the industry. They include the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, Warren Truss and Mark Vaile. These ministers and the Prime Minister were there in force at the Australian Sugar Conference in Cairns on 18 May. To his credit, the Prime Minister did not actually make any promises to the growers at that time. He knows only too well that he could not care less about regional Australia, so he did not insult their intelligence by pretending. But that has not stopped his ministers and members like the member for Dawson, De-Anne Kelly, the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, and the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, going around promising the growers great things out of the package drawn up by the sugar industry. Let's talk about that package. On 31 May the sugar industry presented the government with its package. The value of that package drawn up by the sugar industry is variously reported as between $150 million and $500 million. Representatives from the industry then met with the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party, John Anderson, as well as the minister for agriculture, who is a Queenslander, Warren Truss. That was three months ago. John Anderson's response at the time was—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No—the `Deputy Prime Minister's' response.83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE—I beg your pardon. The Deputy Prime Minister's response at the time was: The government will look at the package and examine the proposals and we will respond as soon as practical.How do those farmers and mill workers in Queensland feel, knowing that their champions in the National Party think that three months is as soon as practicable for a minister who is supposed to be saving their industry from bleeding to death? Joh Bjelke-Petersen must be choking on his scones right now, because guess who has come to the rescue of the sugar industry? It is the Labor government of Queensland. On 8 August the primary industries minister in Queensland, Henry Palaszczuk, who I know has deep and genuine concern for rural Queensland, announced that the state government would commit $10 million to a rescue package for cane farmers. That is $10 million more than the federal government has talked about. The package is specifically designed to help farmers with re-establishing their crops and replanting to take advantage of the recovering world sugar market in the coming season—a pretty sensible initiative, one would say. The reaction from the industry was immediate. The executive chairman of the Australian Cane Farmers Association, Warren Martin, called the Queensland government's scheme `a confidence booster for the industry'. The chairman of the canegrowers association, Harry Bonanno, said it was `a step in the right direction'. The federal government, meanwhile, has done nothing but snipe from the sidelines. We just heard 15 minutes of sniping from the sidelines today from the minister for agriculture. Remember, this is three months after they received the industry package that they asked for from the industry and promised to consider. The federal government has to come to the party and kick in the additional money demanded by the Queensland government and the canegrowers. The canegrowers association chairman, Mr Bonanno, said on 7 August this year:From the beginning we have been seeking a joint approach by the federal and state governments to address the hardship now being experienced by the industry and sugar communities.Just a tip from the minister for agriculture: a joint approach means you are going to have to do something. The National Party is going to have to stand up to the Liberal Party bosses and deliver for once. `Joint'it is over to you.Thanks to your backbenchers the member for Dawson, the member for Kennedy and the member for Leichhardt, the industry is expecting hundreds of millions of dollars. So far, you cannot even commit to cooperating with the Queensland government's scheme to the tune of $20 million as requested. Those cane farmers in North Queensland are in for a big shock, but it is not going to get any easier for you by putting the announcement off, I would suggest to the minister. This government's treatment of the sugar industry is just one more shameful example of its failure to understand or care about the damage it is doing to regional Queensland through its ignorance and complete lack of interest in our development and prosperity. That industry package sitting in John Anderson's in tray is obviously just one more bit of paper to him. But I will tell you what it represents to me, because when I think of that report I see faces and names and families and real people—the people and communities who are being affected right now, today, by this government's failure to take an interest in them and their futures.As I said before, I grew up in a sugar town. Here is one little snapshot of the people I imagine when I think of that industry going under. My father started his working life in Mackay as an electrician in a sugar mill. He then went on to do electrical work for the bulk sugar terminal in Mackay. He also did electrical work for cane farmers. My mother's neighbour is a cane harvesting contractor. My family's business supplied seed, fertiliser and spare parts to cane farmers. Most of the blokes I was friends with at school got apprenticeships at the local sugar mills, and many of them went on to start their own small contracting businesses in North Queensland. Take the sugar industry out of that equation and you get what is happening right now in sugar towns, big and small, throughout Queensland: massive job losses, shortage of money going through local businesses with subsequent closures, insecurity, loss of future opportunities. Where are those kids from Mackay State High School going to get their start in life if the mills fold?This little snapshot of mine is backed up again by a quote from the cane growers. Mr Ballantyne, the chief executive officer of that organisation, said on 1 June, the day after that package was presented to the government:`We are starting to see quite a considerable regional impact as cane growers cut back their inputs,' he told ABC Radio. `As their cash flow starts to dry up and has dried up, some of those regional centres are really starting to feel the impact. They are losing contractors and we are starting to lose expertise. That is the sort of thing we are trying to prevent.'Three months, and the clock is still ticking. I want this government to do its bit for the sugar industry but, while they are at it, I would like a bit more than that. Get serious about regional Queensland altogether. That requires more than a one-off rescue package. It requires a whole of government approach to building infrastructure, providing educational and training facilities that will give my constituents the skills they need to make the most of our opportunities in Central Queensland. The state government of Queensland understands that approach. It has returned services to rural towns—again, thanks to Henry Palaszczuk. Sixty-four per cent of capital works spending announced in the recent state budget is to go into regional Queensland. Those are the kinds of measures which this federal Labor opposition supports, and the sorts of measures that we would be putting into place when we attain government, when the farmers and people in rural Queensland finally get payback for the neglect they have suffered under this federal government. (Time expired)16:10:0019134Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Lots and lots of words, but I think they are the first words that we have heard. What a particularly opportunistic MPI! Up until now, we have not heard a word. In fact, let us look at the record of the shadow minister: only three questions without notice in this particular parliament, and only one MPI before today. That is the situation that we see from the Labor Party: nothing on the public record, no commitments.I have to say to you that I could not believe my ears when I heard the shadow minister talking about the `Burkedin'. I thought to myself: what is Burkedin? Here is the shadow minister for agriculture talking about Burkedin. I guess that Hansard must have wondered how you spell Burkedin. What is Burkedin? Of course, what he was talking about was only the largest sugar growing area in Australia—and he could not get the name right! What sort of a shadow minister do we have here? A minister for agriculture who cannot even get the name right of the largest sugar growing area in the country. For the record, it is Burdekin, spelt B-u-r-d-e-k-i-n. Burdekin is about 85 kilometres south of my electorate and it is the largest sugar growing area in the world. But he was lucky: he talked about the major town in the Burdekin, and it only had three letters—Ayr—so he was able to pronounce it okay. Thank God for Ayr. I am responding today because the sugar industry is vital to the economy of my electorate based on Townsville-Thuringowa, Australia's largest tropical city. Of course, the largest sugar growing and production areas in the country also surround my electorate. The majority of the output of the area goes through the port of Townsville. Indeed, we are looking at expanding by more than double the storage capacity of sugar at the port of Townsville so that we can export sugar all year round. So sugar is a very important industry to the area and the twin cities of Townsville-Thuringowa.I want to reinforce the strong support that we have seen for the sugar industry from the member for Wide Bay, the member for Hinkler, the member for Dawson, the member for Kennedy and the member for Leichhardt. They have all stood up very strongly for the sugar industry. They have made the words that should have been made by the opposition. They have said the things that need to be said and they continue to fight very hard for the sugar industry.Indeed, I would like to recognise the support of another government minister, and that is the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald, who lives in the Burdekin in the heart of the sugar industry, in the heart of Australia's largest sugar growing area. I know that Senator Macdonald has been extraordinarily supportive of the sugar growers in his area. Indeed, I will quote from a letter from the minister to the chairman of the Australian cane farmers association where the minister says:I have had discussions with local sugar growers in the North Queensland region in recent weeks about a diverse range of issues affecting the sugar industry. The common themes raised by the individual growers included current world sugar prices and the adverse effects of unseasonably bad weather on this year's harvest.Over the years as a resident, a legal practitioner, a Federal Minister based in the North and a member of the Commonwealth Parliament, I am conscious of the importance of the sugar industry to Australia and particularly its impact on the North Queensland Economy. Northern Australia is a huge contributor to Australia's national wealth through exports and the sugar industry makes a heavy contribution to the export sector.As Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, I understand how much the economy of this part of regional Australia is dependent on sugar and I am therefore concerned at the difficulties currently being experienced. I appreciate your association's work towards finding realistic and practical solutions to the problem.I am working with my ministerial colleague, the Hon. Warren Truss MP, Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry on this issue.That is from the minister for regional services, who has a vital interest in the problems, including the current problems, of the sugar industry. The government is working.But what is Labor doing? What are we seeing from Labor? A joint submission was supposed to have been made by the industry to the state and the federal governments. But what did we see? The opportunistic Beattie government, the state Labor government, jumping in to try to gazump the federal government and, in doing so, not following through on the joint submission, not working together. And what did it offer? It said, `Here's a package of $30 million.' We have heard all sorts of figures bandied about in the parliament this afternoon, but what was offered by the Beattie government was a package of $30 million, according to its press statement. But that was conditional: $20 million would come from the federal government, and they would provide $10 million.When we had a look at that $10 million, the member for Leichhardt quite rightly observed with proper outrage that it was not new money; it was money out of an existing program. They were just taking the money out of one bucket and putting it somewhere else. So, with that money now to go to the sugar industry, those to whom it was to have gone would miss out. There was only actually $1 million of new money. The minister earlier correctly identified that, when you split that $1 million of new money among Queensland's 6,000 sugar growers, you get $170 a grower. Also, the shadow minister indicated earlier in the debate that it would cost $1,000 a hectare to replant. But the Queensland government was saying, `We'll give each of you $170 to get you out of your particular problems.' That is the situation as far as the Labor Party is concerned; that is what the Labor Party thinks about the sugar industry. Of course, the shadow minister did not bother to tell the House that the Beattie government also removed the compulsory levy, which funds research and development in the sugar industry. I think that was quite sad too. But let us look at just how serious the opposition is on this issue. Let us go to today's MPI and see what it is about. It says:The failure of the government to adequately assist Australian sugar cane grower hit by cyclones, falling sugar levels, low prices and a corrupt international marketplace.That goes to show that the shadow minister does not even understand what the issue is about. Take the phrase `hit by cyclones'. It was in effect just months and months of extended wet weather. It was not just the cyclones; it was this long wet season that we had. There is no mention of it here. He does not understand how the poor cane farmers in Ingham could not get—VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—He's a potato grower.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—He is a potato grower. What the shadow minister does not understand is that the poor cane growers in Ingham could not get their cane off the fields because the wet weather just continued. It just was not cyclones. So I think the veracity of this particular debate today is certainly under question, when you find that the shadow minister does not even know the name of Australia's largest sugar growing area and he does not know what the particular issues are.From Ingham we have seen Pat Sheedy of the Canegrowers Association observing quite correctly that the Herbert River north of Townsville has had a three-year adverse weather problem; production has been down from 5.5 million tonnes to 3 million tonnes. There has been the worst string of events ever experienced in the region. In 1998, it had the wettest harvest, with 20 per cent of the crop left behind. In 1999, it had more bad weather. In 2000, the harvest was hit by the cane disease of orange rust, plagues of rats and insects and, of course, the other issues that go with those things. At that time Ingham's annual exports, which are usually $240 million a year, went down to about $100 million—very serious indeed. That is why the government is certainly most interested in trying to help the sugar industry in this country.But I can tell you that the federal government is particularly helping the sugar industry in my city of Townsville-Thuringowa through the sugar CRC at James Cook University. The government is backing the sugar CRC through Professor Bob Lorne, who is the CEO of that particular CRC. There is money invested in that CRC to work with industry to achieve environmental management and to ensure sustainable sugar production. I am interested also to see the assistance that the government gave the South Johnstone mill when the state government would not come to its aid. I just would have liked to see a proper joint submission being made by the industry to the federal and state governments. (Time expired)Bills19136The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 11) 1999Bills19136R111219136Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.19136Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)by leaveread a third time.Bills19137R112319137Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.19137Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)by leaveread a third time.Business19137Motion (by Mr Fahey) agreed to: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.Bills19137R110019137Consideration resumed.16:24:0019137Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Before we were so rudely interrupted by question time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and I were exchanging contributions on funding for vocational education and training. The first point I should reaffirm is that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, paid the House the great honour of actually attending question time, but as soon as it was over, he scurried out of the chamber back to the ministerial wing because he was quite determined not to participate in the consideration in detail debate on his own piece of legislation. When you consider that the only contribution he has made in this debate is a short page and a half or so of a second reading speech on a bill that is very important to the future of funding for vocational education and training in Australia, it is just not good enough.Before question time, I was asking the parliamentary secretary to clarify the level of funding that is being provided in this bill for vocational education and training. On several occasions the parliamentary secretary said that the funding in this bill had been agreed to by the states. She made the claim on several occasions that the level of funding had been agreed to by the states. I ask the parliamentary secretary if she is making those statements on the advice of Dr Kemp, the minister for education, or the advice of her department. Who has advised her that the states have agreed to the levels of funding in this bill?16:26:0019137Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I would have thought I had been quite clear in everything that has been said today in this debate. It is quite common knowledge what the ANTA agreements are all about. As in so many other Commonwealth-state agreements, if something is not signed off on, it is not signed off on. So really that is the issue. Of course as far as any growth is concerned where there has been discussion about that, work is continuing on those figures. A draft is a draft until it becomes a report. I have spelt out in detail those issues to the shadow minister, but he refuses to appreciate or understand just how beneficial the apprenticeship and traineeship programs have been for young people, the extraordinary success of VET in schools and the interaction that has taken place between industry and young people themselves, which has helped to unite their communities in many instances. I now move: That the question be put.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill agreed to.19137Motion (by Ms Worth)—by leave—proposed:That the bill be now read a third time. 16:28:0019138Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Can I just advise the people in the gallery of what has just happened: the parliamentary secretary has sought to gag discussion on a bill that provides $1 billion of extra funding for vocational education and training. That is not only because the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is not prepared to front this chamber and defend the positions that he takes outside the chamber but because the parliamentary secretary does not even wish to submit to questions. The reason she gagged it is that she knew she had been caught out. This parliamentary secretary misled the House—deliberately or inadvertently, I do not know. She misled the House earlier today when she said that the states and territories had agreed to the ANTA funding. It is for that reason that we intended to pursue a line of questioning to the parliamentary secretary. Before question time, she said the states and territories had agreed to the funding in this bill.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I think an allegation like that has to be made by way of a substantive motion, and the shadow minister should deal with it appropriately.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I understand the reason why the honourable member for Ballarat raised the point of order. But in listening very carefully to the member for Dobell, and from weighing every word, I believe he chose his words very carefully to just be within the standing orders.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The point I am making is that before question time the parliamentary secretary said that the states and territories had agreed to the funding in this bill. They have agreed to an ANTA agreement that runs out at the end of this year. This bill provides an extra year of funding. It is just untrue for the parliamentary secretary to claim that the states and territories have agreed to this level of funding with no growth. The parliamentary secretary has been told this by someone—it is either the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs or someone from the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Somebody should be held responsible for the fact that this parliament has been misled today by claims that the states agreed to this level of funding for 2001.We know what happened at the meeting of training ministers in Melbourne: the states said that there should be an increase in Commonwealth funding for vocational education and training. I ask the parliamentary secretary: if you are not responsible for this mistake, who is? Is it the department of education that has given you the wrong advice? Or is it the minister for education or his staff that have given you words to read out in this House that have misled the House of Representatives? It is just not good enough for the Australian parliament to have information given to it that is incorrect. This is the chamber where people should be held accountable for their words. If the parliamentary secretary is big enough now to get up at the dispatch box and admit that she made a mistake earlier today, I will give her the benefit of the doubt, but I want to know who is responsible for giving her the incorrect information that resulted in her misleading this House.The reason this is important is that funding for vocational education and training is going to determine the level of skills that young people are going to have in future years. It is going to determine the opportunities that existing workers will have to get new careers and to develop new sets of skills. We have argued time and time again that this government's $240 million of cuts in funding for VET are going to damage Australia's opportunities to be a knowledge nation; that this government's determination not to provide growth funding for VET is going to restrict the opportunities for young kids in schools. That is why we are outraged that the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of Dr Kemp, the minister for education, comes in here and claims that the states and territories have agreed to the level of funding that is in this bill when it is quite well known that the opposite is the fact. We know that even the conservative governments have been demanding that the Commonwealth increase its funding for vocational education and training, and certainly the Labor states have been arguing up hill and down dale that the Commonwealth should be prepared to meet its responsibilities. One of the great achievements of the Whitlam—I mean the Keating government— 8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs Worth—He is talking about the Whitlam government!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—If I were you I would not be talking about anything after misleading this House earlier today.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member will ignore interjections and address his remarks through the chair.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—One of the great achievements of the Keating government was to massively increase Commonwealth investment in TAFE and in vocational education and training. It meant that kids who left school early had a chance to improve their skills. It meant, Mr Deputy Speaker, in schools like Mill Park Secondary College in your own electorate that kids got a chance to enrol in apprenticeships and undergo traineeships right throughout the country. It is common knowledge in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you are one of the strongest advocates for assistance to schools such as Mill Park.The point I started on is that someone has caused the parliamentary secretary to mislead this House. The parliamentary secretary claimed on several occasions this afternoon that the states had agreed to the level of funding in the bill, and that is completely untrue. The parliamentary secretary also made a number of claims that the examples we quoted in this debate of the public TAFE system being in difficulty were `isolated examples', to use her words. Yet we know for a fact that, under the Borbidge government, 50 per cent of the TAFE institutions of Queensland were left in a position where they were not financially viable. At the end of Jeff Kennett's reign, some TAFEs faced insolvency, with less than a week's operating revenue left at their disposal. Thank God Steve Bracks was elected Premier of Victoria when he was. And yet the parliamentary secretary comes into this House and says that they are merely `isolated examples'. I challenge the parliamentary secretary to visit a few of those TAFE colleges and talk to a few TAFE teachers. Given that the parliamentary secretary comes from South Australia, I challenge her to talk to Malcolm Buckby, the South Australian minister for training. Ask him what he thinks of her system.Question (by Ms Worth) put:That the question be now put.16:38:00The House divided.(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Zahra, C.J. Wilkie, K.Draper, P.McLeay, L.B.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time. Business1914016:43:0019140McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to speak for one minute on a motion previously considered by the House. 10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—If you are seeking indulgence to make some short remarks about a previous decision of the House, I will allow it briefly.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Thank you. I assure government members that I have spoken briefly to the Leader of the House to indicate that I would be brief and that we are not seeking in any way to revisit the motion moved by the Minister for Finance and Administration concerning the change to the sitting arrangements for October for the dinner for the AOC, the Australian Olympic Committee. Of course we supported the motion and we do. But I want to put on the record that there was some opposition concerning the arrangements that they, as originally outlined, may not have been satisfactory to us. I want to put on the record that we now have agreement with the Olympic Committee about the arrangements for that dinner. Those arrangements will operate, in broad terms, in the manner in which such functions are arranged for international visitors, that is, the principal speaker will be the Prime Minister and equally the Leader of the Opposition and then two representatives from the athletes will speak. We think that is an appropriate set of arrangements. We are happy to cooperate with it. We raise with the government, but not in any way opposing this motion, that we need to give some consideration about what we do with regard to the Paralympians, but that is a matter for subsequent consideration. I thank the House.Bills19140R108819140Debate resumed from 31 May, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.16:45:0019140Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—This bill, the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000, provides for the long overdue amendment of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 to end the exemption that applies to international sporting events. This exemption was provided in the 1992 act because of the potential for Australia to lose international events in an environment where tobacco advertising was still the norm. Over the last four years, unfortunately, Australia has slipped from being a world leader to being one of the backmarkers in phasing out tobacco promotion. Labor was in fact the first to fund a national coordinated campaign of advertising and community action, and the impact of this work is reflected in the continuing decline in tobacco usage that we have seen over the 1990s. The previous government also commissioned a detailed report by Alan Rassaby into the operation of section 18 of this act, the significance of tobacco sponsorship to international events and the impact of these events on state economies. The Rassaby report was completed in July 1996 and handed to the incoming minister. That report recommended that the exemption in section 18 be repealed with effect from 2001. But it has taken this government so long to get this bill into the parliament that the repeal of this exemption will not be for another five years. Another important report on tobacco at that time was the report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, chaired by Senator Herron. This report was tabled in December 1995 and included many wide ranging recommendations, most of which remain unimplemented today.On the question of the exemption for tobacco, Senator Herron and his committee recommended that the exemption be phased out by the year 2000. Of course, we have already reached the year 2000. The government response to both these recommendations was not tabled until September 1997, almost two years after the Senate report and 14 months after the Rassaby report. Unfortunately, the Minister for Health and Aged Care made a very weak reply, claiming that he had tightened the exemption but that it was necessary to retain it. It was only after another year, in September 1998, in the run-up to an election, that the minister took the next step of establishing a phase-out timetable. A very brave move! The timetable that is contained in this bill is in fact the timetable of the European Community which they adopted in July 1998. It has taken another 23 months for this bill to be presented, despite several public promises to introduce it in 1999 or earlier this year. If the minister had only accepted the original recommendation we would have been five years ahead of where we are today and tobacco smoking would not be at the level it is now.Contrary to the minister's claims, there has been a marked lack of success in the fight to reduce tobacco use in the years of the coalition government. The minister has wrongly claimed in the House that the campaign against smoking stalled under Labor in the early 1990s and was only reinvigorated by the round of anti-smoking advertising in 1997. He forgets to mention—not surprisingly; he has forgotten quite a few things recently—that this advertising was paid for by money allocated during Labor's time in office. But we need go to no less a source than Philip Morris to see that the minister's claims are not correct. I sought leave from the parliamentary secretary at the table, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, to table the timetable provided by Philip Morris to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on 4 August, but I am still waiting for agreement from the minister. In the meantime, if people are interested they could have a look at the table there. That timetable shows that there was a steady decline in cigarette consumption in the early 1990s. In the four years to 1997, there was a drop of 14 billion cigarettes a year smoked in Australia, a drop of about 13 per cent. In the following three years under the Howard government policies there has effectively been very little change in consumption. The push to reduce smoking has stalled under this minister during the very period he failed to act on this legislation and failed to initiate any new programs of his own. The decline in smoking during 1997 can be seen in this timetable that the Senate committee has received, confirming that the advertisements that I am sure we have all seen on television have had some effect. But the timetable clearly puts the facts into perspective: the decline in smoking in 1997 was the tail end of the campaign commenced and funded by Labor; it was not the first action of any new coalition government. Unfortunately, there has been no action since and, until very recently, the consumption pattern has been very flat.Interestingly enough, what can be seen in this timetable is that in recent months there has been a sharp drop in Philip Morris's sales. Unfortunately, that does not reflect an actual cut in smoking in Australia. Since the rise in tobacco excise last November, there has been an explosion in illegal `chop chop' tobacco sales. I am advised that a large part of the recent decline can be accounted for by these illegal sales which the government has now belatedly moved to stop. However, the cut in official sales is unfortunately an artefact—it does not represent success in the campaign to reduce smoking. We need to do more. We need to pass this bill and speed up the way in which tobacco promotion is phased out.The government is proposing in this bill that the exemption be ended for new events from 2002 and that existing events lose their tobacco sponsorship by 2006. This is a very unsatisfactory situation. The opposition agreed that a phase-out period is necessary and has supported the Senate recommendation for a five-year phase-out. Under the bill before us, the phase-out will now be completed in October 2006. This is partly driven by the fact that arrangements for the Melbourne Grand Prix were based on a ten-year contract entered into by the Kennett government, and there is now little alternative but to end the phase-out to coincide with the expiration of that contract. As I have indicated, 2006 is also the deadline set by the European Parliament for all of their member countries to achieve a full phase-out of such sponsorship in Europe. Some countries have already partially phased out advertising. In other words, this bill would make us a backmarker for reform where once we were the world leaders. It is worth noting that the European ban includes a requirement for the level of sponsorship to be reduced in each of the last three years. This bill does not contain any similar provision for Australia. The House deserves an explanation from the minister as to why it has taken him so long to proceed with something that was a commitment by all major parties at the last election.The opposition does not accept the government's view that more time is required to allow new events to apply up to 2002. I just cannot see why we would start a phase-out by increasing the number of approved events. The case for leaving the door open is very weak, as promoters of major events have been on notice for many years that tobacco sponsorships were on the way out. One shudders to think what might happen if we said that international sport had another two years to come up with events based on tobacco sponsorships to try to wring money out of state and territory governments that we know are desperate to run such events.In our view there should be no new events with tobacco sponsorship and the phase-out should start this year. There are five existing events that will continue to have exemptions: the Australian Formula One Grand Prix in Melbourne; the Australian motorcycle grand prix on Phillip Island; the Australian Ladies Masters Golf Tournament on the Gold Coast; the IndyCar Australia, also on the Gold Coast; and the Rally Australia in Perth.Unfortunately, as I said, Australia will not be moving faster than the last countries in Europe, so there certainly can be no argument that Australia's ability to attract events will be damaged. The government has advised that it knows of no new applications in the pipeline and no proposals are known for future specific events to be established using tobacco sponsorship. Therefore, it is our view that the cut-off date should be moved to this year. Labor will be moving an amendment to that effect to make sure that the legislation is tightened to move the cut-off date for new applications from January 2002 to October of this year.This will mean that the existing five events will continue to have their special status until 2006 but there will be no new ones. The government have given no rationale for allowing a further 18 months for new applications and, as I have said, they have indicated there are no new proposals in the pipeline. If any such applications do arise I would certainly urge the minister to give very careful consideration to them, and I would hope they would be refused. The purpose of this bill is to phase out this form of tobacco advertising, and it would be a supreme irony if its first impact was the additional sponsorship of such events being approved. I just want to look at the government's general record on discouraging the use of tobacco, and I might take this opportunity to seek leave to table the graph that I mentioned before.Leave granted.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—As I have said, the government has made much of its concern about tobacco smoking but has done precious little to put its words into action. Since the last injection of funds for the national tobacco campaign in 1995 the level of Commonwealth funding for anti-tobacco programs has been going backwards. Nearly three months ago now we had the World No Tobacco Day. We have seen with this minister annual World No Tobacco Day becoming a series of little rituals where he makes an announcement and tries to claim credit for various pieces of research. This year was no different. He released again the second evaluation report of a rebadged national tobacco campaign and a reworking of the 1996 advertising campaign. But the real achievements that should be acknowledged are being made out in the community by underfunded health professionals, the initiatives of state governments, non-government organisations and, most importantly, the promoters of nicotine replacement therapy. The media coverage focused on a survey looking at when the advertisements were first shown two years ago. Essentially, the same campaign has been run since, with a couple of new versions of the advertisements focusing on other impacts of smoking on health. A dispassionate analysis suggests that the ads were most effective in the first six months and had relatively little impact in the following 12 months.It will be some time yet before we have the assessment of the ads currently in the media, but the campaign unfortunately seems to have faded into the background and lost its sting—along with, I must say, a sizeable part of the budget. The budget for the national tobacco campaign has shrunk to just $2.3 million in 1999-2000 compared to the $7 million that Labor spent in its last year in office, in 1995-96. This can also be compared to the aggressive marketing by the makers of nicotine patches, who reportedly spent $30 million on advertising in recent years. These are also very well targeted. Rest assured that the increasingly subtle marketing efforts of the tobacco industry are not based on declining budgets or out-of-date materials, let alone resting on their laurels; they work very hard to get our young people to take up smoking and to replace those smokers who quit or unfortunately die as a result of disease caused by their habit. The impact is very clear: since 1995 the smoking prevalence amongst young women has risen from 19 per cent to 26 per cent; a very serious state of affairs indeed.I was very pleased recently to attend the launch of a new strategy, Drug Policy 2000, produced by the Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia, a very thorough review of all of the strands of the drug problem, covering both legal and illegal drugs. What I found particularly interesting was their focus on smoking and alcohol abuse. It is no surprise that as the national peak organisation for non-government groups ADCA have put smoking at the top of their list, and the first of their proposed targets for drug harm reduction is to reduce smoking rates amongst young women by the year 2005 back to the level that existed in 1995.Another target set by ADCA is to do something about smoking rates among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—to reduce those rates to below their 1997 level, a horrific level, of 54 per cent. It is an appallingly high rate compared to the almost 22 per cent average for the community as a whole. This is no doubt a contributing factor to the 20-year gap between life expectancy in the general community and among Aboriginal people. It is an issue about which something can be done and an issue about which something should have been done already. ADCA has formulated the sorts of specific targets that the government should have adopted as part of its strategy instead of the soft words that have become the hallmark of the current National Tobacco Strategy.I look forward to sitting down with ADCA to discuss what sort of action would be required to achieve this target. I will certainly be bringing forward a detailed tobacco policy with specific targets and new strategies to reinvigorate this important area of public health. The evaluation report that was the subject of the minister's media release seeks to evaluate the success of the National Tobacco Strategy through the measurement of smoking rates in November 1998 in comparison to rates from May 1997. That survey shows a modest but not insignificant reduction in smoking prevalence from 23.5 per cent in May 1997 to 21.08 per cent in November 1998. These figures come from the Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, a very respected research group associated with the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria.Within the limitations that apply to measuring behaviour patterns by survey techniques, we can be confident that the shift in these numbers means that there has been a measurable drop in the number of people identifying themselves as smokers. The report found that during the time this campaign has run there has been a total reduction in smoking prevalence. This reduction translated into 190,000 fewer smokers—equal to 922 people not dying prematurely—and averted costs to the health care system of $24 million. This is a very welcome pattern indeed and an excellent return on the total investment of $9 million that was put up by all levels of government and partner bodies in the campaign. I think it would be worth remembering that Dr Wooldridge should not claim all the credit as his government put in only $2.3 million of that money in the last year. I must say that I am certainly not inclined to give all the credit for this reduction in smoking to the government's advertising campaign. As I have said before, a number of other important players have made a very significant contribution. It would also be desirable for the evaluation to collect more information about whether or not smokers are smoking less or smoking lower tar cigarettes. We do not know whether older smokers are quitting in larger numbers as more younger people are taking up the habit, and we certainly need to know more about those groups in the community who are increasing their smoking.The evaluation report suggests that the advertising campaign was only successful for a limited time. If we look at the detailed figures in the report, it is clear that the reduction occurred in the first six months of the campaign in 1997. The reduction in the next 12 months was very slight, around 0.3 per cent, and that certainly is disappointing. The data tells us that a single focus, one-off advertising campaign loses its impact very quickly. Everyone who works in this area knows that what is needed in this difficult area of smoking is what is lacking from the Howard government—that is, a long-term goal and an ongoing commitment commensurate with the problem.I am not sure whether everybody in the House would be aware that 18,000 Australians die every year from smoking. The economic and social costs are of course in the billions, and our hospitals have many people suffering from diseases caused by smoking. At a time when we are investing sizeable sums to reduce other health problems, smoking, which has the largest impact of all, unfortunately still remains the poor relative when it comes to federal funding.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—It didn't get any money under Labor.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—In fact I just indicated to the person interjecting that Labor started the public campaigns. You were not here, Mr Brough, when I made my initial remarks, so I will just repeat them for your benefit. Labor in fact initiated the campaign against tobacco smoking and put in considerably more than this government has. So thank you for the opportunity to repeat those facts.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—What were the figures?PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—You can read the speech. Despite the incontrovertible facts about tobacco's relationship to many health problems, there is still not enough being done. Unfortunately the government has gone quiet about what has to be seen as the number one preventable cause of death in Australia. One has to wonder whether this action is linked to the fact that the Liberal Party has a close and well-documented relationship with the tobacco industry. Only recently we saw that the Liberal Party conference had a major dinner sponsored by Philip Morris, with much carry-on by the Liberal Party that this was entirely appropriate until such time as tobacco smoking was made illegal. It is already illegal to sell tobacco to minors; it is illegal to promote tobacco in most forums. The government is now moving to end one of the few remaining exemptions to tobacco sponsorship but feels free to continue to accept its own sponsorships from the industry. I just want to reassure all of my colleagues that they should shed no tears of concern for the tobacco industry as they are forced to relinquish their grip on Australia's major motor sports events, if not the Liberal Party. We have no reason to fear for these major events.The recent deluge of tobacco papers released onto the Internet in the United States outlines clearly how the major tobacco companies made a concerted effort to get into the sponsorship of Australian sport once tobacco advertising was limited in the mid-1970s. They saw sport as an effective way to advertise their product and to give it an element of glamour, excitement and success. We know that unfortunately it worked. Studies have shown that brand recall was heightened among children who viewed these sponsored events. Clear links could be shown between the preferred brands of children who smoked and the sponsorship of major sports in Australian states. Children, especially those who smoke, are unfortunately adept at recognising even what we might consider to be cryptic tobacco advertisements. It is enough that the Marlboro colours are on the car, the helmet or the suit of their favourite motor racing hero. Rest assured that sport sponsorship by tobacco companies is founded on profit, not altruism. We should also not worry about the future sponsorship of these events in the absence of tobacco money. Cricket and rugby league continue to thrive in its absence. The grand prix puts Melbourne on show to the world and has experienced surging attendances and TV ratings. It is hard to imagine that tobacco companies are the only ones keen to be associated with this event. Ultimately, however, this bill and this issue are about something far more important than how to fund sports events; they are about inappropriately glamorising and promoting a serious health risk. We must tackle the harm caused by tobacco use at every opportunity and undertake and support a wide range of well-targeted initiatives. In closing, let me assure the minister that, far from being a pioneer of the anti-tobacco cause, unfortunately he is lagging well behind the Australian public on this issue. The states have long since gone past what the Howard government is prepared to support, and the minister's actions have failed to keep up with his rhetoric. I want to close by putting a five-part challenge to the minister to explain to the House what he will do to restart the engine on tobacco reform. I would like to know whether the minister will undertake to ban sponsorships of political party events from tobacco companies in the same way they will be banned from sponsoring sporting or cultural events. Will he table the details of each complaint he has received about breaches of the existing Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act and the action taken by his department in relation to these complaints? Will he ensure the Quit campaign has sufficient funding to run its advertisements at the same time as the remaining exempt international sporting events, because the evaluation report indicates this has been the most successful method of promotion? Will the minister follow the European precedent and phase out the amount of advertising allowed at the remaining events in the three years leading up to 2006? Finally, will the minister end the research and development tax incentives used by tobacco companies to develop cigarettes for export that would not be allowed to be produced in Australia?In summary, it is important that Australia sets some meaningful goals to hasten the reduction in tobacco usage in Australia. We have lost a lot of momentum since this government came to office, and the increase in smoking amongst young women in particular demonstrates this. The opposition is certainly committed to reinvigorating action in this area. We will bring about a new approach and a new set of strategies to achieve real results. This bill certainly represents a long overdue step that the government appears to be taking unwillingly. We will support the bill, but we will strengthen it by amending the date so that it becomes more effective more quickly.17:11:0019145Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I commence my remarks by pointing out to the members opposite, and the member for Jagajaga in particular, that I have actually got the biggest Liberal Party vote in the country in this parliament, and yet I think there would be few people in the parliament who have fought more stridently against the activities of the tobacco industry over the last decade than I have. In fact, I well remember, to add a touch of humour to this, that just prior to the 1996 federal election I received a letter from a constituent—moving from medicine to politics, people become constituents, not so much human beings—who said:Dear Dr Nelson,You are a self-promoting, opportunistic interloper. Obviously you will get elected. I cannot vote for you because I resent your strident anti-smoking fascism. I attempted to ring this man. His wife answered the phone. I introduced myself, and she said, `Oh, my husband and I are great fans of yours.' I said, `That's interesting; your husband wrote me a letter.' With some concern, she said, `What did he say?' I hesitated but I read to her what he had said. There was a silence and then—I will not use these words in the House—she uttered some expletives in relation to her husband and said, `I've spent all my married life trying to get him to stop smoking.' I thought that might have had something to do with it.The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 represents the culmination of many years of hard work by many people—many people committed to the preservation of human life. It closes one of the last remaining avenues for the promotion and advertising of tobacco in Australia by removing the discretion of the minister to grant an exemption from the general ban on tobacco advertising for international sporting and cultural events. In doing so, it breaks the last vestigial link between tobacco and sporting and cultural events in Australia. The remarks of the member for Jagajaga in particular seek to make some partisan political mileage in relation to this issue. Since 1988 I have spent more time and energy trying to persuade Labor governments to support tobacco control measures than trying to convince coalition governments. In this regard, I do not think one side of politics or the other has ever been any more or less sympathetic to it. In terms of remarks about tobacco companies sponsoring things, I just say that if you go through the register of members' interests, you will find—and I will not embarrass them by naming them; they have every right to choose to do so—just as many members of the opposition Labor benches attending events sponsored by tobacco companies as you will on the government benches, whether it be in the Senate or the House of Representatives. As I said in my earlier life—when I had one—people die to sponsor sporting events. I have not ever knowingly accepted—nor will I ever knowingly accept—sponsorship from a tobacco company. I think that people tread on dangerous ground when they start to accuse one side of politics or the other of being any better or worse in this regard.Throughout my years of advocacy against the unfettered advertising and promotion of tobacco, it was always a loophole in the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 that the Commonwealth minister could grant an exemption to the advertising ban for a sporting or cultural event if the minister was satisfied that the event was of international significance and that failure to grant the exemption would be likely to result in the event not being held in Australia.The Rassaby report, commissioned by the member for Fremantle when she was Minister for Human Services and Health in the Keating government and received by this government, recommended the legislation we have before us today. It recommended that the Commonwealth introduce legislation repealing section 18, with such legislation to take effect from 2001. The legislation would preclude the government during the phase-out period from approving new applications under section 18. This legislation disallows exemption for events after 1 January 2002 and phases out all exemptions, including Formula One, by 1 October 2006. These dates will give Australia parity with the European international automotive events.The case for a ban on tobacco advertising and promotion rests on the inescapable fact that this is a product for which there is no safe level of consumption. It is injurious to the health of human beings when consumed in the dose recommended by the manufacturer. I invite members of this House and Australians generally to reflect on the impact of tobacco related disease and our efforts to reduce it. Every 10 seconds somewhere in the world a human being dies from the consequences of tobacco related disease. On present trends, this will increase to one death every three seconds over the next 30 years, according to Richard Doll, Richard Peto and Alan Lopez. Those deaths will be from cancers, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases and paediatric diseases, including reduced rates of birth, respiratory distress syndrome and of course sudden infant death.Tobacco has been described by the World Health Organisation as `the greatest preventable cause of disease in the developed world'. As the member for Jagajaga said, just over 18,000 Australians die every year from tobacco related diseases, and it is estimated that another thousand die from the consequences of passive smoking or consuming environmental tobacco smoke—that is, 54 Australians will die today and 54 Australians will die tomorrow because they smoked. They will be replaced by the 250 kids who smoke their first cigarette every day, of whom 50 at least will go on to a lifetime of nicotine addiction from which they run a one in two chance of premature death. It is estimated that there are almost 400,000 Australian children currently under the age of 14 who will die because they will smoke. In 1996, Collins and Lapsley estimated that the health and productivity costs of tobacco consumption in this country are $12.6 billion a year. Most kids begin and become addicted at a time in life when they have no idea of the production line of misery and death upon which they are placing their young bodies. A survey of schoolchildren by the Anti-Cancer Council in 1992, for example, found that 260,000 children in this country between the ages of 12 and 17 consumed 6.6 million cigarettes a week. In fact, in 1996, 336,000 Australian school-age children smoked 370 million cigarettes—and the earlier you start, the more likely it is that your smoking behaviour will continue into adult life. I have said to the tobacco industry and to their numerous apologists many times over the years that the responsible exercise of the right to freedom of speech has not ever extended to the right to knowingly promote a product you know to be injurious to human beings at any level of consumption.The other point that ought to be made to my colleagues in the House and to those who might be listening to all this is about the concern that all of us have about young people using drugs—cannabis, stimulants, heroin, cocaine or whatever. If you want to stop your kids from taking drugs and you can stop them from smoking, you are halfway there. I refer, for example, to work done by Dr Michael Lynskey from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre which found that both alcohol consumption and tobacco use are elevated among young people who report regular cannabis use. Those who reported regular cannabis use were 14 times more likely to be committed tobacco smokers than those who did not.Many times over the years in all sorts of fora I have faced up to debate with people who work for the tobacco industry about the issue of Formula One sponsorship. Whatever arguments might have been put, there appeared an advertisement in 1994 in an international magazine for tobacco manufacturers. The advertisement was called `High speed value'. There is a picture of a Formula One racing car with Marlboro advertising emblazoned on the side and it says, `Cost $40 million plus?' It then says, `Cost from $50,000 to $6 million.' The advertisement states:This Formula 1 car is the most powerful advertising space in the world. It will carry your brand to 18 million TV viewers in 102 countries.It's available for a fraction of the cost often associated with Formula 1 and you can sponsor it on a race-by-race basis, if that suits your marketing strategy.The package includes the best VIP hospitality programme in the world.The industry have always denied that tobacco sponsorship generally, and in particular Formula One, does anything at all to increase market share, yet the tobacco industry put $US300 million into Formula One car racing last year alone. Yet they maintain that it has no impact on non-smokers. The confidential tobacco industry documents that were released through litigation in the United States tell quite a different story. They say that there is a substantial body of evidence that tobacco advertising increases overall tobacco consumption and is one important factor in nurturing smoking behaviour in adolescents and in children.The other point is that Formula One sponsorship also circumvents advertising prohibitions on television, in newspapers and in magazines. I will just quote some of the information that we have received when Liggett turned state evidence in the United States. Imperial Tobacco (Canada) said this:... the association of a brand with certain advertising campaigns or sport or cultural activities ... may be as important as the physical characteristics of the cigarette in satisfying consumer needs. Marlboro's Aleardo Buzzi said: We are the Number One brand in the world. What we wanted was to promote a particular image of adventure, courage, of virility. All I can say is that Mr Buzzi has not had to stand or sit by the bedside of a person under the age 40 with 20 pack years of smoking behind him and see that man go into the other life leaving three children and a widow. Similarly, Mr Barrie Gill, Chief Executive of Championship Sports Specialists Ltd, which is a sports sponsorship company, explains why tobacco companies are so interested in motor racing. He says:It's the ideal sport for sponsorship. It's got glamour and world wide television coverage. It's a ten month activity involving sixteen races in fourteen countries with drivers from sixteen nationalities. After football it's the Number One multinational sport. It's got total global exposure, total global hospitality, total media coverage and 600 million people watching it on TV every fortnight ... It's macho, it's excitement, it's colour, it's international, it's glamour ... They're there to get visibility. They're there to sell cigarettes.The New England Journal of Medicine, in research that it did after the 1989 Marlboro Grand Prix in the US in July 1989, found that the broadcast went for 94 minutes and that the Marlboro logo was seen or mentioned 5,933 times on 49 per cent of air time. And that is to 600 million viewers every two weeks. Then you wonder why governments—Labor and coalition governments—had so much trouble trying to get the tobacco industry out of Formula One sport. For example, Mr von Maerestetten from Rothmans said:No one hands over big cheques just to give themselves a warm fuzzy feeling. Wayne Robertson, RJR, in the Washington Monthly said in 1988:We're in the cigarette business. We're not in the sports business. We use sports as an avenue for advertising our products ... We can go into an area where we're marketing an event, measure sales during the event and measure sales after the event, and see an increase in sales.And, of course, I could go on. Ninety per cent of smokers start by the time they are 20, with around two-thirds by the time they are 13. For example, this means in the United States that 5,000 children and teenagers begin smoking everyday to replace those who are dying or giving up. Yet amongst the evidence brought out after 1997 when Liggett turned state evidence was this: I'm embarrassed for the company. We don't track 14 to 17 year olds today. I think it's wrong, frankly stupid and unnecessary. It certainly doesn't happen today. We shouldn't be discussing 14 year olds in any way, shape or form. In the case of Formula One, smoking is linked to an important right of passage, and that is driving. There are few more potent aspirational models for young teenagers than a Formula One racing car and a Formula One circuit. Even without the names of the cigarette products, we have colour association and symbols. I just ask: if you saw a yellow Formula One racing car, what will you think of? I can tell you that it is Camel cigarettes. If you think of a red and white Formula One racing car, what do you think of? Marlboro. A decade after we get the tobacco industry out of Formula One, many people will still be identifying the colours alone with the product which has stood behind them for so long. In 1992, the advertising executive Emerson Foote, who is the former chairman of the board of McCann Erickson which had handled $US20 million in tobacco accounts, said:The cigarette industry has been artfully maintaining that cigarette advertising has nothing to do with total sales. This is complete and utter nonsense. The industry knows it is nonsense. I am always amused by the suggestion that advertising, a function of which has been shown to increase the consumption of virtually every other product, somehow miraculously fails to work for tobacco. One of the final thoughts that I would like to leave the House with—in doing so I commend the minister and the Howard coalition government; I hope that we will be supported in this bill by the opposition, and I presume we will—is the well-known poem, some of which is often quoted, called `A fence or an ambulance'. This poem was first written and published in 1936 by Joseph Malins. It reads:'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed, Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant; But over its terrible edge there had slippedA duke and full many a peasant. So the people said something would have to be done, But their projects did not at all tally; Some said, “Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,” Some, “An ambulance down in the valley.” But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,For it spread through the neighboring city; A fence may be useful or not, it is true, But each heart became brimful of pity For those who slipped over that dangerous cliff;And the dwellers in highway and alleyGave pounds or gave pence, not to put up a fence, But an ambulance down in the valley.... ... ...To repairing results than to stopping the cause, When they'd much better aim at prevention. Let us stop at its source all this mischief,” cried he,“Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally;If the cliff we will fence we might almost dispenseWith the ambulance down in the valley.”“Oh, he's a fanatic,” the others rejoined,“Dispense with the ambulance? Never! He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could;No! No! We'll support them forever. ... ... ...Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old,For the voice of true wisdom is calling,“To rescue the fallen is good, but 'tis bestTo prevent other people from falling.” Better close up the source of temptation and crimeThan deliver from dungeon or galley; Better put a strong fence round the top of the cliff Than an ambulance down in the valley.That poem of Joseph Malins summarises what it is all about: we can spend a fortune, as we do, in trying to treat tobacco related disease. But what is so critically important in looking at excise, price of cigarettes, education, tobacco advertising and all of the things that have been done by governments, both state and federal, is to do everything we can to see that people do not take up a lifetime of consuming a product which is injurious to them at any level of consumption. If we are to build a society in which we value the health and integrity of human life as much as we do achieving our economic objectives, these kinds of measures must be supported. My only disappointment is that this is not something that happened a long time ago. But I understand the reasons why, unfortunately, that is not the case. We have an opportunity here to do something that is significant not only for Australian children so that their lives are saved by not commencing to smoke but in particular for young children who are growing up in the developing world where, sadly, they do not have the kind of leadership and efforts in regard to tobacco control that we have enjoyed in this country. 17:31:0019149Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—As the member for Bradfield suggested, the opposition does indeed support this Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000—which, as he says, is long overdue. The member for Jagajaga has proposed an amendment which I am particularly pleased to support. Labor's amendment suggests a different timing that would affect the cut-off date for exemptions from the prohibition on tobacco advertising under the applications for new international events of significance. The opposition amendment would have the cut-off date shifted from the government's proposed date of January 2002 to October 2000.The government has advised that there are no new applications in the pipeline. Moreover, there are no new proposals for future events that are reliant on tobacco sponsorship money that we are aware of. Therefore, there is no reason why the deadline cannot be brought forward. I feel like I am down the batting order letting the cat out of the bag, but I understand the government has given its approval for this amendment.Smoking is the single most preventable cause of death in Australia. In 1997, tobacco killed around 4,500 people in my state from smoking related diseases and, as the member for Jagajaga pointed out, 18,000 Australians. Research is indicating how harmful passive smoking inhalation is, especially for children. The associated economic and health care costs have spiralled to an estimated $3.3 billion a year. As Michael Sedgley, the President of the AMA, commented this March in a letter to the Australian: While the proposed legislation to phase out tobacco advertising by 2006 is a positive step, it comes too late. That is so especially since this government has acknowledged the ongoing costs to the Australian community of that continuation to 2006, even of these special events. When the 1995 Senate Community Affairs References Committee report on the tobacco industry and costs of tobacco related illnesses was tabled in 1997, Dr Wooldridge commented: Tobacco kills more people than alcohol, car crashes and illegal drugs combined each and every year. We will take all responsible action necessary to reduce the appalling effects of tobacco addiction, especially the 19,000 deaths it causes in Australia each year. Amongst the recommendations made by that Senate committee report, commonly referred to as the Herron report, was:That the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act of 1992 be amended to remove the provision for the exemption of publication of tobacco advertisements in association with specified sporting and cultural events of international significance and that this be phased in by the year 2000. Yet this government until now rejected the non-partisan recommendation by the Senate because, as Dr Wooldridge said: Because states and territories may rely heavily on the financial benefits of hosting high profile sporting and cultural events, the Commonwealth government will retain power to exempt such events from the ban on tobacco advertising. In my view, the argument that signage at these events is not advertising and that their removal is impossible because of its effect on sporting events is an old chestnut. Let us remember the lengthy debate about the effect of the removal of tobacco advertising on cricket. It was going to be the end of cricket as we know it in Australia. It wasn't, was it? There was a period of transition and other sponsors were found, without the demise of international cricket events in Australia. The same can be said for the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, one of the sporting events currently exempted from the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992. This is an event that is local to me, so local that my electorate office is situated literally two minutes from the race track at Albert Park. Admittedly, the amount that the tobacco industry contributes to the Australian Formula One Grand Prix each year is shielded by commercial-in-confidence clauses, like much of the commercial effects related to the Formula One Grand Prix at Albert Park. They are all covered by commercial-in-confidence clauses, but we know that for the 2000 race season Benson and Hedges contributed $30 million to the Jordan team, Gauloise contributed $22 million to the Prost/Peugeot team and Marlboro have contributed an impressive $65 million to the Ferrari team. I do not suggest they do this out of purely charitable motives. I have heard the argument put forward by the tobacco industry that tobacco product signage at such events is sponsorship, not advertising. They say that sponsorship does not contain a direct invitation to buy in the same way as advertising and is directed at the public at large `to enhance goodwill by virtue of the enjoyment that particular sporting and cultural events provide'. I am sorry, but I do not buy that argument. This is advertising, perhaps more subliminal, but advertising that perhaps dares not speak its name. Some may remember the final lap of the 1998 Grand Prix in Melbourne, where leading driver David Coultharld generously slowed down to let the second place driver, Mika Hakkinen, take the lead. It emerged later that Coultharld's action was prearranged with the approval of their boss and McLaren team leader, Ron Dennis. Apparently this sort of thing goes on all the time at Formula One racing. So much for the excitement and unpredictability of the event. You have to wonder whether the principal raison d'etre is the Formula One Grand Prix car racing, or whether it is really tobacco advertising—purpose designed in this case, in my view, for the sale of cigarettes not to Australians but to Americans and Europeans. If this sounds far-fetched then I ask you to consider that these two cars and their drivers were plastered with the West cigarette brand name that would be unknown to most Australians. West is a cheap, `value' brand of cigarettes manufactured in Germany and sold in America. It is especially popular amongst young European and American males. Let us not fool ourselves. This is an event held in Australia that is designed not just to promote cigarette smoking to Australians but also to sell cigarettes to the large audience overseas who watch the Grand Prix on their televisions. Sponsorship in this situation is not benevolent; it is clearly advertising. Otherwise, why would tobacco companies insist on so much signage at these events? I recall an overseas friend of mine, who caught a glimpse of the Albert Park Grand Prix one year on television, remarking that it was hard to tell whether the event was staged in a city called Marlboro or Qantas—although I believe there is signage now which allows overseas viewers to identify that the event actually takes place in Melbourne, the host town. In March 1998, Max Mosley, a member of the FIA, the body that governs Formula One motor racing said:Tobacco advertising on cars may be banned by 2002 if it was proved that it encouraged people to take up smoking.This statement was made in spite of a study that was published in the medical journal The Lancet in 1997, showing that young fans of motor racing were more likely to take up smoking than were those who had no liking for the sport. Apparently these fans, mostly young males, associated the glamour and excitement of racing with cigarette smoking. Late last year Philip Morris posted the following admission on their web page:There is overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely to develop serious diseases like lung cancer, than non-smokers are. There is no such thing as a `safe' cigarette.The minister for health is confident that the organisers of the Melbourne Grand Prix will have pursued and secured an alternative sponsor before the 2006 deadline. I am not so confident. After all, Mosley's comments made in 1998 were not reflected in any lessening of tobacco advertising signage at this year's event, despite the mounting acceptance even by the tobacco industry that smoking is harmful and that advertising at motor sports events does influence people—particularly young people, young males—to take up this practice.Overseas other Formula One events have been shifting away from tobacco sponsorship for a number of years now and have had no trouble in finding sponsors that are relevant to the motor industry. There are the examples of the French and British Grand Prix which are run with medium to low impact tobacco advertising. The German Grand Prix is, however, the best example—where cars and pit crew are permitted to carry tobacco brand logos only and there is no tobacco advertising signage around the racetrack.Dr Wooldridge has said that the 2006 cut-off for the exemption of tobacco sponsorship of significant international sporting events is to bring Australia into line with the European Union's announcement that tobacco sponsorship of sporting events will be phased out by the year 2006. I would argue, though, that the Australian Formula One Grand Prix got its tobacco advertising exemption until 2006 because the former Victorian state government, the federal government and the FIA motoring body made an arrangement which locked in the exemption until 2006. The EU made its announcement in May 1998. In September of the same year, Dr Wooldridge announced that he had had discussions with Mr Ecclestone of the Formula One Grand Prix and Max Mosley of the FIA. He told me, in an answer to question No. 1081 on the Notice Paper:...they had given me personal assurances that in view of the manner in which they had been involved in my deliberations and given the adequate lead times to arrange alternative sponsors, that automotive events would not be jeopardised by the phasing out of tobacco advertising. Prior to this, the Formula One Grand Prix had had to apply for exemptions on a year by year basis.Dr Wooldridge stated in his answer to my question of 7 December on the Notice Paper —and the minister conveniently answered only after the Grand Prix had taken place this year—that there was no formal agreement with the FIA and the Australian Grand Prix Corporation and the previous Kennett state government. There is an arrangement, but any such arrangement—formal or informal—is hard to verify, given that many of the commercial-in-confidence contractual arrangements and costings of the Formula One Grand Prix at Albert Park are shrouded in secrecy. In fact, legislation which was passed during the Kennett years concerning the Australian Formula One Grand Prix prevents the release of such information. It is very hard to verify what arrangements, formal or informal, are actually binding, since no-one is allowed to know them. If Dr Wooldridge had been serious about the phasing out of tobacco advertising at events such as the Formula One, why did he say in March 1998, `I don't believe this guy is fair dinkum,' when speaking of Max Mosley, who declared it might be possible to phase out tobacco sponsorship of the Formula One by 2002? Then, in September of the same year, as the pressure to phase out tobacco advertising was rising, the minister for health was part of negotiations that granted the Australian Formula One Grand Prix permission to advertise tobacco products right up until the final cut-off date. Perhaps the film The Insider has more to tell us about the mysterious origins and connections with the tobacco industry and other people of the Australian Formula One Grand Prix than we might realise. Perhaps Russell Crowe will return to Australia and do the Australian version of The Insider, and perhaps one of the scenes could be set at the Philip Morris sponsored Liberal Party conference. Just think: in a different political climate, federal and state governments could have worked with the FIA to phase out tobacco advertising much earlier.In conclusion, the legislation will see an eventual end to tobacco sponsorship and advertising at the remaining events that have the exemptions. The Labor Party amendment to bring the cut-off date for new applications forward to October will ensure that no further events are given permission to advertise tobacco products. There will be an end to the glamorising of smoking by associating it with events like the Formula One Grand Prix. As the AMA has commented, this is indeed a positive step. It is a great shame that it is not happening sooner rather than later.17:44:0019152Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 represents the last phase in the banning of cigarette advertising at sporting and cultural events of international significance. It is the concluding paragraph, if you like, in this government's record on tobacco control, together with our national tobacco strategy complementing our national tobacco campaign—all having a deep and lasting impact on the smoking community and associated costs.The background to this bill recognises that, since 1992, there has been a national standard with respect to tobacco advertising: the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act of that year banned tobacco advertisements in the print media as well as films, videos, television or radio, outdoor advertising on billboards and public transport. However, an exception was made: the relevant minister could grant an exemption to the advertising ban for a sporting or cultural event if the minister was satisfied, firstly, that the event was of international significance and, secondly, that failure to grant the exemption would likely result in the event not being held in Australia. And there were guidelines specifying the various matters that the minister could take into account in determining that. This bill seeks to phase out the minister's power to exempt such events from the general ban on tobacco advertising. No exemptions will be allowed for events after 1 January 2002, except for those already granted an exemption, in which case it will be phased out by 2006.The types of events that have been exempted recently from the general ban on tobacco advertising have been sporting events, including Rally Australia, which is a very popular event in Western Australia; the Formula One Grand Prix; the Australian Indy 300; the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix; and the Australian Ladies Masters Golf Championship. The question posed was: given the inherent difficulties—distance and cost—in attracting major international events to Australia, would the phase-out of tobacco advertising and, hence, tobacco company sponsorship act as a further disincentive for events organisers to consider Australia as a likely destination for major international events? It seems that there is now a global view on this and there is a level playing field in so far as the banning of tobacco advertising is concerned. Previously European countries did not impose conditions as to tobacco advertising and, hence, sponsorship on events organisers. But in 1998 the European Union passed a directive on tobacco advertising. This bill before the House seeks to phase out tobacco advertising at international automotive events, as does the European Union, by 2006. I will put this bill in the context of the tobacco industry in Australia and the social and health costs of tobacco use and the current trends in tobacco use. Then I will consider the impact of tobacco advertising and the contribution it makes to people's uptake and continuance of smoking. In that way, the reasoning both of previous governments in the partial ban and then this government in the total ban of tobacco advertising at major events will be apparent.Other speakers have mentioned some statistics; I will add to those. A recent estimate put the tobacco industry in Australia at the level of $6.2 billion in sales in the manufactured cigarette market. It has been estimated that $100 million of this sum annually is the result of sales of cigarettes to underage young people. In 1996-97 expenditure on tobacco represented two per cent of total private expenditure per capita—although, in constant price terms, personal expenditure has been decreasing at a rate of about six per cent in the past 10 years. So what do these figures mean in terms of current tobacco use?Australia used to be ranked quite highly in terms of an international comparison for per capita consumption of cigarettes—eighth in the world in 1991. The proportion of adults who smoke regularly has since remained stable at around 23 per cent in the years 1991 to 1998, they being the most recent statistics, although the regularity with which regular smokers use tobacco has decreased. So we are now ranked 17th in the world per capita for consumption of tobacco.A 1998 national drug strategy household survey indicated that two-thirds of Australians aged 14 years and older had used tobacco at some time in their lives. The lifetime use of tobacco has declined from 82 per cent in 1985 to 66 per cent in 1998. But, despite the decline in the lifetime prevalence of tobacco use overall, there was a six per cent increase in recent use among 14- to 19-year-olds—and the statistics that really concern me relate to young people. Between 1995 and 1998, there was a decrease of nearly five per cent in the proportion of young people—14- to 19-year-olds—who had never smoked. In other words, there were five per cent more teenagers who had ever smoked a cigarette. Similarly, recent-use reports indicate a 30 per cent increase in recent tobacco use of those aged 14 to 19, comparing 1995 and 1998; and overall there is a 2.2 per cent increase in that age group in the proportion of those who regularly smoke.So what does all this mean in terms of social costs? The statistics are stark and very disturbing. It is no longer tenable to argue against them. Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of drug-related death in Australia. There were over 18,000 deaths due to tobacco use in 1997, and have been each year thereafter. It is estimated that around half of the lifetime smokers will die as a result of smoking. With these 18,000 deaths per annum the main causes were cancers at 38 per cent, respiratory disease at 23 per cent and heart disease at 21 per cent. The number of tobacco-related deaths in Australia has decreased over time but only minimally—less than three per cent per annum.Smoking costs an estimated $12.7 billion per year in health care and related costs; 15,000 hospital episodes were due to tobacco use in 1996-97; four out of five of the top diseases affecting Australians are associated with smoking. Perhaps I could just elaborate on that aspect because it is quite an interesting analysis. Australia has a long history of vital registration with excellent statistics on causes of death which have been used widely to describe and monitor major public health issues. But, although mortality data are useful for public health surveillance, they do not adequately represent a population's level of health. This has led in recent times to a deal of research on a global basis to measure population health using disability adjusted life years and disability adjusted life expectancies as the principal summary measures of population health. In Australia, much research has been done to estimate disease burden using these measures. This year's June issue of the Medical Journal of Australia reported the results of the Australian burden of disease study, which summarised the health of Australians as at 1996 when the research was done. The complete extensive report was published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in November 1999. It is a groundbreaking analysis of the disease burden that took into account some 176 diseases and injuries and quantified the contribution of major risk factors to that burden. Tobacco alone accounts for over 10 per cent of the entire national burden of disease and injury in Australia.One of the perhaps more shocking analyses on the impact of smoking relates to smoking and pregnancy and foetal and infant health. Studies have estimated that between a quarter and a third of Australian women smoked during pregnancy. There are many known long-term effects of maternal smoking on infants and many more tentative findings, but one terrible truth is that smokers have a 25 per cent to 50 per cent higher rate of foetal and infant deaths compared with non-smokers. Tobacco smoking is the single largest cause of premature death and disease in Australia, so where does that take us in terms of the advertising of tobacco products? The history of tobacco advertising is a long one. Throughout the 20th century, it has become an increasingly sophisticated, targeted and, more latterly, subtle exercise in the promotion of tobacco consumption. It follows trends, fashions and societal changes and adapts accordingly. For example, when there was a decrease in adult male smokers, advertising then focused on women and young people. Advertisements showing women smoking and praising the qualities of tobacco were common, and they were backed up and reinforced by widespread images of movie stars up on the screen with smouldering eyes blowing smoke into the face of their captive male. They were lasting images of the power and the glamour of smoking for women.The clear interest of the tobacco industry in attracting women was evident from their high levels of advertising in women's magazines prior to the ban on advertising in magazines and newspapers. Cigarettes were consistently among the most advertised—if not the most advertised—product among popular women's magazines. Since the 1992 ban on advertising in all but limited circumstances, the tobacco industry has focused on sports advertising. Not coincidentally I suggest, sports advertising and promotion by their very nature appeal to the young. Notwithstanding the limited opportunities for tobacco advertising, we have seen tobacco continued to be sold and promoted as something that is glamorous, hip, or whatever.Just take the Grand Prix. In 1998, Rothmans retained the right to sponsor the Williams team at Melbourne's Formula One race, which was exempted under the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act. Under the deal, Rothmans pumped $50 million into the team, with the cars and the suits featuring the Winfield logo. You might say, `So what?' But according to research that had already been done at Adelaide's 1989 Grand Prix, the Marlborough logo, for comparison, gained more than a third of the coverage of cars and perimeter fencing bearing the cigarette brand name. Experts say that repeated exposure can have a powerful and positive effect on viewing attitudes. I do not believe anyone could deny that advertising affects consumption behaviour and that cigarette advertising influences people's decisions to smoke and their general smoking behaviour, particularly among young people.All I need to say on this score is that in 1999 AC Nielsen listed the top 100 selling product names. In the top five on this list, four featured cigarette brands. But there have been other more pertinent studies which impact on people's sensitivity to tobacco promotion. With qualifications in mind, some findings from a number of broadly scoped studies are useful to consider. Data from 22 high income countries that reduced advertising either partially or through complete bans indicates that comprehensive bans on promotion reduce smoking. But interestingly, the finding was that more limited or partial bans have little or no effect. This was according to a World Bank report in 1999. So comprehensive bans on tobacco promotion reduce smoking; anything less has little effect. Another similar study of 100 countries found that consumption trends in countries with near complete and comprehensive bans decreased much more steeply than countries without such bans. There have been studies on increases in adolescent uptake of smoking in the US, even in the context of increased prices, after they have been exposed to an expanded marketing budget and increased exposure to advertising. There have also been some more focused, perhaps non-economic controlled, studies including the increased susceptibility to tobacco use after exposure to tobacco promotions. Articles in the Lancet in 1997 concerned boys who cited motor racing as their favourite television sport being nearly twice as likely to become regular smokers than boys who did not watch motor racing. There was a report in the British Medical Journal in 1999 that experimentation was significantly higher among a group of children who watched tobacco sponsored cricket matches than those who did not. It seems that children are most aware of the cigarette brands which are most frequently associated with sporting events on TV. A recent study in the United Kingdom indicated that 47 per cent of primary school children in this study associated the brand names Marlborough and John Player with excitement and fast racing cars; that was their connection. I think that is a rather interesting analysis of the impact.Closer to home, there has been evidence to link tobacco sponsorship of sport and children's preferred brands of cigarettes. In New South Wales and Queensland, Winfield was the most popular cigarette smoked by children aged between 11 and 18 years—Winfield sponsored the rugby league competition, the leading winter sport in those states. In South Australia, Escort cigarettes led the teenage market and in that state Escort sponsored the Australian football competition. Peter Jackson and Winfield were both leading sponsors of the VFL and the preferred choice of juvenile smokers was Peter Jackson and Winfield. Using sport as a means of pushing smoking has had some very subtle effects. Tobacco sponsorship cleverly links a sport's image with cigarettes in the minds of everyone associated with it. As has been reported, by doing so it leads us to believe the lie that smoking is for winners and not for losers.18:00:0019155Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I will not take too much time of the House tonight. The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 seeks to finally bring to a close the ability of the health minister to grant an exemption from the ban on tobacco advertising for sporting or cultural events of international significance. That is a good thing, but it would be further improved if the amendment to this bill proposed by my colleague the member for Jagajaga was adopted, which would mean that only events similar to those exempt prior to 1 October 2000 would be considered for further exemptions up to 1 October 2006.While the ideal situation would be to bring tobacco sponsorship to an end much sooner, this will at least ensure that the numbers and types of events that continue to accept sponsorship will be controlled. I have a bit of a conflict of interest in some respects, given my personal behaviour as a smoker. I was not a smoker four weeks ago, but then I got back on them. I am hoping not to be a smoker in a couple of weeks. In the last two to 2½ years I have actually given up cigarettes a total of five or six times and then fallen back on them again. I make the old joke that I do not find giving up cigarettes very difficult; there is only one thing I find easier and that is going back on them! I am certainly hoping that next time I give them up—which will probably be in the next week or so—will be the last time. I understand the nature of the addictiveness of nicotine and the circumstances that you face when you are smoking and I also understand very clearly the health dangers.As an adult smoker, I find the tobacco industry's claim that tobacco sponsorship is about maintaining product loyalty rather than recruiting new smokers, particularly younger smokers, very hard to take seriously. There have been many international reports and studies that show both tobacco advertising and sponsorship have more effect on the behaviour of adolescents than they do on product loyalty, which in these economic rationalistic times is driven more by cost than by Michael Schumacher. A study published in 1997 by the well-respected British medical journal, the Lancet, looked at the effect of tobacco sponsorship of Formula One racing on boys aged between 12 and 13. The results are pretty damning: The research, by a team of Cancer Research Campaign scientists led by Professor Anne Charlton of Manchester University, surveyed more than 1000 boys aged between 12 and 13 years old in two interviews a year apart. The research found that, of those non-smoking boys who had declared themselves interested in motor racing in the first interview, 12.8 per cent had taken up smoking both by second interview. The figure for those who said that they weren't interested was 7 per cent. The study also found 27 per cent of those who watched motor racing could recognise the name Marlboro, compared to less than 17 per cent of those who did not.Other speakers have also mentioned the nature of colour identification with respect to Formula One racing—the red and white Marlboro cars, which is something which is very well recognised by those who watch it, and it really gets across an advertising intent. Further research from the United States has shown that cartoon like figures, such as Joe the Camel—used to promote Camel cigarettes—have more appeal for teenagers and people in their early 20s than those of us who are long-established smokers. Tobacco sponsorship is about adding to the smoking ranks at the front end to balance the loss through death or, hopefully in my case, renunciation at the other.The only other major area of recruitment is the Third World. Like children, this is a vulnerable group to target. One of the unfortunate consequences of countries like Australia banning tobacco sponsorship of sporting and cultural events will be the industry moving them to more fertile environments. For developing countries, this will be difficult to resist. This is illustrated by the fact that, in Australia, an economically stable and relatively rich, developed country—even under this government—it will in the end have taken 14 years to phase out tobacco sponsorship, with the only reason for the delay being economic. How will less wealthy countries be able to resist the monetary drawcard?Issues associated with tobacco control measures in developing countries were acknowledged by the World Health Organisation in its 1998 announcement that established the framework convention on tobacco control. In the announcement, the 52nd World Health Assembly called on the director-general to:initiate development of a WHO framework convention on tobacco control in accordance with Article 19 of the WHO Constitution;recognizing the need for multisectoral strategies, including the involvement of other multilateral organizations and nongovernment organizations, to foster international consensus and action on development of WHO framework convention on tobacco control and possible related protocols;being mindful of the many constraints, including resource constraints, faced by a number of countries in the development and implementation of the WHO framework convention on tobacco control and possible related protocols;being also mindful of the fact that tobacco production is a significant source of earnings in many developing countries;being aware of the urgent need to speed up work on the proposed WHO framework convention on tobacco control and possible related protocols so that they may serve as a basis for multilateral cooperation and collective action on tobacco control.As members of the WHO, we share the responsibility to help developing countries find ways of not resorting to tobacco sponsorship to support cultural activities. One of the other subtle arguments pushed by the industry supporting the value of tobacco sponsorship is that, if they do not do it, who will?I would briefly like to provide you with a successful solution to this problem in more ways than one. A study published in Tobacco Control, a sister journal to the British Medical Journal, reported on the outcomes of a West Australian initiative that saw the WA Health Promotion Foundation, Healthway, replace tobacco sponsorship of sports, racing and cultural events with its own sponsorship funded by tobacco tax and messages. That study said: RESULTS: Tobacco replacement and other sponsorship projects achieved comparable performance in publicity for health messages and in healthy structural change, but replacement projects achieved a fourfold higher level of direct population reach for a given amount of funding. Structural change towards a smoke-free environment occurred more often in tobacco replacement projects and a permanent smoke-free policy was achieved in 47% of projects, compared with 15% in other sponsorship projects.It went on to say:A comprehensive ban on tobacco sponsorship linked to health promotion activities funded by tobacco tax delivers potential public health benefits that exceed those achieved by prohibition of tobacco sponsorship alone. Tobacco replacement venues offer opportunities for environmental modification, promotion of anti-smoking messages, and targeting groups that are hard to reach. As other speakers have said, these are issues which need to be addressed. This is an impressive model. Not only do you achieve continued sponsorship of sporting and cultural events; you can also change behaviour in a way that improves health outcomes. In summary, this bill will finally bring the multidimensional health and social problems associated with tobacco sponsorship to an end. If this could have been achieved earlier, it would have potentially saved more lives and money. It must, however, be remembered that this is only one further step along the tobacco control road. There is much left to be done to prevent our children, particularly young women, from starting to smoke and helping people such as me who are trying very hard to stop. 18:09:0019157Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 is another deserving piece of legislation that this nation will implement in the fight against what is still the largest cause of avoidable death in Australia. The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 will remove the exemption that currently exists which allows an exemption to be granted for tobacco advertising at an international or cultural event held in this country. Although tobacco advertising has been banned in the domestic sporting arena for the past eight years, major international sporting events in Australia have had this indemnity to ensure a smooth transition to the end of tobacco advertising completely. Through this bill, the ability to grant an exemption to an international sporting event will be completely removed by 2006. No new sporting event will receive an exemption past 2002. This moves Australia into line with the European Union, which has banned tobacco sponsorship at international events in 2006. This move by the EU would have had to be a major cultural change for the membership nations. Any Australian travelling to Europe, and indeed to most parts of the world, would be surprised at how quickly we have become used to restrictions on tobacco advertising in this country and how swiftly we can accept significant changes of lifestyle. Australians abroad would view glamorous adverts on billboards and in magazines in other countries with a curious fascination, as for some long forgotten era that no longer belongs in our time. Indeed, it brings it home to Australians travelling overseas how far ahead our nation is in recognising tobacco advertising and sponsorship as a direct contributor to smoking related deaths. However, it has to be said that the EU has made great progress in the last 10 years.Australia is to be congratulated on the stand it has taken on this major public health issue. We deserve the label of being a world leader in this field. I would also like to mention achievements of the Western Australian government, who were one of the first to ban smoking in many public places, particularly in restaurants. This move largely began as a workplace safety issue with, I have to say, quite a bit of consternation at the time. It was implemented in August last year and, despite some predictions of some sort of apocalypse, the transition has been smooth and Western Australians have embraced the change. The ACT government has adopted similar laws and licensed premises became smoke free in November 1998, and I understand New South Wales has followed suit. When you consider tobacco sponsorship of an industry such as sport, there could not be any two stranger bedfellows. In the biggest advertising con of the century, tobacco companies would have us believe that smoking is somehow associated with athleticism, achievement, sportsmanship, national pride, youth, fitness and the great outdoors. In reality, smoking is far more relaxed in the company of the likes of heart failure; malignancies in the tongue, the mouth, larynx, bladder, nasal cavities, middle ear and sinuses, lungs, stomach, pancreas, uterus, salivary glands and breast; respiratory malignancies; chronic obstructive airway disease; pulmonary circulation disorders; aortic aneurysms; peripheral vascular disease; and asthma, especially in children through passive smoking. Smoking is also known to cause low birth weight; miscarriage; amenorrhoea; ovulation, fertilisation and implantation defects; impotence; a decreased sperm count; peptic ulcers; and premature ageing of the skin. And this is not a complete list. Recent research has pointed to smoking as a major contributing factor to age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, which is the leading cause of blindness in Australia. In the Blue Mountains eye study completed in 1996, it was reported that there are currently 34,500 people aged over 50 with legal blindness in Australia and, of these, 80 per cent are due to AMD. Even though there is only a small group of older Australians still smoking, they were over-represented amongst AMD cases. The study also reported that smoking was significantly associated with the incidence of atrophic AMD and precursor early age-related maculopathy lesions. Smoking is thought to have a direct toxic effect on the retinal cells and may cause vessel spasms in the retina. It is also known to reduce the body's ability to absorb anti-oxidants from the diet. Putting it simply, smoking can make you go blind. Smoking is also the indirect cause of many deaths. Each year, more than 30 fire related casualties are caused by smoking and matches and more than half of fires in homes are related to people smoking. When it comes to advertising, the tobacco industry uses the argument that smoking is a decision made by the individual, irrespective of external influences. However, there is evidence that a decision to take up smoking is formed by a variety of exterior influences, particularly the promotion of tobacco in perceived glamorous industries like sport and television and even indirectly through the movies we watch. I think it is quite well established that tobacco companies, like any other company selling a product, need advertising to encourage consumers, particularly young people, to use their product. Tobacco companies make an estimated $US20 billion profit a year and therefore have plenty of money to fund their advertising budgets. An Advertising Age survey reported that, in 1996, for advertising outside the USA, Philip Morris was the ninth largest advertiser in the world. Additionally, another Advertising Age survey of Asia, Europe and the Middle East found that tobacco companies are in the top 10 of advertisers in nearly half the 50 countries surveyed. In supporting this legislation, it is worth noting the words of the World Health Organisation's Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, who said recently:The tobacco epidemic is a communicated disease.It is communicated through advertising, through the example of smokers and through the smoke to which non-smokers— especially children—are exposed.Our job is to immunise people against this epidemic.Smoking, quite rightly, can easily be described as an epidemic. According to the World Health Organisation, current smoking patterns will lead to 500 million people around the world being killed by tobacco. For most of these deaths to be prevented a substantial number of adults will have to quit and a substantial number of children will have to be discouraged from ever taking up the habit. Given that around 70 per cent of addicted adults take up smoking between the age of 13 and 17 years, the latter is the priority.We still have a long way to go, and this bill represents another step towards a goal I am sure we all share in this House; that is, to have children grow up with no knowledge of images like the Marlborough Man or, in the case of this legislation, a fit, young and successful racing car driver, jubilantly holding up the winner's trophy, with a cigarette company motive across his chest. I commend this bill to the House. 18:17:0019159Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I rise today to speak on the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 with great interest. This bill will amend the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 to the extent that it will bring forward and bring into effect the recommendations of the inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee into the tobacco industry and the cost of tobacco related illnesses. I start by saying that everybody has strong views on cigarette smoking—for or against—and the associated cost. But I think that most people would agree that advertising of tobacco products is something that should be regulated and controlled. The real question that is dealt with in this bill is what level that control should be and how it should apply. This bill deals with the phase-out of tobacco advertising at the Melbourne Grand Prix and the deadline set by the European Parliament to phase out similar events by October 2006.There currently are five events that will have exemption to renew until the October 2006 dates, and new events up until 2002. Those five are: the Australian Formula One Grand Prix in Melbourne, the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix on Phillip Island, the Australian Ladies Masters Golf on the Gold Coast, Indi Car Australia on the Gold Coast and Rally Australia in Perth. I add that these are all fine events, they are good for local economies and they bring entertainment to many people. I fully support these events. But that does not mean that, by supporting these events, I support the tobacco advertising and the promotion of tobacco products at these events. Let us get one thing straight: the tobacco companies that sponsor these events to the tune of millions of dollars do not do it because they support sport or because they support Australian sport; they do it for one reason and that is that they are going to sell more product, and their product is cigarettes and other tobacco products. They do it for more profits and they do it so that more people take up smoking or continue smoking. But I think it is more the former than the latter because it really is about new people taking up smoking. This is very clear—I do not think anyone could deny it. I do not think even the tobacco companies could look you in the eye and deny it—or maybe they could. But they should not be able to deny this because this is the reality.Who can forget the days of `Have a Winfield', the Marlboro Man and all those great ads of the seventies and the eighties? We can all remember them and probably all laugh about them. But that is just the problem: we all do remember them. They were actually very good ads. They were very effective. They were very good at doing what they were supposed to be doing; that is, getting people to smoke—getting people hooked. But we have, I think, come a long way from the days when we had Kool advertising, with prominent Australians telling our kids just how cool it was to smoke. Who could forget the denials of the tobacco companies, who said, `There's no danger here. No-one can prove irrefutably that there is any danger here.' We have come a long way since those days. We are seeing cases in America with compensation packages, I believe, in the billions. We are seeing admissions by tobacco companies that, yes, there is a danger. We have seen a whole heap of warning signs. We have certainly come a long way. In fact, there now are laws that cigarette product packets have to carry warning signs that say that smoking is harmful, that smoking causes lung cancer, that smoking can damage the unborn child and that smoking causes death. But, with all these restrictions and warning labels, with the better educational campaigns, with all the millions that governments around the world and in Australia have spent, with all the efforts in schools, with all the efforts of parents, community organisations and anti-smoking lobbies, with all that effort we have not seen a reduction in either the number of people smoking or the take-up rate of smoking. That must lead us to some conclusions, and must lead us to ask the questions: why isn't it working? What is actually going on out there?As I said, more people are smoking today. In fact, the most frightening statistics are those about young people taking up smoking in droves. They are just falling over themselves to get to tobacco products, particularly young women, which is very disturbing. All the other speakers before me on this bill—and all of those who will follow me will do this also—gave you all the details, all the percentages, all the dollars and everything else associated with smoking related statistics about take-up rates and about the cost. It is all startling. It is all huge. It is all in the billions of dollars, and it is costing lives. Thousands and thousands of lives are being lost every year simply through death associated with tobacco products. So I do welcome this bill. I think this bill contains some very good measures. I believe that we need to look at further steps, further measures, to actually halt the trends of young people taking up smoking and young people continuing to smoke. My words in this debate are not about denigrating or attacking smokers themselves. They do have a right to smoke, and I do not want to encroach on their right to smoke, as long as they do not encroach on the rights of others not to participate in their smoking. We have got legislation and we have got regulations to deal with that. What I would like to see, though, is more people actually giving up smoking. I do understand just how hard that is to do, because tobacco smoking—as is widely reported—is as addictive as heroin and, as is reported, more difficult to actually give away. Therefore, it is not so hard to understand why so many people who smoke fight a lifelong battle with this addiction to this product.I am sure this debate is not about confessions, but I have already heard one. I am sure there will be a couple of others. People who speak on this bill will actually say they are either smokers or ex-smokers. I happen to be an ex-smoker. It has been about eight or nine years since I gave up, though I have to admit I still crave for the odd cigarette. And on occasion I fail to resist, I fail the test. This just proves to me and people I have talked to who have given away this habit just how powerful this drug is, just how addictive this drug is. I say that, as I said, not as a confession but just to make the point that we should not be giving a leg-up to companies that peddle these products. They do very well on their own without our assistance. It is a real tragedy.I do not apologise for being hardline in my views on restricting the ability of tobacco companies to actually advertise and peddle their product, particularly to our youth. This is at the core of what I hope this bill is about and what I hope that anybody who is debating this bill actually looks for, because I do not believe that the measures we put in place through this will actually be about really getting people to stop smoking or about people continuing to smoke and those sorts of issues; it is really about trying to halt the take-up rate. It is about new people, young people, taking up smoking. If you are 30, 40 or 50 years of age and have never smoked, I would say it is pretty unlikely that you would just take it up because you saw a Formula One driver with `Kool Cigarettes' or `Marlboro' written on the car. But if you happen to be a 15-year-old or a 16-year-old you might be influenced—in fact, I would say you will be influenced—by that type of advertising. That, to me, is what the crux of this debate is about, and hopefully this bill is about, and that is ensuring that the restrictions on tobacco advertising discourage young people from taking up smoking.I keep mentioning young people, because I believe that they are the targets of these advertising campaigns and sponsorships. Do not be fooled by claims that advertising is not to increase the number of smokers. Tobacco companies will tell you, `Advertising is not about that. We understand the issues. We have a really good social conscience. We are good corporate citizens. We do not want to promote new people taking up smoking.' `What this advertising sponsorship is about,' they will tell you, `is to support the sport.' And they say it is to get people to change brands; that is, to go from brand X to brand Y.What a load of garbage. It has nothing to do with changing brands; it is about growing their market. It is about ensuring they have a future market. It is about making sure that their product survives in the future. And it will not survive in the future if they do not get new customers. And those new customers only come from one section of our community, and that is our young people. That is where those new customers come from. That is who they target. They do not spend billions of dollars internationally just for the hell of it, because they think it is a great thing and because they are good corporate citizens. They spend those dollars to get people to take up for the first time this very addictive habit, and to take it up in a way that in a sense is from cradle to grave. Sport and smoking is a bit of a paradox, really, when you think about it: one is supposed to be good for you; the other is obviously very bad for you. In fact, it will kill you. Nonetheless, for years tobacco sponsorships have been growing widely among our sporting events, when we really do not need to have that type of product advertised at sporting events at all. I am sure there will be arguments from the sporting bodies, the events and the tobacco companies that without those very serious dollars those events will become extinctthat we will lose the Grand Prix, we will lose the golf and we will lose the cricket.I do not want that to happen. I really do not. I enjoy some of those events. I think they are quite good events. And, like I said earlier, they are good for the economy. But if that is the outcome, if that has to be the cost, then so be it. Let somebody else come along and sponsor those events for less money. If that is going to be the cost to our society—that we get a little bit less cricket or a little bit less grand prix or Formula Ones—then I think that is a small cost to pay in comparison to the cost that we are currently paying. When I hear those arguments, I just think they are completely shallow arguments that can be seen through straightaway in terms of what the argument really is about, and that is just to get more people hooked. There should be no stone unturned in the process of restricting the advertising potential of tobacco products. In fact, there needs to be further restrictions in terms of the visibility of tobacco products in stores and the marketing capacity for tobacco products.So I think, while this bill is very good, it probably does not go far enough. There need to be further amendments or other changes that would ensure the visibility of these products is restricted. It is a bit like when you are at the point of sale in a supermarket and the clever marketers stick those lollies designed for six- to ten-year-olds at what just happens to be their eye height so you have the candy bars and soft drinks at the right height during those big queues. I think most parents have experienced that, even if they do not know exactly what is going on at the checkout. The kids get a bit irate and you see the kids saying, `Mummy, Daddy, I want this. I want these lollies.' It is because the marketers know where to place products. They know how to get them right in front of you, right at you, so not only will you want them but there is huge pressure there. That pressure comes from not only the marketing in store but also the advertising, the image and the associations that you have with those products.So it is quite clever of them, but that does not mean that people do not understand or that people do not know what is going on and that something cannot be done about it. I am not saying that we should remove chocolate bars or drinks in particular or anything else from the supermarket point of sale area—that might be a campaign for mums and dads or somebody else to take up a bit later on—but I think there definitely need to be some further restrictions put in place in terms of the visibility of tobacco products. If we are going to be serious about trying to prevent young people taking up smoking, that would be a sensible way to go. I do not think we are going to change the minds of those people who already smoke, because they are old enough to make their own decisions—to decide whether or not they want to continue smoking—but what I am concerned about is young people taking up smoking for the first time.These products cost the taxpayer, as I said earlier, an incredible number of health dollars and an incredible number of campaign dollars every year. It is something that you just cannot walk away from. I understand arguments from smokers about their right to smoke and so forth, but I also understand that these all come at a cost, and that cost is very substantial. No matter where you look, smoking and smoking advertising are in your face—from when you go to the newsagent to get your morning paper to even seeing quit smoking campaigns on television. As disgusting as some of those images are, I think sometimes even the most disgusting images rather than turning you off actually almost numb you to the reality, and therefore in some way have the reverse effect. I do not know if I have any particular evidence about that, but just from speaking to people who are smokers about some of the quit campaigns and other things, we really have to look seriously at the effect of all of this bombardment—of having tobacco products in our faces every day. Tobacco related illnesses are one of the biggest killers of Australians, estimated to cost a staggering $12.7 billion in health care and other costs each year. That is an absolutely staggering amount. But what is most frightening, as I said earlier, is who is being targeted by these advertising campaigns and why they particularly choose sporting events. As I said, they target adolescents. They do that because young people are impressionable and more sensitive to commercial promotions than adults might be. Marketing to kids is a cinch because if kids think other people, especially adults, behave that way then they think why shouldn't they imitate that behaviour. Isn't it typical, I think, that when you talk to kids they say, `It is typical of an adult. You tell us not to do something, but there you are doing it yourself.' There are a lot of problems associated with all of these issues. The reality is that, if a cigarette brand is associated with a particular sport, those who follow that sport are more likely to take up smoking—not just smoking itself but smoking of that brand. I think that is great evidence and gives great weight to the argument about actually banning tobacco advertising—and sponsorship for that matter of particular events. But if you are unsure about any of these things, just remember what I said earlier about why tobacco companies advertise at and sponsor cricket and Formula One. It is because these are glamorous sports and they are watched by many people, particularly young people—and young people are the targets.In Russell Crowe's TheInsider movie released just recently the billions of dollars in class action money show that tobacco companies are finding it harder and harder to defend their product. But regardless of the behavioural trend of smoking, the trend is still upwards and there is increasing usage of tobacco by teenagers between the ages of 14 and 19. With the percentage of adults smoking remaining relatively stable, does the marketing ploy of `get them hooked while they are young' really exist? I would ask: is it really a cradle to grave marketing approach? I would say that it is. Young people, especially young women, are taking up the habit in an effort to conform to the misguided conceptions that they either look cool or will not put on weight—or that there will be some other associated benefit because they smoke. These are the images that are put across.This promotion has been undertaken in many ways—for example, through the placement of advertisements in movies and TV shows. There was also a recent report in the Age about tobacco companies using sweeteners such as honey, liquorice extract, cocoa and peppermint oil to make their product taste better. Their argument was: `Why can't we make our product more tasteful or likeable'—or something to that extent—`for our current consumers?' Again, I would say: look at the words of previous speakers and at what I said earlier—it is not about their current customers. They want to put peppermint into cigarettes but that is not so that somebody who has been smoking for 30 years suddenly says, `Geez, isn't that fantastic. This cigarette tastes a lot better.' I do not think these people really care too much whether there are going to be peppermint flavoured or liquorice flavoured cigarettes on the market. Again it is a direct ploy to get young people to start for the first time—it is to get them hooked.That is what these experiments by cigarette and tobacco companies are for. Why else would you want to put peppermint oil or liquorice or honey—sweet additives—into your product to make them taste better? It is because for young people taking up smoking cigarettes do not taste good—they are not nice. They might struggle through it just to look cool. The tobacco marketing experts have sat around in a little focus group and said, `How are we going to get the young kiddies hooked? What are we going to do to get these people to like smoking really early on—to get them hooked even earlier?' Research by the World Bank has shown that high-income countries that have banned all cigarette advertising showed significant reductions in take-up rates of smoking, whereas limited bans showed no reduction in smoking at all. (Time expired)18:37:0019163McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 raises a range of policy issues about, and philosophical approaches to, a fundamental health problem that faces all Australian governments. We have had 30 years of debate about the effect of tobacco products on individual Australians. We have had the impact of the commercial power of the tobacco companies, in Australia, in America and worldwide. We have had the impact of individuals' attitudes towards smoking and their claim that they are entitled to use these legal products, which is similar to the argument that took place in Victoria with the introduction of seatbelts to protect individual motorists from the impact of injury. Freedom of speech comes into the argument of whether tobacco companies can portray the benefits or otherwise of their product, as does the concept of a free society that all of us enjoy in this parliament. There is also the question of whether smokers have any rights in society, whether we will have a regulated set of arrangements or whether those arrangements are for the public good against the individual's right to enjoy a legal product. Again, as the member for Scullin would be aware, there is a philosophical debate on the free market approach: whether governments can regulate in terms of advertising or the sale of this product or whether this parliament should legislate to control the sale of tobacco products because of the health risks.Smoking is an interesting problem that faces all Australians. I grew up in an era when smoking was regarded as the norm. Ex-servicemen who served in the First and Second World Wars and workers on farms, in quarries and in offices regarded it as an Australian tradition. Smoking, having a glass of beer and mateship were all regarded as the normal course of events between fellow workers and in the social intercourse between individual Australians during their recreation time. Of course, as other speakers have alluded to, the glamour that was associated with smoking by Marlboro and Camel advertisements and film stars has added a certain dimension to the tobacco industry over the last 30 years of this debate.It is a remarkable situation here in Australia—with all of these debates that many of us have been associated with in one way or another—to find the enormous peer group pressure not to smoke and not to smoke in restricted areas that is now exerted on those individual smokers who move throughout the community. We note that in Victoria and other states there are restricted areas in restaurants, office buildings and public places. That is something that would have been unheard of even as short a time ago as 10 years. We see the president of the Carlton football club giving some public face to the issue of smoking in public places or not. Certainly, John Elliot has been a point of argument—an individual who felt he had the right to smoke, when the regulations suggested that he did not have that right in certain areas. This whole argument was brought home very strongly to me at Kardinya Park Shell Stadium, the home of the Mighty Cats, where they have a sign that reads, `In the year 2001 smoking will be banned in this open-air stadium.' It would have seemed a remarkable possibility 10 or 15 years ago, if you had suggested that the law-makers of the country would be banning smoking in an open-air stadium.To what do we attribute this change that has been brought about to what some people would regard as a great Australian tradition? I would give credit to the Anti-Cancer Council, and Nigel Gray in particular, for a very courageous campaign over many years of putting clearly to the public the downside of smoking and the health risks involved. Obviously, the introduction of regulation and certain laws by state and federal government has played a part. Advertising to young people and the argument related to that have played a part in trying to change some of the attitudes. The addictive character of tobacco has been talked about, and I think the public are aware of that. We see the major public debates that have happened in the USA and in this country about advertising—and I will talk more about that in a minute. We have seen the identification of health hazards of smoking on cigarette packets and advertising, which was a major battle for those who supported that side of the argument against very strong commercial interests. Tobacco companies have enormous commercial power, and yet, in my assessment, have been deceptive in the way in which they have portrayed the tobacco product. Some of their medical experiments over the last 30 years were not as truthful as they might have been. Of course, the other argument that has faced the law-makers was the enormous revenue that was sourced to both state and federal governments. In the last financial year, as best as I can ascertain, $5.1 billion moved to state and federal coffers. Law-makers are in a somewhat ambivalent position. On the one hand we have a legal product and on the other hand a great source of revenue to governments, both state and federal. I also note the commercial power of tobacco companies, which they have been able to exert over the years, selling their product to both Western and Third World countries, running advertising campaigns and providing questionable medical evidence suggesting that tobacco was not quite a health hazard and that it was in order to sell it to consumers if they so wished.I wish to refer to two reports that the member for Scullin and I have participated in. The first one was Going for gold, which was the report on the funding of elite athletes that the House of Representatives brought down in 1989. The second report was Can sport be bought? It was a very interesting report and committee inquiry into the fundamental ability of elite athletes and various sporting groups to fund their activities. The first report brought to the attention of the parliament the problems facing our aspiring Olympic athletes in how they might be funded. The second report moved on to the problem of the funding of the more popular sports, cricket in particular.I would just like to draw the second report to the attention of the House because it does make clear some of the arguments that took place not so long ago which at the time seemed very hard to overcome in terms of tobacco advertising being here to stay. I refer to a couple of the recommendations and some of the points that were raised in the report. It talks about Commonwealth involvement and goes through some of the steps that governments, the Commonwealth government in particular, undertook during those years that had an impact on the lessening of the number of individual Australians smoking cigarettes. It states:In 1976, the Commonwealth banned the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio and in 1988 extended this ban to all tobacco products. In 1987, a ban on smoking on domestic airline flights and commuter services commenced. In 1988, smoking was banned in the Australian Public Service, Commonwealth buildings and Commonwealth-controlled hospitals.That is as reported by the then Department of Community Services and Health. It seems fair enough in the current situation, but I well recall the debate on the ban on smoking on domestic airline flights and it was a very strenuous debate that took place in this parliament and in the party rooms. The ban was considered to be an infringement on human rights, and it was a world first that the Australian parliament legislated for no smoking. Again, it was a world first that the Commonwealth moved to prevent smoking in public places.The report then refers to the national campaign against drug abuse, particularly to the expansion of the state based antismoking strategies in the area of school education and the Quit program, which many of you would be aware of. I particularly note that on the cover of our report we had the scoreboard at the MCG with, on the one hand, Fosters and, on the other hand, the Quit program. There were some anomalies, which I will refer to. In relation to the current legislation we are worried about, at that time there was debate about incidental advertising. There was a concern that if the tobacco companies did not sponsor cricket then test cricket and one-day matches would not continue. It is interesting that some of the evidence in the report talks about incidental advertising. I think it gives an understanding of the way in which the tobacco companies and one particular company were able to use the good image of cricket to sell their product. The report states: There can be no doubt that the tobacco companies have been astute in the use of the legislation, or rather the provisions.We are talking about incidental advertising. The evidence in the report states:We, the Australian Council on Smoking and Health, investigated a Benson and Hedges cricket series, a one day match, Australia versus England, played at the Sydney Cricket Ground on Wednesday 11 February 1987. Of the total playing time of five hours and 20 minutes—320 minutes—cigarette advertisements were visible and recognisable for one hour and 43 minutes—103 minutes. In other words, cigarettes were advertised for 32 per cent of the total televised playing time, furthermore cigarette advertisements by way of brand name or logo appeared on the screen not less than 1,143 times during the match.That was an indication at that time of what cigarette advertising was doing to people who associated cricket with good things. The report continues:The Committee acknowledges that the tobacco companies have made efforts to avoid targeting children in their advertising, but is concerned at the obvious adoption of cigarette smoking by children. The Committee considers that advertising directed at or promoting socially desired attitudinal changes is preferable to banning the advertising of products perceived by some to be undesirable.So at that time, which is 13 years ago, there was a difficulty in banning advertising at major sporting events, which the parliament is in the process of doing now. It is also interesting to note that the report states:The Australian Cancer Society noted that there are now four significant Australian Studies which show that children are influenced by tobacco advertising.Other members have spoken about this. The report states:The impact of television sponsorship was commented on by the Australian Council on Smoking and Health which suggested `to the children of Australia smoking is synonymous with test cricket'.Again, we had a good association from the advertisers' point of view. The report also states:The CAS claimed that each sport had the right to accept or reject sponsorship from any legal industry. Unless replacement funds are available sport cannot afford to have any legitimate legal sponsorship denied to it.Again, that argument was strenuously held by sponsors of cricket, golf and other well-known television sports. The report also states:The Tobacco Institute referred to the tobacco industries' contribution to sport and argued there was little support for any prohibition of sports sponsorship. The Institute went on to claim:Tobacco companies in keeping with the spirit of private enterprise should be allowed the freedom to decide whether they wish to support sporting and other community activities through sponsorship.So we had that attitude of mind back in 1990. I will just refer to what I view as an anomaly between support for alcohol and cigarettes. The report goes on to talk about the impact of cigarettes on health compared with alcohol and other substances. Evidence given before the committee reads: “... the consumption of tobacco at any level is harmful to your health, whereas the consumption of alcohol in moderation is okay. However, we take a fairly strong view about the association of success, particularly sporting success, with alcohol consumption. Fairly recently we participated in the review of the voluntary codes on alcohol advertising, which have now been rewritten to eliminate that association in advertising.” It goes on:The Committee is disturbed by recent advertisements which feature prominent Australian sportspersons and imply that sporting success, a good time and alcohol consumption are the ingredients of a rewarding lifestyle. I think we do have an interesting philosophical debate about alcohol advertising compared with cigarette advertising. I think the argument against cigarette advertising has been won, whereas there are some ambiguities and some misunderstandings, if we can put it that way, about the impact of alcohol.I move now to the real argument that, fundamentally, the parliament and Australia do agree that cigarette smoking is a hazard to health. That has been agreed to at long last by the cigarette industries only in the last 12 months. As reported in the Weekend Australian of June 2000: The president of the world-wide Philip Morris Group recently testified last week in a $166 billion (Australian) anti tobacco company lawsuit: “smoking is bad for your health.” It was a major revelation and acknowledgment that the tobacco companies, after 30 years of debate and denial, agreed that cigarette smoking was bad for their health. The Chairman of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation also is on the record as saying, `Smoking is a cause of lung cancer and other diseases,' which, again, is a matter that had been denied for many years.I am indebted to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee for information it provided to me from a report on the tobacco industry that it brought down in 1995. I will read a couple of the statistics that they noted. They said:Smoking has been identified as the largest single preventable agent of illness and death in developed countries. One study has estimated that smoking already kills 2 million people a year in developed countries ... In Australia the human cost of tobacco use is also substantial. In 1992, there were an estimated 18 920 deaths from tobacco-related disease.I think that figure is well documented and used in this whole debate. It goes on to say that the Australian Council on Smoking and Health estimates that tobacco: ... kills more people in Australia than the `total number killed by alcohol, drugs, AIDS, murder, suicide, road crashes, rail crashes, air crashes, poisoning, drowning, fires, falls, lightning, electrocutions, snakes, spiders and sharks'. There are a fairly big number of competing possibilities, yet smoking is top of the class. I will just note the cost of smoking. It is estimated that the cost of major tobacco related diseases is in the range of $594 million per annum and the cost of hospitalisation is in the range of $1.4 billion. The cost of smoking is well documented. This bill before the House is part of the whole program to reduce the impact of smoking on the health of Australians. The Quit program run by the state of Victoria and other states has been helpful, in my view, in identifying the nicotine and tar content of cigarettes and displaying the figures on the cigarette packets in large letters so that people fully understand where these health hazards are. I think the difficulty we have as legislators is that, whilst this product does cause health damage, it is a legal product; whereas with some other products that are legal, you are not really entitled to advertise—products such as dynamite, fireworks and certain prescription drugs. So there is background support for the bill before the House.All tobacco sponsorship will go by the year 2006, as other speakers have said. Advertising was banned in 1992. So we have the 2006 date, which is consistent with the European Union directive that tobacco advertising be phased out by that year. It has been a long battle by those involved in this debate and, inevitably, people were looking for exemptions with the Grand Prix. But in the longer run it means that this sponsorship will no longer be the case so that young Australians will not be influenced by glamour sports such as motor car racing, motorbike racing and cricket. I commend the legislation to the House. It has been a very interesting debate in terms of the philosophy to be applied. Hopefully, Australia will continue to lead the world in peer group pressure to make sure that a reduced number of people in the population smoke, because it is a health hazard (Time expired).18:58:0019166Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am very pleased to be speaking in this debate on the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 which is to amend the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992. I do not think any speaker—at least that I have heard in this debate—has thought that we should continue tobacco advertising. There is clearly a case for banning tobacco advertising because that ban rests on the inescapable fact that tobacco is the major preventable cause of death and disease in Australia today. If tobacco were not harmful and leading to death, there would be no argument for preventing advertising and promotion of tobacco products. It is for that reason that I support the opposition amendment which will mean that, instead of allowing some sports events to use tobacco advertising until 2006, the cut-off date for the new application will be back to 1 October 2000. It is somewhat amazing to me that it has taken some 29 months, since 1998 when it was initially announced that the legislation would take place, for this bill to be debated in this parliament. That gives me cause for concern. Given what we know about the health effects of tobacco use, the addictiveness of tobacco and the decades long unlawful conspiracy of tobacco companies to conceal the truth about their products, it is outrageous to me that we should be allowing them to continue to profit from the sale of tobacco, let alone to advertise in the market as if they were a harmless consumer product. Tobacco is a lethal, addictive drug. As hard as tobacco companies have tried, there is no denying this anymore. Tobacco advertising, especially at sporting events, is entirely about obscuring this truth and portraying tobacco as being just like other harmless consumer products.But tobacco is not just like any other consumer product. It is highly addictive, and kills half its long-term users. It is more appropriately compared to drugs like heroin than it is to consumer products. Just imagine allowing heroin advertising on Formula One motor cars. We know that this idea is sickening and something none of us would countenance. Dare I say it, but I am sure no-one in the general community would even countenance it. Yet it is no more sickening than tobacco advertising. Remember—and I think this point seems to have escaped at least some people—that tobacco kills far more people in this country than heroin and, in fact, is the major killer. Estimates put the tobacco death toll over the last 50 years in this country at 675,000 people. Now we have this government giving tobacco companies another six years worth of highly effective and extremely damaging advertising. I think this is not only irresponsible but lethal. It is time we stood up to tobacco companies and regulated tobacco as the lethal, pernicious and addictive drug that it is. Why do tobacco companies, unlike others, have the right to profit from selling death? I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, that 675,000 people have died as a result of tobacco related illnesses in the last 50 years. In my view, these tobacco companies, which are responsible for profiting from death, should be brought to account for the enormous toll of death and disease that they have, on purpose, inflicted over the last half century. In my view, they should not be allowed to carry on their businesses in purveying and selling tobacco products, let alone advertise them, in this new century. I refer to an article which was published in the Age on 17 January called `Clearing smokescreens'. In it is an apposite quote from our Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard. It says: ... Mr Howard was quoted in the Age on 19 March 1999 as saying of drug traffickers: `I don't think there's anybody in the Australian community who has anything other than maximum contempt and zero tolerance for those who seek to make money out of human misery and human suffering.' The Prime Minister and his government are sanctioning tobacco advertising by companies which are responsible for 675,000 deaths in the last 50 years. The Prime Minister, despite that rhetoric, is sanctioning the continuation of the advertising of tobacco products until 2006. Tobacco companies continue to make millions and millions of dollars selling a product that we know is highly addictive and which kills about half of its long-term users. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure if you are aware of it, but about 50 Australians each day die from tobacco related illnesses—some 18,000 each year. Yet this government is sanctioning the continuation of tobacco advertising until 2006. Tobacco executives disguise themselves in suits. They are not your scraggy pusher with little plastic bags of white powder, standing on street corners selling an addictive drug that kills people—heroin. They sit in the boardroom in their suits. They are spared the contempt and the legal condemnation that we direct at other drug pushers. How are we supposed to reconcile all this with our attitude to other illicit drugs, drugs which are illegal in this country, drugs which we know kill Australians, drugs which we know kill many young Australians? How can we sanction this activity which kills young Australians and which kills Australians at the rate of 50 a day? The reason is that tobacco executives are responsible citizens. They are chairmen and directors of boards who have shareholdings—Australian citizens who have shares in companies which peddle death. We have a Prime Minister who, as the quote from the Age of 19 March aptly illustrates, says he is `tough on drugs'. This is clearly not true. It is obvious to anyone with any semblance of logic that, if you accept the proposition that tobacco kills 50 people a day despite the fact that it is a legal drug, its consequences on our community are enormous. Yet we have a process whereby this government has not only contemplated but accepted the proposition that we should allow the continuation of albeit a limited amount of advertising of tobacco products until the year 2006, because of the value to the sporting world. What a contradiction! It is a contradiction which I know should be obvious and is obvious to the bulk of the Australian community.This government is doing little to address any real mechanism to prevent the biggest killer drug of all in this country, tobacco. What is more, we have a Prime Minister whose party not only allows that, but allows the killers, the directors of tobacco companies, the members of the tobacco company boards, to host sessions of his party's national conference. So he is prepared to share the same room with these people who are selling a product which is killing 50 people a day in Australia. I know that tobacco companies spread their activities, and some are involved in the production of food and other items, trying to become more acceptable in the community. But they will only get acceptance in my eyes on the day they stop selling tobacco, the day they stop advertising tobacco products, the day they stop peddling this tool of death.We know that tobacco companies have developed incredibly sophisticated product engineering techniques to make their products more and more addictive. Former tobacco company employees, as we know, have testified to this effect. Internal tobacco company documents uncovered through litigation have also put this beyond doubt. It is not enough that tobacco companies continue to sell an addictive product that kills. No: not only is that not enough, but they have found ways of making the product even more addictive—and the Prime Minister shares his table with them—making it harder and harder for their consumers to quit, and overriding consumer choice.What I think we need in this country is a full scale inquiry into the way the tobacco companies are actively trying to addict consumers to the lethal drug that they now sell, which they have sold and which has cost 675,000 Australians their lives in the past 50 years. We need to put a stop to this activity as soon as possible. I do not know what form that inquiry should take, but there are obviously many opportunities for it. There could even be, might I say, a royal commission. But they have to be held to account for the lethal drug which they sell. How many more lives must be lost to this addiction? How many more billions of dollars will tobacco companies be allowed to make before we do something to stop the toll? Tobacco companies have got away with murder for the last 50 years—and unfortunately it appears that, in terms of allowing them to continue to advertise this product of death, the government continues to approve it.It is my view that this is an act of gross negligence on the part of a government that should know better. Frankly, I am sick and tired of not only the Prime Minister but his health minister getting up on their high horse and saying what they have done for the health of Australians, promoting their initiatives on private health insurance—while at the same time sanctioning the sale and advertising of a product that kills Australians. You cannot have it both ways. You are either for us or agin us; and I am afraid that the Prime Minister, his government and the minister for health are agin us—because they seem happy to allow the tobacco companies to continue their advertising campaigns so that more and more Australians will ultimately feel the wrath of this product and die as a result of it. It is not fair; it is not reasonable; it is not responsible—and, of course, it is damned hypocritical. In May of this year, the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Council on Smoking and Health awarded the Northern Territory the Dirty Ashtray award. It is not something to be proud of. The Northern Territory government is to be condemned for allowing the Territory to be exposed to this community criticism. The reason they are being exposed to this community criticism is that they rank as the poorest performer over a number of criteria in terms of controlling tobacco and tobacco related products in the community.You need to know that the Northern Territory government collects up to $62 million a year from tobacco revenue and spends only $500,000 a year on tobacco control. In the Northern Territory, 37 per cent of the population are smokers. In some Aboriginal communities, up to 70 per cent of adult Aboriginal people are consumers of tobacco. The Australia-wide figure, by contrast, is 25 per cent. One in five deaths in the Northern Territory is tobacco related. Australian Institute of Health figures show that 95.5 out of every 100,000 Territorian men and 92.8 out of every 100,000 Territorian women suffer from lung cancer. Nationally the figures are 60.1 for males and 23 per cent for females, per 100,000.It is reasonable for us to say that this piece of legislation, whilst seeking to end tobacco advertising by 2006, should end tobacco advertising by 1 October 2000. It is my strong view—my very strong view—that it is not enough for this government to try explaining away the purpose for extending this period to 2006 because of conformity with some other standard. This government, this parliament has a responsibility for the health of all Australians. This government, this parliament has a responsibility to stop the deaths—the 675,000.We are responsible in part. We have sanctioned the advertising of tobacco. We have sanctioned its use. Yet it is clear that, in terms of its impact on the Australian community, it has been the most perfidious of all drugs—far worse than alcohol, far worse than heroin, far worse than any other basket of drugs that you might like to name. Yet this government has the hide to come into this parliament and expect us—as representatives of the Australian community, as parents, as brothers and sisters, as neighbours—to sanction the continuation of advertising of this product which might kill our brother or sister, our cousin, our neighbour, our son or daughter. Are we acting responsibly? Are we acting fairly? In my view, the only course of action for this parliament, this House, to follow is to support the opposition amendment and prevent tobacco companies from continuing to advertise this addictive murderous drug beyond 1 October 2000.Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned.Miscellaneous1916910000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Mr Speaker has received the following message from the Senate:The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The extremely high price of petrol as a consequence of OPEC's actions in forcing up the price of world crude oil and the increase in the amount of tax on petrol due to:(1) the Government's failure to reduce the excise on petrol required to honour its promise that the GST would not add to the cost of petrol, instead leaving a shortfall of up to 1.5 cents a litre:(2) the subsequent indexation increase on 1 August 2000 which has led to a further 0.7 cents per litre in petrol tax; and(3) the GST impost on the higher petrol price compounding and adding a further 1 cent per litre.The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this resolution.Motion (by Mr Tuckey):That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question is that the motion be agreed to.19:19:0019169Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move:That the words `at the next sitting' be omitted and the word `forthwith' be substituted. I move this motion for the following reasons. The Prime Minister and all members of the coalition have been caught out deceiving the Australian people by breaking their promise that the price of petrol would not rise because of the GST. Also, the Australian Automobile Association Executive Director, Mr Lachlan McIntosh, confirmed today on JohnLaws's program that `the Prime Minister and the government deliberately increased Commonwealth excise by 1½ cents per litre' and that the GST has added further tax to the 1½ cents a litre increase because it has increased above the 90c strike price. Every coalition member should be forced to vote on this, because they deceived the Australian people.Motion (by Mr Tuckey) proposed:That the member be not further heard.A division having been called and the bells being rung—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPLS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—What did you say about going outside?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Yes, what did you say then about going outside?Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I heard the intervention by the member for Batman. I have to say to him that I heard nothing said by the minister at the table. I recognise the member for Batman.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Just remember what the insult was.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I ask that the invitation for members on this side of the chamber to step outside of the House for obvious reasons—it implies intimidation and threats—be withdrawn by the minister.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member. If the honourable minister made that statement, which I did not hear, it would be unparliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw if he made that statement.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I was called an oaf and, as such, suggested that that remark could be made outside. The deputy leader has the opportunity to make it any time he likes.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the minister. I wonder whether the minister could indicate who called him an oaf.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition called me an oaf. It will be recorded in Hansard.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Thank you very much. I am trying to resolve the situation. I would suggest that it might be appropriate and might satisfy all concerned that, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did call the minister an oaf, he should withdraw that, and if the minister did say to step outside, he should withdraw that.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask that the deputy leader withdraw at the appropriate time his calling me an oaf, which is quite insulting. The remark I made was that if he wants to say those sorts of things he can do that outside. That is a different thing.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Deputy Speaker, with all respect to the minister, the request was that we step outside. That implies a deliberate physical threat to the people on this side of the House. He should be required to withdraw it unconditionally.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—To minimise excitement, the member for the Northern Territory might also like to withdraw the comment he made during that debate, but otherwise perhaps everyone should take a deep breath.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I regret to say, particularly as next week is Hearing Awareness Week, that I did not hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say `oaf,' I did not hear the minister at the table and I did not hear the member for the Northern Territory. As I did not hear any of the comments, I do not propose to take any action at this stage. I will see that my hearing is tested, as everybody should have their hearing tested in Hearing Awareness Week, and I will try to do better next time.Question put.19:20:00The House divided.(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 72Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Lawler, A.J.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.59Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Latham, M.W.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahara, C.J...Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Draper, P.Macklin, J.L.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.19:29:0019171McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—This decision will burn in opposition members right through, every day until the next election—Motion (by Mr Tuckey) put:That the member be not further heard.19:30:00The House divided.(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 73Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Lawler, A.J.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.60Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Latham, M.W.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Draper, P.Macklin, J.L.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Tuckey) agreed to:That the question be now put.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being past 7.30 p.m., I propose the question that the House do now adjourn. The honourable member for—Opposition members—You missed it!SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—I had a motion before the House that the question be put.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I accept the advice of the minister. He is absolutely right.Opposition members—You had called the member for Forrest.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.5I4McMullan, Bob (Manager of Opposition Business)Mr McMullan—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I put it to you that after you put the question quite properly that the House do now adjourn you then called the member for Forrest, which means that we had begun the adjournment debate, which means that the minister missed the opportunity to put the motion which any competent minister would have moved. We are now in the adjournment debate and that should continue, and we should come back to this item tomorrow morning.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In actual fact, if you consult the Hansard when it is published, you will find that I was in the process of calling the member for Forrest. I never got to the point of calling him. I was in the process—Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I was in the process of calling him.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—This is a rort, a stunt. You called him and you know it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Watson! Let me tell the House: I was in the process of calling the member for Forrest. I did not do it because the noise on my left attracted my attention. I saw that the member for Cowan was seeking the call. At that point, the minister rose and drew my attention to the fact that I had omitted to put the question.5I4McMullan, Bob (Manager of Opposition Business)Mr McMullan—We sympathise with the problem that you have, Mr Deputy Speaker. 5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—We can't save you from yourself.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—That is right. Nevertheless, you cannot rescue this mistake that has been made by the minister. Whether it was your intention to call the member for Forrest or the member for Cowan, we were in the adjournment debate. The minister did not rise. Clearly, there is no question that the member for Forrest rose before the minister. There is no question that the member for Cowan rose before the minister. Both were entitled to the call and should have received the call. In our view, you made the correct decision and did give them the call. But if you did not you should have because they were both clearly, unquestionably, on their feet before the minister. We are, therefore, unquestionably in the adjournment debate. That is how we should proceed, and this matter should be brought on at 9.30 tomorrow morning when the House resumes, and we will be happy to debate it then. SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, the facts of the case were that the motion before the House was that the amendment proposed by the opposition be now put. That was the question before the House. That was voted on and the appropriate next step was for yourself, as you have done, to call on the motion, the motion being that the consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting, because that was what the amendment was moving towards. You had not done that and I was unable therefore to vote on it, and once that matter was dealt with the next and appropriate motion was that the House do now adjourn. The matter had not been concluded. The fundamental question had not been dealt with and it was obvious that that should have been done. I suggest to you that your readjustment of that arrangement was exactly correct and nobody else had been called. I could not respond to the next matter until the matter under consideration had been dealt with.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have heard the Manager of Opposition Business and the minister. I have listened very carefully to their arguments. I believe that the only course that should be followed is for me to say that I erred and put the wrong motion, and that was inappropriate. I did not actually call either the member for Forrest or the member for Cowan. I might perhaps think therefore that the debate on the adjournment had not actually started. The reality was that the occupant of the chair should have put the next motion, which was that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Just pull stumps and blame—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If you wish, you can take any action you like. I now put the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 19:40:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 74Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Lawler, A.J.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.59Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Latham, M.W.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahara, C.J...Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Draper, P.Macklin, J.L.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment1917410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being after 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My understanding is that we just defeated the amendment. Don't you have to put the motion? We are not going to divide on it. We are quite happy to carry the motion, but I think we had better put it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I shall inquire. In fact, as the Manager of Opposition Business is aware, I have just come into the chair. If it is the wish of the minister at the table to put the motion—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—No, the motion has now been dealt with because of the nature of the vote, Mr Speaker. The motion was that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. The question has been resolved in the affirmative. The question was that—Opposition members interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—No, the amendment was defeated.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPSJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—No, we didn't because we did not vote on the amendment. The question put to the House was that the words proposed to be omitted—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister at the table cannot enter into a debate across the table. It is necessary for the purposes of the parliament for us to resolve precisely what is needed. If the Manager of Opposition Business, in an effort to facilitate the debate, believes that the motion before the chair should be that the motion be put—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—A reference to Hansard will show that the motion just dealt with was `that the words proposed to be omitted'—which was the opposition amendment—`stand part of the question.'10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I understand.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—We have therefore dealt with my original motion. In the meantime, we have had a series of `questions be put' and everything, and a problem where the last matter was left out and reinstated. The matter is therefore resolved.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I was only trying to be helpful.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I understand.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan —I think the minister is wrong, but I could not care less. I withdraw my point of order. If they are wrong, we will deal with it tomorrow.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business was, I believe, attempting to facilitate the parliament. The minister at the table has indicated that facilitation is not required. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for withdrawing the point of order. The question currently before the House is that the House do now adjourn.1917419:47:0019174Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—This Friday, 18 August, is Vietnam Veterans Day and the 34th Anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. It is a day of a much significance to the Vietnam veterans community and their families. The Battle of Long Tan, the courage, the determination and the daring of the Australian diggers in the face of vastly superior numbers of the enemy, is now part of the legend of the Anzac spirit and the rich military heritage of this nation. I do not intend to go into the details of the battle here because they are well documented. What is not part of our Australian fair go heritage is the unfair—indeed, shameful—treatment being handed out by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to the survivors of that battle.I say this because, on 2 September 1966, following the battle of Long Tan, the then Vietnamese government made arrangements to present a unit citation and individual bravery awards to the Australian diggers involved. General Thieu visited Nui Dat to present the awards but a last-minute intervention by the Australian ambassador, on the instruction of the Australian government of the day, prevented the award presentation from proceeding. The Australian government argued that the awards had not been agreed to by Her Majesty the Queen and could not therefore be made. The then Liberal government gave a commitment to the diggers that the awards could be made retrospectively after the Queen's approval had been sought and given. The embarrassed General Thieu, to his credit, still wanted to recognise the bravery of the Australian diggers. He hastily dispatched an aide to purchase some alternative awards and he ended up by presenting cigar boxes and Vietnamese dolls to the bemused Australian troops. Even today this government formally recognises that the then Vietnamese government intended to make the bravery awards, and they have admitted to this in writing.I also have a copy of a letter—the Minister for Veterans' Affairs also has a copy—to Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith, the battle commander, from Charles Tran Van Lam, former President of the then Vietnamese Senate, Ambassador to Australia and Minister for Foreign Affairs. I quote from this letter:Dear Colonel Smith,I refer to your query regarding the Vietnam National Order awards. I would like to confirm that my former Government did intend to present Awards to some 21 Officers and Soldiers of the 1st Australian Task Force for their service and gallantry at the Battle Of Long Tan at a parade held at Nui Dat on the 2nd September 1966. However, the offer was rejected by the Australian Ambassador in Saigon at the last minute on the ground that the Queen had not given approval. Consequently, although embarrassed, our President went to Nui Dat but had to present gifts rather than the awards mooted for the officers and soldiers.I understood the Australian Government of the day was to seek approval and make retrospective approval so that the soldiers could receive their awards as was the case in future years, and the desire of my Government.My Government had also intended to present all the soldiers and officers of the Company with a Unit Citation in addition to the awards for selected commanders, officers, and soldiers.I hope that you and the relevant officers and soldiers are successful in your claim to these awards as I truly believe you deserve them.There is no disputing the facts, but to this day the Australian government has not made good its commitment to these diggers. To rub salt into the wound, when this minister announced in December 1998 that Vietnamese awards could be worn by Australian soldiers he deliberately excluded the Long Tan diggers but did not tell them at that time. When he set up the review of the Vietnam end-of-war list, he deliberately constructed the terms of reference to exclude them and they were excluded also in the Mohr report.This minister makes much on occasions of remembrance and ceremony of the courage of the Australian digger. He will no doubt be out there rubbing shoulders with Vietnam veterans on 18 August. In my view, it is time for this minister to stop hiding behind the bureaucrats and find the guts to stand up for these diggers. We do not want the minister to lay his life on the line but we do want him to find the courage to support those who did. These blokes are entitled to justice and, if this minister lacks the courage to make the right decision, he should stand down in favour of someone who will.1917519:51:0019175Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—The initiatives that the coalition government has undertaken in the telecommunications area have resulted in great benefits to the Australian community in cheaper long-distance calls, cheaper STD calls and greater service in most cases. But I wish to raise a concern tonight about an incident that happened to a constituent of mine. On 27 July a lady—a very elderly lady who resides at a community nursing home in my electorate—rang my office to say she was distressed to find that her phone had somehow been transferred from Telstra to AAPT. When she rang her daughter in Brisbane using the STD line, it announced that she was using AAPT, which she had made no effort to change to from Telstra. She was very distressed about this. She had tried for a couple of days to get it fixed and had not made any progress. She spoke to my senior adviser who rang AAPT and spoke to a Peter there. He was very pleasant, apologised for the error and advised that he would have it fixed. Apparently, what had happened was that a person with a number with one digit different to this lady's phone number had arranged to be connected to AAPT but the number was entered wrongly into the system and that resulted in this lady's number being connected to AAPT—sounds fair enough. `We will fix it up for you.' Unfortunately, that did not happen. The next day, on 8 August, my senior adviser rang Mrs Hayes to check if the matter had been finalised, only to find that she was still quite distressed about this, that nothing had happened and she was still connected to AAPT. She was obviously a very loyal customer of Telstra. My senior adviser, Mr Lance Barrett, rang AAPT and found that he could not get to the person he wanted to speak to at AAPT and spoke to another person, who adopted the attitude that under the privacy laws he could not help and an adviser was not available. His attitude was less than adequate as far as we were concerned. He actually laughed and said that there was no-one available to talk to us in the federal member's office and when it was convenient someone would ring him back. As far as I am concerned, that is not acceptable. We were acting on behalf of an elderly constituent and trying to fix up a problem.Deregulation of the industry and adding extra players into the telecommunications system, as I said, has brought great benefits. But at the same time I want to emphasise that certainly as far as I am concerned—and I know the government is concerned—we have to ensure that there is a level of service that the Australian community expects. The attitude at that time by the representative from AAPT was not good enough. It took many other days before we actually managed to get to the bottom of the problem. Eventually, on 10 August, we were able to confirm that this lady was eventually put back on to Telstra. That is fine. We have fixed up the problem. In defence of AAPT, I appreciate the fact that I received a letter from Mr Raymond Katieli, a customer relations officer, who did apologise to us for the length of delay and stated that there was a switching problem. I accept that apology, and I am pleased that we have been able to rectify the problem for our constituent.But I believe that that raises some other issues. How was this lady's phone switched from one company to another without her permission and without her knowledge? Shouldn't there be some protection or safeguards? Shouldn't there be some checking to ensure that the number that is transferred from one company to another using the telecommunications system is in fact the correct number? Shouldn't the company that is transferring it ensure that that is correct and that in the event that there is a mistake made in the transferring of phone numbers there is an effective way of rectifying it?We also did contact during the discussions the Telecommunications Ombudsman. He was able to assist us with a number at AAPT. But it still was a very long and convoluted effort. If it was not for the tenacity both of this elderly constituent, who was very keen to get back to Telstra, and of my staff I do not believe that this problem would have been rectified today. I wanted to highlight to the parliament and to the Australian community that there were some difficulties with this. I certainly will be taking the matter further, to see if we can ensure that this sort of problem does not occur for other people in Australia and that the deregulation of the industry, the addition of more competition in the industry, brings benefits to the Australian community, not more difficulties.1917619:57:0019176Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I want to raise tonight an issue which I have raised in the parliament on a number of occasions, and that is the way in which this government—particularly the Minister for Defence and his junior minister, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mr Scott—have been dealing with the issue of Defence Force conditions. I have written to Mr Scott on a number of occasions—certainly twice, and the third time today—raising issues which have been raised with me by members of the defence forces. The initial correspondence was in relation to the question of remote locality leave travel. I will not go through the detail of what that means, but what I will say is that it is an issue of grave concern to the community of Defence Force personnel and their families in northern Australia, because it materially impacts upon their entitlements. Although I wrote to the minister on 26 June, 11 July and again today, I received a response on 18 July from the minister—following a discussion I had with him in the corridor—in which he responded to me thus: Thank you for your letters of 26 June and 11 July 2000 requesting information on issues you initially raised in the Main Committee on 21 June 2000. I have directed the department to undertake a thorough investigation of these issues, and I will write to you in more detail shortly. Thank you for your continuing interest in this matter.I want to say the minister and the government need to be put on notice that this is an issue which is causing a grave amount of heartbreak and concern amongst Defence Force personnel and their families. I have in my possession a minute from the Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshal McCormack. I want to read the minute. It is addressed to a number of people, including the Chief of the Navy and Chief of the Army. It says:1. I am very concerned with the flow-on effects to Recreation Leave Free Travel (RLFT), Remote Locality Leave Travel (RLLT) and removal travel on posting arising out of the Defence travel contract negotiated with Qantas.2. I find the new provisions totally unacceptable. The major consequence of the new provisions is that the financial entitlements associated with RLLT and RLFT have been reduced. It is patently obvious that members undertaking RLLT and RLFT and travelling on posting will be financially worse off compared to their previous entitlements.3. I am also concerned that the reduced entitlements may impact on the EPA 1999-2000. Furthermore, the new provisions are also at odds with the Defence Certified Agreement 2000-2001, which, in addition to providing for the cost of a full economy air fare, also makes additional allowance for the impact of FBT.4. My commanders are finding it increasingly difficult to dispel the perception that this is yet another erosion of military conditions of service. Accordingly, I ask that you take the necessary action to resolve the issue as a matter of urgency.Despite the clear protestations at the most senior levels of the defence forces, despite the protestations of my constituents and despite my representations the government has done nothing to remedy this situation to affect and materially improve the lives of Defence Force personnel living in northern Australia.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:0019177House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices19177The following notices were given:XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and for other purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of Range Support Facilities, Delamere Range and RAAF Base Tindal, NT.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Remediation of Defence land at Neutral Bay, Sydney.2000-08-16—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members191781917809:40:0019178Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00(9.40 a.m.)I have spoken a number of times in the Main Committee about the Senate inquiry which has been conducted into the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan on the future expansion of Brisbane airport. One of the things which has puzzled me most about that entire process is why the Liberal Party of Australia opposed the establishment of that Senate inquiry. It is also puzzling why, in the course of that inquiry—finally having been established on the basis of the majority vote of the Democrats, Independents and the Labor Party in the Senate—the Liberal Party, through its Queensland representative Senator Brett Mason, found that from his perspective there was absolutely no problem whatsoever with the manner in which the Brisbane Airport Corporation put together its master plan and the manner in which the Minister for Transport and Regional Services subsequently approved that master plan.In fact, I sometimes wonder whether Senator Mason of Queensland is simply here as an apologist for the Brisbane Airport Corporation and not here representing the interests of the state of Queensland, which is my broad understanding of the functions of senators for a particular state. Let us look at the representatives of the Liberal Party in the area of Brisbane affected by this Airport Corporation's proposed expansion. We have, of course, Senator Mason, who seems to have a particular relationship with the Brisbane Airport Corporation which escapes my understanding. We have Michael Caltabiano, who is the leader of the Liberal Party in the Brisbane City Council. I wonder where he stands in terms of the acceptability of this master plan and its intention to have a parallel runway constructed with quite significant effect right across his particular ward of Chandler in the city of Brisbane? Then we go to the new Liberal candidate for the state seat of Greenslopes who has recently been announced. I wonder where he stands in terms of the impact of this runway on the citizens who reside within the state seat of Greenslopes which would be directly affected by its construction. The connection becomes even more interesting when we look at the personalities running the Brisbane Airport Corporation. Its General Operations Manager, Mr Cam Spencer, is a member of the state conference of the Liberal Party of Queensland. He is aided and abetted by Ms Lee Crombie, who is the public affairs spokesperson for the Brisbane Airport Corporation and whose previous incarnation was as the media adviser to Santo Santoro, who leads a significant faction of the Liberal Party in Queensland. Where do Senator Mason and Mr Caltabiano and, I believe, the new Liberal candidate for Greenslopes sit in terms of their factional alignments within the Liberal Party of Queensland? They sit within the same faction as that to which Ms Lee Crombie of the Airport Corporation has also given service through her work for Santo Santoro.Recently, we went through the courts on this matter. Thursday of the week before last in Brisbane, I took an action against the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services. He tried to shut me down by using the legal resources of the Commonwealth to prevent me from taking a substantive action before the AAT. Deputy President Breen of the AAT ruled in my favour and against the Commonwealth. The matter is to be resolved by the courts. (Time expired)1917909:43:0019179Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10 (9.43 a.m.)I would like to speak today about the Natural Heritage Trust, which has been a great program over the last four years. I was particularly shocked a number of weeks ago to hear the leader of the Labor Party, Kim Beazley, telling the South Australian Press Club that the coalition government's Natural Heritage Trust was a billion dollars of `near complete failure'. The Natural Heritage Trust has invested nearly $870 million in almost 9,000 community projects across Australia, improving local environments nationwide. This so-called `near complete failure' has funded the work of many community groups in Eden-Monaro. We have, in fact, had in the order of over $6 million go into environmental work in my electorate since the formation of the Natural Heritage Trust and by far and away the bulk of that money has gone to small local community groups.These projects have included: the Riparian Willow invasion control and replacement, which has received over $87,000; a new pathway and cycleway around the foreshore of Tuross, which included a lot of stabilisation work as well; the Braidwood granites landscape restoration project; the Wonboyne Lake Ratepayers Association foreshore restoration project; and the Lilli Pilli/Malua Bay Landcare weed eradication plan. They are just five of a myriad of projects all done by local groups that have taken place in my electorate under the Natural Heritage Trust. But Mr Beazley has cast a slur on these projects by saying what he did. If you want to look at failures, you could look at the incredible failures under the Labor Party and their record on environment over the 13 years they were in power. We saw real problems with erosion and algae blooms on inland rivers, and you could just go on and on.The Natural Heritage Trust has helped Australians repair and regenerate the local environment. It has given people the chance to identify and solve environmental problems in their local community and has enhanced Australia's reputation as a clean, green nation. Unlike Mr Beazley, I believe local community based efforts are the best way to deliver for local residents and, unlike Mr Beazley, I believe we should support the efforts of our local community in trying to secure a better environment for our children. Mr Beazley's approach to key environmental issues such as salinity is to employ more bureaucrats in Canberra, to hold more meetings and to commission more research reports which will sit uselessly on the bookshelves. We would rather see the money going to community groups. Community groups such as the ones we have in Eden-Monaro have done excellent work for the environment. (Time expired)1917919179O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00 (9.46 a.m.)Here we are again! I do not know whether to be angry, frustrated or just saddened that once again I have to draw the parliament's attention to the crisis in family law in northern Tasmania. Members would be forgiven for thinking that this matter had been in some way addressed. After all, the Attorney-General did make the commitment to have a magistracy up and running in Launceston by 1 July this year.Let me once again put this matter in a historical and social context. Northern Tasmania has been without a dedicated Family Court judge since 1995, when Justice Butler moved to Hobart prior to his retirement. During that year, the then federal member, Warwick Smith, promised that Justice Butler would be replaced. On 26 April 1996, the Family Court proposed the closing of the northern registry and not replacing Justice Butler as a means of meeting budget cuts imposed by the federal government. Since then, the north of the state has been serviced by a Hobart judge and by fly-in visits from interstate judges. Whilst Justice Butler was in Launceston, we had an incredibly efficient settlement rate, which is something I think we would all like to see in family law matters. Since then, waiting lists have blown out, and the court is acknowledged by practitioners as being in crisis. Numerous appeals to the Attorney-General to replace our judge fell on deaf ears. In October 1999, the Attorney-General introduced the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999, with the support of the opposition. At the time, I made it clear that, whilst not opposing the bill, the concept of a federal magistracy was not the best nor the most efficient way to resolve the delays in the Family Court area. I outlined my concerns at the time, which included the creation of a seemingly additional layer of bureaucracy and the move away from the recognition of the characteristics of a judge, as set out by the Family Law Act.The desperate situation of the court waiting lists in Tasmania, however, led us to hope that this system might—just might—reduce some of those waiting lists. In a speech by the Attorney-General to the Family Law Third National Conference, the Attorney-General said:We must ensure that family law processes are available at a reasonable cost and deal with cases at a reasonable speed. Public dissatisfaction with delays in the Family Court has now become a serious issue. Lengthy delays undermine the `clean break' philosophy underlying the Family Law Act, creating additional costs and stress for clients and making it difficult for them to get on with their lives.They are really nice words; I just wish they had been followed up, not by more words but by action. The Attorney-General undertook that these magistrates would be up and running by 1 July this year and that there would be one located in Launceston.Interviews for the Tasmanian position were conducted in late February and early March of this year, but we are now in August 2000, with neither our 1996 promised judge nor our 1999 promised magistracy. We have around 80 cases on the waiting list, until now the Hobart judge has not carried out duties in the north since May and the available fly-in judge is involved in a very complex and time-consuming matter which has dominated, and will continue to dominate, his time to the exclusion of all other matters. So we have no judge, no magistrate, no court rules and no premises. When will the Attorney-General actually step up and address this issue? He has failed to meet his commitment, and Tasmanian families are suffering the consequences. (Time expired)1918009:49:0019180Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10 (9.49 a.m.)I rise today to bring the House's attention to the Parliamentary Education Office. During the last five weeks I have spent a great deal of time with an excellent team working through the Kimberley area of Western Australia, which is part of my Kalgoorlie electorate. I spent approximately a fortnight with them on the road. We visited a large number of schools—something like 11 schools—in the two weeks.We went to Saint Joseph's in Kununurra. We went to Kalumburu Remote Community School, where the principal is Russell O'Neill. We went to Oombulgurri Remote Community School and caught up with Lincoln Day and his staff there who are unfortunately suffering a dreadful situation because their pre-primary school had been burned down two days before our arrival, which was a tragic situation. But they are rallying around there in magnificent style and getting good quality teaching back on the road. We went to the Wyndham District High School, where the principal is Bob Steer. We went to Ngalangangpum School in Warman, where the principal, Sister Margaret Keane, is doing an excellent job providing high quality education to a great bunch of children who are attending regularly and learning well. The quality and presentation of the school was absolutely excellent. I had the privilege of talking to members of the Purnululu Remote Community School in Warmun also, although I did not, on that occasion, visit their community.Down to Halls Creek District High School, where the principal is Terri Turner. Halls Creek has primarily an indigenous population and something like 95 per cent of the school population would be Aboriginal children. The quality of education being dispensed there was quite impressive. I also visited Wangkatjungka Remote Community School, where Edie Wright, the principal, is doing an incredible job with a dedicated bunch of staff in what can only be described as extremely difficult circumstances. Then we went to Fitzroy Crossing District High School, where the principal is John Bourke, and then on to the Looma District High School and through to the Derby District High School. I also had the opportunity to speak to children on the Kimberley School of the Air.At all of those schools we delivered the message of the parliamentary system and the federal system of government, and the three levels of government in the lives of the population. I commend the efforts of the Parliamentary Education Office and the very fine work they did. The officers were Geoff Clarke, Camilla Blunden and Melinda Wise. I commend them for their great works and encourage them to continue in the future. (Time expired)1918109:52:0019181Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00 (9.52 a.m.)I rise to talk about the stolen generation case which was brought down last week and to indicate very strongly my view that this government needs to proceed to set up a reparations commission or tribunal to ensure that there is a non-litigious settlement of the issues involving the stolen generation.I must say that I am at a loss to understand how the judge could find that a thumb imprint of an illiterate person could somehow indicate support for the notion that their child should be taken away. I find it absolutely bizarre that there can be any sense of proof that that could be the case, and I do not believe there was. So to be able to draw the conclusion that the judge did I think beggars the imagination and raises serious questions about our understanding in this community of the issues revolving around the stolen generation.What we do know is that the stolen generation have been subject to vilification simply for being who they are. On 10 May this year, in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, Chris Lugg, who is a minister of the Crown, the Minister for Education, said:The fraudulent nature of Stolen Generation claims is only now becoming clear ... a distasteful revelation of false and unhistorical accusations that have been contrived by Aboriginal activists ... The main purpose of the so-called Stolen Generation claim has been the obtaining of large amounts of money ... The term was astutely and distastefully chosen. It suggested first that there had been theft of young Aborigines, mainly half castes that had emerged ... When young Aboriginals were removed it was largely at the request of, or with the consent of, their mothers and other responsible relatives and the numbers who were removed were small ... That ignores the facts. And like the court, unfortunately, which was unable to prove the facts that the stolen generation allege, Mr Lugg and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory have chosen to ignore the facts of our history. There is a deliberate falsification of our history from people who then use them to create division in our community. The truth is that the removals were forced and that they were the direct result of deliberate government policy. The truth is that the removals kept happening until the 1970s, so this is not something in the dim and distant past. As for the rationale, this is what Dr Cook, the Protector of Aborigines in the Northern Territory, had to say:Generally by the fifth and invariably the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our halfcastes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white. So there was a policy of genetic engineering that was predicated on getting children away from their families. Cook said:Everything necessary must be done to convert the half-caste into a white citizen.(Time expired)1918209:55:0019182Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10 (9.55 a.m.)The upcoming Sydney Olympics promises to be a once in a lifetime event that will be watched by the entire world. While much of the focus will be on the athletic performances, the Olympics will also be a boon for the Australian tourism industry as it is a chance to showcase our nation to the rest of the world. For many workers and volunteers employed during the Olympic period it will provide an experience unlike anything else they have experienced before, not just in Sydney and New South Wales, but in other parts of Australia.During the parliamentary recess I visited a Gladstone training organisation that had secured employment for 31 indigenous job seekers, mainly from the Central Queensland area but also from Cairns, Townsville, Hervey Bay, Ipswich, Cherbourg and Woorabinda. The organisation, Cha Cha Tavenna, sponsored training programs that involved recruiting and training 50 young job seekers in the catering section of the hospitality industry. The course was coordinated by Chris Mamalis, the owner, and Ray Brodie, and was supervised by Rosalyn Washington. At the conclusion of the their three weeks formal training, participants who successfully completed the Cha Cha Tavenna course were assessed for accreditation with Stadium Australia. Fourteen of the initial group were successful in gaining employment with Stadium Australia, and I was advised earlier this week that a further 17 from the second program have been successful in gaining employment at the Olympics in kitchen and bar areas, and some in assisting Kodak photographers. I am also told that the 31 young people are the only indigenous people employed from a structured program during the Olympics lead-up. So it is a marvellous achievement on their part. I am also proud to report that the program was made possible with the assistance of a $56,130 federal government structured training and employment project grant. In addition, two young people have also been placed at Kingfisher Bay, and another one placed locally in the community. The work experience and self-esteem gained by these 31 young people will be second to none. I understand also that these participants and others trained by Cha Cha Tavenna will be placed in various organisations, primarily in the hospitality and tourism industries, following the Olympic Games. I am delighted that the government has played a part in this project. I wish Cha Cha Tavenna, Chris Mamalis and the 31 young people every success in representing our country on the operational side of the upcoming Olympics.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. Bills19183R111219183Debate resumed from 28 June, on motion by Mr Entsch:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:0019183Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—I rise today to speak on the Trade Marks Amendment (Madrid Protocol) Bill 2000. Innovation is at the very core of economic growth in Western societies. If we look at the way innovation has fuelled economic growth over the last half century since World War II we can see that innovation and the development of research and technology, and technological change which results from it, have certainly provided the fuel for the engine of economic growth in countries like Australia, the United States and Western Europe. While it is true historically that inventors and innovations have occurred without the benefit of patent and trademark legislation, if we look at the fundamental changes in human society—the agrarian revolution and subsequently the Industrial Revolution and the invention of printing—all of these major changes occurred in a historical context without the benefit of trademark or patent type protection. We need to be aware that in those days it was very easy to keep things secret. One could invent a printing press technology, relatively easily keep that technology secret from others, and ensure one had a monopoly on that device for many years. There was an ability to prevent others from duplicating the technology, not by legal means but by the eminently practical steps of ensuring that they did not know how to do so. At about the time that the United States Constitution and, subsequently, the Australian Constitution were being written, people of that era well understood the benefit of ensuring there was a legal means of protection for innovation and invention. Whether that was to be in the form of a patent of a particular device or process or in the form of a trademark which protects names and designs for use in marketing and other branding of goods and services, they understood the importance of this and included it as a very particular and special requirement of the federal government in our respective countries. They knew that, without a proper means of legal protection for innovation and invention, there would be limited incentive for people to invest time, money and intellectual capacity in developing new and productive inventions.Unfortunately, to some extent we have lost a degree of popular understanding of the importance of these means of intellectual property protection. It is no longer quite so fashionable or well understood why we need to ensure legal protection for patents and trademarks. If people are to invest substantial sums—and these days large amounts of money and intellectual capacity are required to develop new and important inventions to continue to fuel progress in the areas of science, medicine and economic development—it is essential that they are able to secure the monopoly rights over these inventions for a sufficient period of time to ensure an adequate economic return, some profit on their investment and that others cannot unfairly profit without having made a similar investment of time, intellectual capacity and innovation. It is also the case that some people on occasions allege that we should prevent people from patenting particular things. This is particularly true of the areas of modern genetic science where people look at DNA sequences and express the view that perhaps these things should not be patented. They look at the development in Europe of a transgenic mouse that has been patented by the European Community and express the view that these things should not occur. I know that I am extending the debate a little beyond trademarks into patents, but I think the protection of innovation and intellectual property covers a broad area and we need to recognise the importance of this. While several hundred years after the invention of these intellectual devices it can seem less than appropriate that people should profit from these things, we do have to understand that if innovation is to continue at the ever accelerating pace which we require to sustain our economic growth and technical progress in areas like medicine and science, we need to ensure that people have an adequate—not excessive—level of protection for their work. Whether it is an invention of a thing, a process, a design or music, as in the case of the recent legal action in the United States over Napster transferring music files across the Internet, we need to ensure that people have that degree of protection. This has the added benefit of ensuring that the information is required to be made public. While it may be true that people secure a period of monopoly use, they also are required as part of the fair exchange process in that law to ensure that others have full access to the information involved and, therefore, are able to develop new and other innovative processes based on that device as a starting point.Trademarks have a particular benefit. They are not simply to ensure that we all recognise Nike shoes or Coca Cola when we see the advertisement; they are also designed to protect people's branding and ensure that, when you purchase a product with that mark on it, it does contain what you would usually expect from that product. We would hope those were examples, in the case of Australian goods and services, of very high quality, high standards of innovation and strong after-sales service. The public now use all of those criteria to judge the basis of what they see behind the trademark or the brand. They may not have confidence that it will be the case, either for good or for ill. It may well be that we look at some brands and say, `We certainly would not buy one of those.' But the reality is it also ensures that, when we do make a favourable judgment about a product and see something advertised which lists certain characteristics we support, those things are part of the package and companies are able to retain the strong sense of identity that modern global commercialisation and advertising make possible. That is as much for the information and protection of consumers as it is for the protection of the profits of companies and multinationals. The advantage of the Madrid protocol, which is the subject of the bill here, is that it allows those in Australia who wish to register trademarks internationally to make one registration process, in English, with one set of fees, in Australia, and thereby secure protection for their trademark across much of the world, and an increasing number of countries are of course registering in this way. This protocol was devised back in 1989. Nine member countries formed the initial group that signed the original protocol. Of course, that has subsequently expanded to some 44 countries and is growing all the time. Australia is required to complete all of the legislative requirements necessary to accede to the protocol before this country can take part in the process. This bill sets up the necessary legislative framework to ensure that Australia's laws are compatible with the protocol and that those in Australia who register their trademarks here will be able to take advantage of this international registration process. It certainly provides more simplified access for Australian companies and individuals registering trademarks, and it overcomes many of the bureaucratic problems that they would face in dealing with other countries in foreign languages and in different currencies. So I think the process is very much to be commended and supported. It is a vital part of protecting innovation in this country and, whether it is a patent or a trademark, we should certainly support any process which simplifies access to the global market and which ensures that our companies are on as equal a footing with others throughout the world as is possible to arrange within our legal framework.I hope the government will progress this matter as quickly as is practical and feasible and ensure that that protection and convenience is extended to Australian companies. Innovation is indeed vital to the future growth of the Australian economy, and any steps which we can take to make that process simpler and more convenient for companies are ones we should support. The opposition has pleasure in supporting this bill, and I hope the government will ensure that the necessary legislative frameworks are in place for Australia to participate in the Madrid protocol as soon as that is reasonably practicable.10:07:0019185Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I thank my colleague opposite, the member for Bonython, for his precise remarks with regard to the opposition's support for the change in trademarks envisaged by the Trade Marks Amendment (Madrid Protocol) Bill 2000. I would like to spend a little time looking at the development of the Madrid protocol, because I think it is of more than passing interest how Australia and the rest of the world have acceded to the process of, first of all, the Madrid agreement, and then the protocol. The agreement was established in Europe over 100 years ago to enable small groups of countries to have common laws with regard to trademarks and recognition, and certain protocols of arrangements and agreements between them relating to trade and recognition of each other's companies and signs. That has, for some time, proved to be adequate for those countries but, with the development of the Economic Community in Europe, there has been a growing interest in belonging to a set of nations which have a common recognition of trademarks, and so the protocol developed from that.Either the protocol or the agreement has undergone changes over a period of time to accommodate the countries which were not part of the central Europe agreement. Of course, there were nations that were not members and, as the European community and the Economic Community extended, there came a greater interest from countries outside the immediate area. Some of the countries which expressed interest and which have in fact joined but for whom modification had to be made include the United Kingdom, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania and, now, Japan. So we have a gathering of world interest in a unified approach to trademarks. Why is there this interest? The process of registration of trademarks is usually a one-to-one arrangement, where, for an example, an Australian firm having registered its trademark here—be it Vegemite or something like that—would want to register it in some other country enthusiastic for Australia's notorious and notable products. So the makers of Vegemite would go to Lithuania, Britain or the Unites States—if people in those countries could be convinced to eat Vegemite—and would want to register the trademark there. The one-to-one process was tedious, with the Australian manufacturer being required to meet the trademark laws of each country separately. It was a tedious process, an expensive process in some instances and one which delayed the opportunity for Australian companies to enter the market. Often, of course, there was the opportunity for companies within a target export country to get wind of a proposed application for trademark recognition and to jump in ahead of the proposed applicants, thereby gathering in for themselves some advantage in the marketplace.So there are a number of reasons why there has been growing interest in a universal protocol to which all nations can agree, and to provide an easy registration process—a simpler registration process—whereby a company can go to one place, make the registration and then allow the register holders to file the applications in the various countries in which they are seeking registration. They would not necessarily want to blanket the lot; they would want to register their trademark in a number of selected countries where there would be prospects for trade.The use of the protocol has extended and gathered in more and more nations, but at the same time there has been a resistance from some of those central European countries to changing something they see as particularly theirs. The attitude was: why should we change because the Americans, the Australians, the Canadians, the Japanese or anybody else want to become part of our process of registration of trademarks? That is a natural protective process.On the other hand, countries wishing to join in the Madrid protocol could not really see how all the conditions could easily apply to them. Therefore, until recently the United States has been reluctant to participate. It was only in February of this year that I had it drawn to my attention that the patents office in the United States—I think it is called the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the USPTO—has in fact looked at this issue and has a planned approach for the United States to enter into the protocol possibly in 2001.I notice that, in a recent visit to Europe, the President of the United States made announcements that he would be pursuing these matters. He in fact made the announcement that the USA would become part of the protocol. I have at hand a fact sheet dated 31 May issued by the President's office which states:The U.S. and the EU have reached an agreement on procedures that will facilitate international landmark registration that will save hundreds of millions of dollars for U.S. companies ...The US sees great advantage in entering into these arrangements. The US and the EU have agreed on protocol provisions for a fair and equitable voting formula, because the voting formula is loaded against a country making entry. One of the things the United States complained about was that all the countries of Europe have their independent separate vote and then they have another vote as Europe as a whole. So the dice is somewhat loaded, in a voting sense, against outsiders. I notice the President claims that those matters have been resolved and will satisfy American business. BV5Adams, Dick, MPSD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—My colleague opposite is a bit more sceptical about this process than the President appears to be in his final year of office. The statement by the President says—and I think the same thing has been quoted here by Australian sources—that savings can amount to 67 per cent of total fees if the centralised process is used. The statement by the President goes on to say that filing 10 separate applications would cost at least $14,000 and that under the protocol the total cost could be reduced to $4,700. The claim is that we will have reduced waiting periods and that it will be a much more efficient system. The President, I note, puts this tag on his statement:The President must submit the protocol to the U.S. Senate for their advice and consent prior to U.S. adherence to it.It is very interesting that the President is out in front on this issue and that the Senate may have a different view. Senates do have different views from time to time.The chief information officer of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has supported and complemented the comments by the United States. Why would I follow what the USA is doing in this regard? I think it is very interesting when we compare it with a British type rule of law system. The United Kingdom has also had some reservations about the Madrid protocol. We have got a different type of system of law—the common law process—as compared with Europe. I am just wondering how nations similar to Australia might be approaching the entry into an international treaty that can capture the intellectual capital of many of our Australian producers. It is no wonder, with the huge number of companies and the great activity of the trademarks office in the United States, that those people—Bill Gates being one of them, I suspect—will want to make sure that their trademarks and all of the procedures necessary for them to trade are going to be properly protected. The US administration no doubt has a similar interest but, according to reports, seems to have covered it. It is fascinating to read about the activities of the United Nations because the agency is now a United Nations agency and it is called WIPO. I searched for ages to find out what WIPO stands for. It is World Intellectual Property Organisation and WIPO is the central European agency for trademark ownership. It is an interesting outfit. I notice that at one stage, in 1995, WIPO employed 474 people and their salaries, according to sources in the United States, averaged well over $US100,000 each. So they are extremely well-placed, French-speaking bureaucrats in Geneva, operated by the United Nations.I think that they may have cleaned up their outfit a bit to accommodate the American entry into the protocol but, in 1996, the head of WIPO, Dr Bogsch, and the assistant director general, Carlos Fernandez Ballesteros, flew to Abuja in Nigeria to personally present WIPO's gold medal to the Nigerian President, General Sadi Abacha. He had never in his life shown an interest in trademarks, but they thought it was good to give him a gold medal. They have done that a couple of times. That makes you wonder whether the politics of the UN is interfering with the operation of trademarks. That is something I would strongly resent and resist from an Australian perspective. I would be worried about that approach. I trust that the thriving trade in counterfeit goods in Nigeria and these letters that we get from characters who offer to invest our funds for us if we give them access to our bank accounts are no longer endorsed by WIPO. If WIPO continues to give gold medals to people whose standards are at that level, then the trademarks of Australia or the United States will not be secure in this organisation. I raise that as a matter for consideration by the government. Maybe people within the Australian Senate in this instance will also give their attention to a searching examination of precisely where Australia is going in regard to these things. The objective is excellent. I have got a problem with the process, but no problem with the objective. The objective is a great objective: to simplify and to cut costs and to make sure that Australia has sure, safe, secure access to markets where their trademarks are going to be properly protected in a simplified approach. I think it is a laudable objective and one that I notice is endorsed by the administration of the United States.I turn to the legislation—and I want to have a good look at this matter. I did not really want to get into this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, but you know what Whips are like: they sometimes say, `You need to do this thing.' Having been involved in this debate, I was absolutely appalled by what I found. So I have had a look at our legislation. I trust that the member opposite has had a look at the legislation. Three simple clauses form the basis of the bill. The first one relates to the title and the second one relates to the commencement date of the bill. I will read from the explanatory memorandum in relation to the third clause:Clause 3 provides for the amendment of the Trade Marks Act 1995 in accordance with the items set out in the Schedule.There is nothing in the act. It says that the schedules are the things that count. What is the basis of the law in this matter? It seems to me that, almost by a process of delegated law through regulation, we are passing legislation which slings Australia into a protocol that will affect our trademarks. I am not sufficiently versed in the minute detail of parliamentary drafting or legal processes, but I would have thought that, if this protocol was worth adopting, it should not just be done by saying, `Look at the schedule or regulations to find out what this bill is about.' That seems to mean that any changes in those regulations from time to time will automatically change Australia's trademark laws. The logic of that is irrefutable. If we lock ourselves into a protocol by way of regulation, a change in that protocol, which is the basis of the regulations, will automatically change the act. I would like to see that matter tidied up or sorted out. With respect to the various items contained in schedule 1—and this has been pointed out to me by trademark lawyers who are far more skilled and knowledgeable than I—one can look at items 5 to 13. The items draw attention to what is set out in the schedule: `Look at the schedule if you want information.' There are nine or 10 items in the schedule which say that. In addition, item 14, which relates to part 17, basically says, `Well, the Governor-General has got these powers to draft the regulations.' Section 189A(3) states that the regulations may be inconsistent with the act and may prevail over the act. That is even worse. If there is an inconsistency between the protocol and Australian law, the protocol overrides Australian law, whatever the protocol may happen to be at the time. I think this is an easy way of drafting, but I do not know whether it is a very nice way of having Australian trademark laws successfully implement the intention that Australians would want.The explanatory memorandum refers to item 18, which deals with the regulation making power of the Governor-General. It states that the amendment is done in a way to avoid adding an unnecessary level of complexity to the act. It states: The regulations to give effect to the Madrid Protocol may provide for any modification or adaptation of the Act that may be necessary in this regard ... This approach, of locating the detailed provisions giving effect to the Madrid Protocol in the regulations made under the Act rather than in the Act itself, and modifying the Act by reference, has been adopted in order to retain the level of clarity presently achieved by the Act.One line in the act? For goodness sake, that is absolute clarity! This amending piece of legislation contains one line. Surely to goodness, Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I have seen the Senate and the House debate complex matters for days when we have wanted to see a proper process put in place. I find this approach unacceptable. Without having the benefit of a parliamentary committee to examine the details or take evidence from witnesses from industry, from lawyers skilled in this area and from those public servants who drafted the legal advice that the government has received, it is not possible to come to a finite opinion.I raise these matters today and restate my opinion that the objective is absolutely laudable and commendable, and I support it. I think it is something which will benefit Australia. However, with respect to the process of getting there, I have been alerted to the concerns in the United States about this process. They do not want to pass over their sovereignty either. When I look at the Australian process that we have adopted in this bill, I wonder whether we have passed over our sovereignty, having regard to the mechanism that we have used. If Bill Clinton can take his time and have his people look at it, I believe that we should also take our time and look at it. I would like to see a reasonable inquiry. I would like to see us sign this protocol and get on with the job as quickly as possible. That is my goal. But I would like to see it done with some more certainty than I can detect in the bill that is before the House.10:26:0019189Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—My colleague the member for Bass spoke a short time ago on the Family Court and the work that she has done in securing the services of a judge in northern Tasmania. I think that work is excellent. I think the work that she has done since she has been the member for Bass has been world beating, in making this government put a Family Court judge back into the Launceston region.It is very interesting that a parliamentary secretary of this government—very typically of this government, which has run out of steam and is not going anywhere—comes into the chamber and talks about the Trade Marks Amendment (Madrid Protocol) Bill 2000, says that it is a terrible bill, that it fails the test, that it does not do anything, that it gives away the sovereignty of the country, yet it is his billSD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Sorry, it is not.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—He is the parliamentary secretary of this government. SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—I am not.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—Why hasn't he raised it in the party room? He does not have the—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member for Lyons will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Mitchell on a point of order.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, I need to point out to my colleague that I am not a parliamentary secretary. It is not my bill. I am a backbencher, just as he is.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The honourable member for Mitchell will resume his seat. The honourable member for Lyons has the call. BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—I accept that the parliamentary secretary is not the parliamentary secretary with responsibility for the bill, but he is a parliamentary secretary.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—No, I am not.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—So he should have access and he should do a little reading of the government's program and have some understanding of what his government is doing.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! If I can interrupt the member for Lyons very briefly, I assure him that the member for Mitchell would be grateful for the promotion that he is giving him, but he is not a parliamentary secretary.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—Can I use the term a senior backbencher in the government. I think he has been in the parliament for 40 years, so you would think he could stand up in his party room and have somebody take notice of him. But I guess he cannot, because the concerns on the bill that he raised here should have been raised in his party room and then through the committee structure. But he waits until he comes into the chamber to do that. Then he advocates that the House of Representatives should set up a legislative committee so that we can look at some of this legislation. I think that would probably be a good thing, because a lot of legislation goes through these chambers which most members know very little about. That could be an effective way of dealing with such legislation. It looks like the Senate, which the member put down, will have to pick up some of the issues that he mentioned and look at them in a bit more detail.The bill gives effect to the provisions of the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, a multilateral treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation which Australia has agreed to. It is a requirement of the treaty making process that any legislation requirements to give effect to the provisions of the treaty must be in place before the accession, so this bill allows the legislative steps required—provided Australia accepts the protocol—to be taken.The Trade Marks Act provides for the registration of trademarks, and sets out and protects the rights deriving from registration. A trademark is a sign used in the course of trade to distinguish goods and services. The amendments contained in this bill will enable the Trade Marks Office to process international applications and registrations under the Madrid protocol, so they are pretty significant. The protocol allows trademark owners seeking protection for their marks in countries party to the treaty to do so by filing a single application and paying one set of fees.From the limited work in this area that I have done, I know it is very frustrating for people taking up new opportunities by moving into new areas with services and goods and brands to get registered and to look at the world. The world is a big place: it costs a fortune, and small and medium sized firms have a lot of difficulties in being able to do this. In the transitions that we are going through in this country, with the renewing of some industries, changing from old industries and the new ideas that are coming through, the costs that are being forced on a lot of those smaller people need to be addressed. If they can go into the world with a cheaper operation, that will be of advantage to them. So you have to seize those opportunities. One report—American, I think—said that it could bring down the cost by 67 per cent. That would bring enormous savings to people I have seen who have tried to register things, maybe in the food area, to go out and market something in the world with a trademark. It is an extremely costly little exercise. The amendments in this bill do not involve any substantive changes to our domestic trademark law. However, any overseas applications designating Australia will need to meet the requirements of our Australian Trade Marks Act before protection is granted to them. A trademark is a sign used in the course of trade to distinguish goods or a service, whereas a patent protects inventions. Other countries have used trademarks with considerable effect. Names become associated with products or symbols. Our wool symbol started as a way of saying, `This is an Australian wool. It is of quality,' and that wool symbol had that positioning in the world marketplace.King Island, from my state of Tasmania, is a name trademark that denotes the top of the range in fresh foods, particularly in beef, cream and all the cheese products that people can recognise in supermarkets and delicatessens. It can also give a region a focus. In many regions needing to renew, battling to get some identity from changing circumstances in their region, brands—wine brands, food brands—can certainly do that. Being able to get a focus on their region is very important, and this can be a part of that. Trademarks of different products can really denote a region. They can give it symbolism. If that is tied in with municipal and shire-type recognition, there are great opportunities. Some councils have signs which depict their trademark for their region. I have seen Sainsbury's in London and I remember that New Zealand lamb always has the New Zealand quality trademark on it. It is a prime one that has been around a very long time in the food area.Of course, in today's world, brands are what it is about, not commodities, and Australia is feeling that. We are moving to brands. The world is trading in brands, not commodities, and you have to be able to value add and put your brand on a product if you are going to achieve a return and be able to compete in the world. It is not just wool any more; it is now Tasmanian superfine wool, and it is the product that you buy from that. It is not Aussie beef; it is blue ribbon Tasmanian beef, Angus beef or Hereford beef from a certain region. That is where we are heading with those sorts of brands, because the world is trading in that area. It is part of the new world order. It is part of globalisation and of other countries coming in. There are dangers that other countries will come in. I am sure that the Americans will be right on top of what the opportunities are for them. Australia, under this present government, probably will not be. They have done nothing to educate industries on the World Trade Organisation, especially in the foods area. We are terribly behind the eight ball in that regard. That was shown by how our lamb was knocked off. I refer to Howe Leather and other areas. This government has failed dismally to educate Australians on what the World Trade Organisation is all about and the pluses and minuses of it. Our industries are well behind. As a country we are well behind. The World Trade Organisation's protocols have been used against Australia, although there have been many occasions when we could have had opportunities in the other direction. We have not done that because this government is a very poor government. It is a government that does not really seize the opportunities that possibly could be there. As a senior backbencher in the government said, some of the things that are missing in this bill will probably be picked up in the Senate and may be rectified there.10:37:0019192Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10in replyIn summing up the second reading debate on the Trade Marks Amendment (Madrid Protocol) Bill 2000, I would like to thank all of those members who contributed to the debate. In particular, I would like to thank the member for Bonython. He spoke about the importance of innovation and legal protection of intellectual property to help stimulate innovation. I am grateful that he pointed out the importance of trademark rights to recognise the use of brands as indicators of characteristics and quality of products to the advantage of consumers. I welcome the opposition's broad support for progressing accession to the Madrid protocol as soon as practicable. I would also like to thank the member for Mitchell, who spoke about the development of the Madrid protocol from the Madrid agreement so that more countries will be better able to take advantage of the international registration system. He certainly supports the objectives of accession to the Madrid protocol. The member for Lyons spoke about savings to be made by trademark owners by using the protocol route for overseas protection of their trademarks. With respect to those members who raised concerns about the procedural processes of this bill, I would like to point out that the government proposes to put most of the detail of the Madrid protocol procedures into trademark regulations. The bill achieves this by inserting a broad regulation making power into the Trade Marks Act. The approach of having the regulations giving effect to the protocol is consistent with the approach that has been taken in the UK. By putting most of the detail in the regulations, any changes to the Madrid protocol procedures can be handled more flexibly and efficiently. Parliament always has the opportunity to disallow regulations if it believes that the subject matter exceeds permissible boundaries for the regulation.The government is committed to helping Australian businesses take advantage of the opportunities offered by electronic commerce in what is a rapidly globalising world economy. Some of the ways in which we are doing this is by encouraging innovation and export activity and by providing an appropriate regulatory environment to assist Australian businesses to compete internationally. The Madrid protocol fits in with these goals by offering the potential for Australian businesses to obtain quicker, easier and cheaper trademark protection for their goods and services in overseas markets.In short, this legislation provides the framework to enable Australia's ultimate accession to the protocol. We are currently going through the steps required to accede to this international treaty including holding wide ranging consultations with all relevant agencies, interest groups and individuals. Intellectual property forms the backbone of the new knowledge based economy. In recent years we have seen a very clear increase in awareness within our business and research community of the value and importance of intellectual property. This heightened awareness is perhaps best demonstrated by the surge we have witnessed in recent years in the demand for trademark protection in Australia. In March 1996 IP Australia for the first time received 3,000 applications in a single month. However, in March 2000 IP Australia received 7,235 trademark applications for that single month—quite a remarkable increase in demand.Applications in the technology and services sector, those which may fairly be said to be representative of the new economy, are experiencing the most rapid growth. This high level of demand for trademarks is not just confined to Australia; it is equally evident in other countries including, for example, the United States and the United Kingdom. As I mentioned in my speech during the second reading debate, the United Kingdom is already a member of the Madrid protocol with the United States rapidly proceeding towards accession. The growth in demand for trademarks is paralleled by the growth in the membership of the protocol. The Madrid protocol was adopted in 1989 and came into operation in 1996 with just seven members. Since then the number of member countries has risen to 46 with no doubt more and more countries progressively moving to join the protocol. Indeed, most of Australia's major trading partners are already members of the protocol or actively working towards accession. If Australian traders are to compete effectively in the new global knowledge based economy they need to be able to secure protection for their intellectual property, including their trademarks, not only at home but also overseas. They need to be able to secure this protection with the minimum of fuss and, of course, the minimum of red tape. I have referred to the importance of protecting and promoting trademarks in as many markets as possible in order for Australian business enterprises to lever electronic commerce to their full advantage. Access to the Madrid protocol system will enhance their ability not only to secure international protection for their trademarks more quickly and cheaply but also to maintain that protection at far greater ease.Public consultation to date on Australia's potential accession to the protocol has revealed very strong general support for such a move particularly amongst users of the system. The opposition support for this bill recognises that a bipartisan approach to meeting the needs of Australian businesses will help them respond and adapt to the challenges of operating in a rapidly globalising environment. It is an environment in which enterprises that use innovation, creativity and knowledge to maximum advantage come to the fore.In summary, the Madrid protocol will improve access to international trademark protection for all Australian enterprises, small and large alike, that are looking to take their goods and services to the world. International competition will be a more attractive proposition for Australian businesses if they are able to quickly and cheaply protect their valuable trademarks from free-riding in potential new markets overseas. While this bill does not oblige accession to the Madrid protocol, it prepares the way to enable Australia's ultimate accession to the protocol should it prove desirable, as I certainly think it will. I thank the members for their contribution to this debate and for their support on this legislation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills19193R112319193Debate resumed from 29 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.10:46:0019193Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I will be brief in my comments in relation to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000. It is a continuation of a process of tidying up what the government calls nuisance tariffs, and that is tariffs that apply at the five per cent rate where there is no local manufacture or producer that would be adversely affected by their removal. In this case, I understand, after consultation on a proposed list of over 1,000 items, the government has put forward the removal of that five per cent tariff on some 268 items. We accept its assurances that there are no local producers. Obviously from time to time, even after these changes, people do advise that they have been adversely affected. In the past, the government has responded by recognising that and then coming back and making any necessary adjustments. I assume that will be the case were there to be some inadvertence in this particular package. To the extent that we believe the government has proceeded on this in an entirely appropriate way, we are content to let the legislation go through. There are also a couple of tidying up measures of that kind, where previous pieces of legislation had inadvertent consequences, and they are being fixed by this bill. Again, the opposition is quite happy to support it.There is a substantial change in relation to new excise arrangements for toluene. Here, the government is fixing a mess of its own making. There has been considerable concern about substitution in the petrol industry, and it has been a matter of open scandal that fuel products have been watered down with substitute products on which excise has not been paid. In other words, there has been fraud on the Commonwealth on a very large scale, and the government has been extraordinarily slow to react to it. There have been packages of legislation intended to address it, but not effectively. This particular piece of legislation, one hopes, will be the completion of a task of closing a loophole that has been left open for far too long. What it does is impose an excise duty on imported toluene and similar chemicals which can be used as fuel substitutes.Of course, the reason those products were used as fuel substitutes is that they came in essentially free of duty. Toluene is used as a base in paint production and a number of other chemical manufacturing processes. It is quite appropriate to have it enter for those purposes without duty, but it was being diverted, put into the petrol pump and into the back of mum's and dad's car, at a cost to the community of millions and millions of dollars.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Please forgive me, I have to leave.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I express regret at the departure of the shadow parliamentary secretary in the middle of this flow, but it is understandable. The government has allowed this scandal to go on essentially without effective response for a very long period of time and I think it is correct to say that nobody has been brought to account. So essentially the community has been the victim of theft on a very large scale, with fraud against the Commonwealth worth tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars. No-one, to the best of my knowledge, has been charged with fraud or deception in relation to these matters. The investigative processes have been allowed to grind exceedingly slowly with no suggestion that they are grinding exceedingly finely. There is no suggestion that there is any enforcement activity at the end of the day. The remedial legislation has been very slow in coming before the parliament. The opposition is entitled to say that this was quite scandalous.We are approaching this particular piece of legislation as non-controversial and, of course, it is because it has our support. It is an occasion to say bluntly that this is one of the worst examples of government administration that has occurred under the Howard government. It has been an example of turning a blind eye to a problem that was plainly known to the government, wishing it would go away, perhaps not realising the scale of the fuel substitution scandal, and responding only when the matter became a matter of public scandal. Then its response in the first place was ineffectual and it required further legislation that now comes before this parliament after advice from the opposition and after considerable criticism in the public domain. The revenues to the Commonwealth have been adversely affected by the loss of millions of dollars of revenue to thieves who have defrauded the Commonwealth and not been subject to any prosecution action or, to the best of my knowledge, a vigorous attempt to pursue them with the objective of prosecution. The opposition is content to support this bill. I understand that there are not to be any substantial changes other than the one to toluene with respect to the competitiveness of our manufacturing sector. The opposition is pleased, with those blunt comments in relation to the toluene matter, to support this package of legislation.10:52:0019195Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to rise today to support the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000. This bill contains a number of important amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. It contains tariff alterations that were introduced in the customs tariff proposals in the House of Representatives in December 1999 and March 2000 which now require enacting in the tariff act. The first amendment is to schedule 1, which is operative from 15 December 1999 and put in place by Customs Tariff Proposal No. 7, and it relates to nuisance tariffs.I think it is entirely appropriate that we look at this whole area. In terms of some of the revenue collection areas, it is a pity that we do not do a cost-benefit analysis. They have worked out the tariffs we are collecting across a wide range, looked at the number of them and the low revenue involved and the high cost of collection, and said, `This is ridiculous. We are raising less than $100,000 on a lot of these items. The cost of monitoring, policing and controlling is not worth it in terms of the overall revenue that we are raising.' It is also part of the government's agenda. The government is very keen to reduce red tape and regulation for the private sector and business. This is very much a welcome move. The changes were made in consultation with the private sector.In July 1998, the then industry minister, the Hon. John Moore, identified lower input costs to industry as a key area for future reform. As a result, 1,058 items were identified as producing revenue of less than $100,000. That was later refined to a list of 268 items, and duty on those items was removed on 15 December last year. It is somewhat retrospective in those terms, as the decision was already made, but I do not think that anybody who was impacted by it is going to object. There was a change in terms of hand-tufted carpets, and the classification of that particular category is consistent with the international convention relating to tariff harmonisation. These items attract a duty of five per cent, or less in the past, and raise less than $100,000. It is a good initiative and obviously represents the work of the Attorney-General, who continues to do an outstanding job in overseeing this whole area; the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources; and Minister Vanstone in the portfolio of Justice and Customs.Schedule 2 is about fuel substitution and, as the previous speaker, the member for Denison, indicated, this is a way of trying to minimise the overall input and costs of fuel and of people scamming the arrangement. In January 1998, and again in November 1999, the government introduced fuel substitution minimisation legislation to combat the loss of revenue resulting from this illegal activity. Fuel substitution occurs when fuel that is free of duty or subject to a concessional rate of duty is used as transport fuel. Following the previous legislative changes in November 1999, it became apparent that illegal operators began to use toluene mixed with other duty paid products as a fuel substitute, so the decision was made to impose excise equivalent rates of duty on toluene, benzine, xylenes and mixed alkylbenzenes. It is appropriate that those decisions were made to combat the avoidance of tariff. The tariff alterations contained in the schedule impose, from 10 March 2000, a rate of duty on imported toluene and similar chemicals which have the potential to be used as fuel substitutes. Measures were put in place at that time to ensure that legitimate users of those chemicals were not disadvantaged by the new duty impost. Schedule 3 relates to a particular item that was meant to be included in the post 2000 tariff assistance for the passenger motor vehicle industry. As the chamber would know, the decision was for tariff rates for passenger motor vehicles and their components to be reduced to 10 per cent from 1 January 2005. One set of phasing rates of duty for automatic voltage regulators was erroneously omitted from the above act. Those rates are now included; it is a minor regulation. I think the most important aspects of the whole area are the issues of duty on toluene and similar chemicals, and the removal of nuisance tariffs. I know the Attorney-General will be making a few comments, but I commend him and his department for introducing these proposals. I am certain that we will see more reviews of tariffs, particularly tariffs that do not produce a benefit in revenue terms to justify the collection costs. Well done, Attorney-General; we look forward to your comments.10:59:0019196Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—It is a pleasure to sum up on such a hotly debated bill. I thank the honourable members for Denison and Cook for their contributions to the debate. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000, in the main, enacts customs duty amendments which have already come into effect through earlier customs tariff proposals.The first of these amendments concerns the removal of customs duty on so-called nuisance tariffs. This action followed a substantial review of tariffs involving extensive industry consultation. The review identified 268 tariff items providing little or no protective benefit to Australian producers. The duty was removed from these items on 15 December 1999. Removing the duties on these items is consistent with the government's objective of improving the competitiveness of local industry by lowering business inputs. It also benefits consumers by providing them with better priced products.The honourable member for Denison, in the course of his speech, raised an issue in this context. He queried whether it could be appropriately assumed that the government will make adjustments to nuisance tariffs if a local manufacturer who in effect needs protection is identified. I am able to assure the honourable member that, if a local manufacturer of goods from which duty has been removed is in need of protection from imported goods, identification of that local manufacturer will ensure that appropriate consideration of action will be taken.The other major duty amendment contained in this bill further implements the government's commitment to prevent financial gain through fuel substitution. It is one in a series of measures introduced over the past two years to address this issue and involves the introduction of an excise equivalent duty on imported toluene and similar products. At the same time, action has been taken to ensure that legitimate non-fuel users of these imported products are not disadvantaged. This has been achieved through the operation of refund and remission arrangements implemented through the customs regulations. At the time the tariff proposal which introduced the duty on imported toluene was tabled, the opposition was vocal in its criticism of the government for alleged tardiness in dealing with fuel substitution activities and alleged inaction on the part of the Australian Taxation Office. That was brought to a new height this morning when the member for Denison referred to government inaction as being scandalous, this being the most outrageous example of maladministration on the part of the Howard government. Such exaggeration destroys the validity and credibility of the argument, and I say nothing more about it.The bill makes further amendments to the Customs Tariff Act to ensure that the classification of hand-tufted carpets is consistent with the International Convention for Classifying Goods, to which Australia is a party. The remaining amendment in this bill aims to correct an omission from the Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Act 1999. That act inserted a 10 per cent general rate of duty for all goods the subject of the motor vehicle manufacturing plan from 1 January 2005. One of the tariff subheadings to which that 1 January 2005 phasing rate is to apply was inadvertently excluded. Schedule 3 to the bill corrects that omission.In the course of examination of the explanatory memorandum, it has come to light that there is an incorrect figure on page 9, in the first line of the final paragraph. The numbers 9031.89.11 were incorrect and should be substituted with 9032.89.11. I table that correction to the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Committees191971919719197Debate resumed from 14 August, on motion by Mr Price:That the House take note of the report.11:05:0019197Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will take a great deal of interest in this Procedure Committee report—The Second Chamber: enhancing the Main Committee—given your responsibilities to and duties in the Main Committee. I am very pleased that our chairman is with us. I look forward to his contribution to the debate. Indeed, in tabling the report, I acknowledged his leadership and good humour on the Procedure Committee. He is proving to be a quite productive chairman in not only the number of reports that are being produced under his leadership but also the quality of those reports. This probably is not one of the most profound reports that will be considered by honourable members and, hopefully, by the government, but it does continue the growth and nurturing of this Main Committee which we propose to call the Second Chamber. I also note that the Chief Opposition Whip is going to make a contribution to this debate and I look forward to his comments. I am not in the habit of praising the Chief Opposition Whip, but it is true that, in the original Procedure Committee we both served on that recommended the introduction of the Main Committee, he did play a very crucial role, I believe, in ensuring that the manager of government business and, indeed, the Prime Minister were supportive of what were, at that time, quite radical changes. Without wishing to point score, I think it is also fair to say that this was not something that was unanimously recommended. Quite severe reservations were held by the then opposition members. I am pleased to say that this chamber has proved itself. One of the things that it has permitted is the referral of bills, as we have just witnessed this morning, that are relatively non-controversial to be debated in this chamber. Of course, it did in fact save the reputation of the then manager of government business, now Leader of the Opposition, who had a fearsome reputation for guillotining bills through the House. There is a useful appendix which I draw to the attention of honourable members: appendix B demonstrates quite graphically the radical change that has been brought about by the institution of the Main Committee and its ability to take a lot of the workload off the House. This is very good for democracy. I do not think guillotining legislation through does anything for the image of this parliament or, indeed, the government. So it has been an outstanding success.I have already commented on a recommendation which some might find, again, quite radical. I would be really interested to learn what honourable members think of the proposal to permit interventions in this place; that is, if a member is speaking here, it would be possible for a colleague in the same party, a member of the opposition or a member of the government, to question me or to seek to intervene for me to elucidate a point that I am trying to make.I would love to say that this was my idea. I cannot say that it was, but I think it is an excellent idea. One of the great benefits of this place is its great informality and intimacy and this particular proposal builds on it. For newer members coming into the parliament, this is a wonderful chamber in which to learn the skills and get the nuances of the place. Adding to that informality and interactiveness will be a great plus. There are a couple of other proposals that I did not have an opportunity to comment on, and I would certainly like to. Firstly, at the moment we have adjournment debates and three-minute statements. I do not want to appear to be churlish, but I do think it is a pity that we did not stick to my original name of `constituency statements' because one of the recommendations is to allow parliamentary secretaries to participate in these three-minute statements. We have adjournments and we have three-minute statements; these are `constituency statements' and parliamentary secretaries are invited to utilise them. I think that is a good thing for them. However, if we had stuck to the original terminology—and it would not have been out of sync with the other two—it might have been better. I am delighted that the government has agreed to the proposal. Minister Reith has agreed and implemented the proposal, and it has proved itself. This report makes two significant recommendations. Firstly, it allows for more three-minute statements. I would be really surprised if my honourable friends in the government, and my colleagues in opposition, were not pleased at this development, that we will get at least another half-hour of three-minute statements. Secondly, at present if for any reason during the three-minute statements or the adjournments that occur in this Main Committee there is some disruption—a division or any other form of disruption occurring—there is no choice but to follow the clock. If the time has expired for three-minute statements or adjournments, we have no choice but to move onto other business. What we are proposing here—and I trust that you Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly would support it—is to give you the discretion to ensure that that does not happen, that those who have put down their names, prepared themselves to make a contribution in an adjournment or three-minute statement, will indeed be allowed to do so, notwithstanding the disruption. I hope that honourable members will keenly support that proposal. There are a couple of other things I wish to say. To run smoothly, this place relies on a lot of goodwill and cooperation from both whip's offices, the government whip and our opposition whip, who is here today. Unfortunately, because of camera angles, their staff have a great deal of difficulty in seeing who is actually in the chamberthat is, they have difficulty in making sure that the next speaker is here to make a contribution. Indeed, we cannot locate any of the whip's staff adjacent to the chamber to assist the whips in their important function of seeing this place run smoothly. Therefore, we have made some sensible recommendations about that. The thing that really appeals to me is the proposal to consider shifting this Main Committee process to be closer to the main chamber and stop it being an enclave. I am very grateful to see that we have got some people in the visitors gallery. The point that I want to make is that it is difficult for members of the public to get here. One of the great virtues of this building over Old Parliament House is the number of people who are able to access the proceedings of the House, the Senate and, hopefully, the Main Committee. Shifting it to a place that is more accessible and easier for the public to reach—it will have some difficulties, I might say—will enhance our democracy. Just having some glass in the doors will allow those who do not want to come into the Main Committee to see what is going on—to observe you in your high office, Madam Deputy Speaker, being advised by the erudite officers who assist you in your onerous responsibilities and, indeed, to observe what is occurring in the chamber without having to physically enter the chamber.As with any change, I am sure there will be some misgivings; indeed, maybe some arguments. But the point is this: it is not up to the Procedure Committee to make the final decision. We have merely made a recommendation, and that recommendation needs to be tested to see exactly how it might work, what are the difficulties and what are the benefits. I am confident about the outcome, and I am sure the government and the Speaker will approach it enthusiastically. I think it will be a very big plus for us.I finish on this note: of course, in the original report it was never envisaged that we would be located here. In fact, the title of the Main Committee was given because it was believed that we would be located in the main committee room. But, obviously, the Speaker encountered uncharacteristic or unusual opposition from the Senate that prevented that occurring. So we are actually located in a modified House of Representatives committee room. Of course, now we have got confusion on the part of people—and, indeed, on the part of the odd member—about this being called the Main Committee but there being a main committee room. The change of name to the Second Chamber more accurately reflects the great work and activity that occurs here and it will eliminate that confusion.The value and virtue of the Main Committee as an institution are demonstrated by the fact that the UK parliament—if you like, our mother parliament—has adopted a similar approach in developing a Second Chamber. I implore all honourable members to value this committee, to read the report and to accept the responsibility that we all have for this institution of parliament, but particularly for this Main Committee, to see it grow, to see it develop and to nurture it. I believe that the chairman and the committee, in tabling this report, have exercised that responsibility as far as it applies to them, but it applies to all honourable members. 11:18:0019200Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I thank my parliamentary colleagues who have made contributions to this debate on the report of the Procedure CommitteeThe Second Chamber: enhancing the Main Committee. On Monday, we spoke in the House when the report was tabled, and I am very grateful to those people who spoke then. The member for Chifley spoke as deputy chairman and gave a speech that I probably would have given, because I was in Adelaide and was unable to be here. I am thankful for the speech that he gave. I also thank the members for Parramatta, Gilmore and Canning, who all spoke on the report.I am pleased that the report is being considered by the Main Committee because it gives other people the opportunity to speak on it. The member for Chifley, of course, has had a second go, and I am going to speak. I am pleased to see that the Chief Opposition Whip, Mr Leo McLeay, is going to speak. He has, to his credit, been a keen follower of the Main Committee and made a presentation to the Procedure Committee during its consideration of the matter. He has made a very useful contribution to how this chamber operates.I would like to thank the member for Batman, in particular, for the very keen interest that he took in the consideration of this report, particularly with respect to the operation and the business of the House—what he perceives to be the potential opportunities for getting useful debate in the Main Committee. Also, the member for Chifley took a very keen interest in the business and operation of this chamber and how it could be improved and enhanced to improve its status and its operation.I also thank the deputy chairman for noting the good humour with which the Procedure Committee operates. But I do note that in the House on Monday he talked about the forbearance and tolerance of the members of the committee, which I am sure was no reflection on the chairman, simply on all members of committees who have worked with their chairmen and deputy chairmen to bring about results.This is a very comprehensive report and the secretariat have put a terrific effort into making sure that we did a very comprehensive history of the Main Committee, the expectations that people had for it, whether those had been met and how they had been met. You will see in the report the voluminous appendices that are attached that deal with the work of the Main Committee over the time from its inception and that were very successfully put together by John Craig from the secretariat. I was very impressed with the effort that was put into this report by the Procedure Committee and particularly by the secretariat in making sure that it is the sort of useful report that can be looked at from a research point of view to see how the Main Committee has been operating and whether it has been useful.I am a late convert to the usefulness of the Main Committee. When the report was begun, I must admit I took an old-fashioned and conservative view of the House, the main chamber, and how important that was. I was a bit concerned when the Main Committee first began that it would detract from the business of the House of Representatives. I suppose you could put me in that conservative group of people that does not like to see change to the traditions of the House of Representatives or the House of Commons. But I do note that in the last few years a number of very important bills have been sent to the Main Committee for debate and, in so doing, that has elevated the status and importance of the Main Committee. One of those bills was the euthanasia bill. At the time, I was very opposed to that being sent to the Main Committee; I believed it should have been debated in the House. But the fact that it was sent here and debated correctly and appropriately indicates how the Main Committee has come of age. Of course, most years now, the appropriations bills, after being dealt with for some time in the House of Representatives, are sent to the Main Committee for debate. The Main Committee has evolved and has become the sort of forum where useful things are debated and opportunities are given for private members' business in a much more comprehensive fashion than is given in the House of Representatives. Most members of parliament who take their parliamentary responsibilities seriously have come to use the Main Committee as a way of representing their constituents' interests and delving in an in-depth fashion into policy issues that are of interest to them. Whereas, previously, reports from overseas delegations or parliamentary committees or even private members' bills had been dealt with peremptorily in the House and then shunted aside, they can now be dealt with in the Main Committee and everyone gets a good chance to talk about the excellent work that they may have put in over the previous six or 12 months.I want to talk today about the recognition of the Main Committee, because three of the recommendations coming out of the report need to be dealt with in some depth and I am sure that the other members of the committee have dealt with issues to do with business and operation during the debate in both the House and in this chamber.The name of the Main Committee has always been a great bugbear with me and with many members of the House of Representatives because the historical situation was that the Main Committee was supposed to meet in the main committee room, but the senators objected to the use of the main committee room exclusively for the House of Representatives and its new Main Committee and opposed them moving to that room. Ever since then, of course, people have been in a state of great confusion about what the Main Committee was and where it met. Jo Gash, in her contribution on Monday, made the point that when she first got here as a member of parliament she never knew how to find this particular room because she would always go to the main committee room where she expected the Main Committee to meet. So that historical error has dogged the Main Committee ever since then, and it needs to be looked at and changed.Also, the `Main Committee' means nothing. This is not the main committee of the House of Representatives. There are many House of Representatives standing committees, joint standing committees and select committees; therefore, the Main Committee means very little to the average member of the House of Representatives and the public.This room is properly termed the `second chamber', because it is a chamber of the House of Representatives. If the House meets for a division, obviously we have to return to the House of Representatives. If there is objection in this chamber to a bill, if it goes from being a non-partisan issue to a partisan one, it is has to be removed to the House of Representatives. So it is as much a house of the main chamber as the main chamber itself. To call it the `Main Committee' has always made it seem like a sideshow alley, as some members have called it, or a tin-pot chamber, which, of course, is not the case. I think if we actually gave it the name that means something, which is Second Chamber—and that is what the committee has recommended—it would go some way to restoring some recognition of what the actual purpose of the Main Committee has been. I note that the Main Committee in Australia has been so successful that our `mother country', the United Kingdom, has accepted the idea of the Main Committee as part of its own set-up in the House of Commons and established a chamber just like ours and called it Westminster Hall, because it meets in Westminster Hall. It is good to see that the `mother country' to some is adopting some of the changes of its former colony in its own House of Commons, when most people would have expected it to go the other way. Australia has now evolved to the extent where the House of Commons is adopting our practices, which is terrific to see. The United Kingdom has called it Westminster Hall, but I do not think that means very much either. I think `Second Chamber' is clearly an accurate reflection of what this is and that is what it should be called.The second thing that we have suggested, which is slightly different, is that interventions should be introduced into the Main Committee, or the Second Chamber. We had a briefing from Sir Alastair Goodlad, who was a Tory chief whip, and he gave a very good contribution about how interventions worked. It came from the fact that when I was in the House of Commons some time ago I watched interventions and thought that was terrific for the free flow of debate. Dare I say it, but on that well-known television serial House of Cards, with Francis Urquhart—which some members of the Labor Party probably model themselves on, but I am sure not the Chief Opposition Whip—I saw interventions in play, and I thought how well that worked for the free flow of debate. One of the things lacking in the House of Representatives and in the Main Committee, I think, is that sense of free flow with argument going back and forth and real, genuine debate. There are far too many set piece speeches in both the House of Representatives and the Main Committee. Interventions, of course, would make it very difficult to continue to have a set piece speech. Sometimes they are quite appropriate but they are not at other times. I would have thought in this sort of smaller chamber it would be more appropriate to have more free flowing debate.We have suggested that interventions be introduced. True to form, we have also suggested that, because this is a new idea, the Main Committee is the right place for it to be trialled. We are suggesting a trial of about 12 months to see whether, at the end of those12 months, those interventions have been useful. We do not suggest that people be able to just interrupt somebody's speech willy-nilly. The way interventions work in the House of Commons is that a person stands up and seeks the call from the chair. If the member speaking wishes to give that person the right to speak, they can say, `I accept the intervention of my honourable friend.' If they wish to continue, they can say, `I don't wish to be interrupted.' If the intervention is accepted, the person speaking has to ask a question. It can be put as, `Doesn't the honourable member think that ...' and then such and such would happen.' Obviously, it can be a debating type question, but everything has to be put as a question.We are also suggesting in this report that the chairman of the Main Committee, or the Second Chamber—as, hopefully, it will become—would have the power to deny the call to people who are continuously intervening and trying obviously to upset the flow of the person speaking. But at the end of the day, the person speaking would have the power to decide whether or not to allow an intervention. In this intimate sort of setting— 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Therein lies the rub.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—That is exactly right: `Therein lies the rub,' as the Chief Opposition Whip points out. It would not necessarily lead to the free flow of debate, because the person speaking could always stop the intervention. But, at the same time, I think most people would become quite used to the idea. As many of us know in giving speeches in the House of Representatives and in this place, often interjections are quite useful in changing your speech and making it more interesting for the person speaking and for the people listening. Hopefully, that would be what would happen. I would very strongly urge the government to have a trial for 12 months to see how it works in this chamber and then perhaps take it into the House of Representatives.Finally, I would like to comment on the physical location of the chamber. As mentioned earlier, the Main Committee was never supposed to meet in this room. This is a normal committee room of the House of Representatives—a room which is needed. Members of the Department of the House of Representatives would be able to confirm that they are often unable to provide all the requirements for rooms for parliamentary committees that are meeting. They would like to have this committee room given back so that they can provide it for standing, select and party committees that meet. We were originally supposed to meet in the main committee room, which would have probably been appropriate but too large. The committee therefore looked at particular venues around the vicinity of the House of Representatives. It settled on moving closer to the chamber, staying on this floor and probably moving to an area on the upper gallery on this side of the House of Representatives which is currently being used for offices and which could easily be renovated to become a venue for the Main Committee or Second Chamber. That would bring it very close to the House. It would also make it very easy for public access because there is a stairwell leading directly to the second floor, where the Second Chamber would be located, from the current location next to the security people on the first floor outside the Speaker's gallery. It would be very easy for people to say, `I'd like to have a look at the Second Chamber,' and they would be able to go up the stairs. It is quite a nice staircase. It is not a dingy, dimly lit stairwell. They could then view the Second Chamber, which would give it more recognition and status and it would make it more readily accessible to the public. It would also be located closer to members of the House of Representatives. It would have its own space with its own identity, unlike this room, which creates confusion for many members of parliament who initially do not even know where to find the Main Committee. Many of them go to the first floor, to the actual room which is called the main committee room. So we have suggested that it be moved to the location that I have referred to. We understand that that would involve some cost. We hope that the government does not falter in accepting most of the recommendations of the report just because of that aspect. We would prefer to see as many of the recommendations implemented as possible, with a view to moving the location of the committee at an appropriate time down the track.In conclusion, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat—Robyn Webber, John Craig and Anna Gadzinski—for the excellent work that they put in to the report. I also thank the members of the committee—the members for Batman, Chifley, Mallee, Parramatta, Gilmore and Canning—all of whom have made a very useful contribution to this report. As the member for Mallee said to me yesterday, most of the recommendations of this report can be implemented without spending a dollar and without too much controversy. Therefore, he and I hope that the government moves quickly to implement this, the third report of the Procedure Committee in this parliament. 11:32:0019204McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I have read the report of the Procedure CommitteeThe Second Chamber: enhancing the Main Committeewith some interest, as I read with interest all the reports on reviewing the Main Committee. Sometimes I think the Main Committee has been reviewed to death, but seeing that each time a review is done no-one seems to be able to say it should meet its death, I guess the reviews are not harmful. At the beginning there were a number of people who thought that this experiment would fail and were hoping that it would fail. But it seems to have reached the expectations that people had for it when it originally began. I spent a fair bit of time talking the Procedure Committee into proposing this originally so that we could have more opportunities for private members to have their say. We have changed the procedures in the House to provide for a bit more opportunity. This chamber has given us the ability to do that. Prior to the Main Committee's inception, the major objective of the government was to get the government's legislation through. There was very little time for committee reports to be considered. There was no time for private members' business to be considered. There was very little opportunity for ordinary backbenchers to have their say on matters they wanted to raise. It was even worse if you were a chairman or a member of a parliamentary committee that had spent, in some instances, years deciding on a report. You put a lot of your life into it and had a lot of people come as witnesses to provide information to the committee, and you would find you would bid with the government for half an hour and end with getting the report up. The government would give a bit of precedence to the Public Works Committee because they, in a lot of instances, used to do the government's bidding in dealing with matters that were referred to them by the government. The Public Accounts Committee had a reasonable level of seniority in the place as well, so they used to get a bit of a better go. The ordinary standing committees did not get much chance from the government to debate their reports at all, so the Main Committee became, in a sense, the expanding file of the House of Representatives. The opposition whip or the government whip, if they had pressure from his or her members, could go to the Leader of the House and say, `Look, we can really put legislation into the Main Committee now. We now have more time to do some of these things.' So I think the Main Committee has been quite a success in achieving what was required of it at the beginning.I guess in any organisation there are times you can expand it, there are times you can improve it and there are times you can add things to it, but I think in doing those things we should not get away from the original aim of the Main Committee, which is to provide flexibility. So if there is a need to get some committee report or some piece of minor legislation dealt with quickly, the Main Committee is the vehicle to do that. The flexibility of the Main Committee enables it to sit, in a sense, whenever it suits the government or the opposition. Most importantly, a safeguard which we built in for the opposition—which I stress the government of the day had no worry about building in—is one that we should keep built into the operations of this committee; that is, the ability of this committee to function only with the consent of the opposition. I think that is a very important mechanism for the continued acceptance of the way this committee will operate. I remember the member for Moncrieff being a member of the Procedure Committee at the time we were setting up the Main Committee. She was most insistent that we should have those safeguards, and I think we should make sure we keep that particular safeguard. I will reflect on that shortly when I discuss the recommendations. I might just deal with the recommendations that the committee has put forward, give you my views on those recommendations, for what they are worth, and wish the committee well. I do not have a problem with most of the recommendations at all. For instance, I think the recommendation to change the title of the committee is a very interesting and useful one, given the fact that there is the confusion that often exists between the operations of this organ and the room downstairs that no-one tends to use, which is also called the Main Committee. To change the name to the Second Chamber seems okay to me. After six years of operation, I think the committee has established itself as the Second Chamber of the House of Representatives.The suggestion to relocate the chamber is also a sensible one, but I do not know whether it is as sensible as what the chairman of the committee just revealed when he spoke. I think the difficulty in having the chamber here is that it is so far from the House of Representatives chamber. I say that for two reasons. One reason is the logistics problem, which I have as the Chief Opposition Whip, and I am sure the Chief Government Whip has the same problem because I used to have that problem when I was the Chief Government Whip. There is difficulty in those movements, just getting your staff and the whips from place to place. So if the Main Committee were going to be relocated, I think the smart thing to do would be to relocate it as close as possible to the House of Representatives chamber.The third recommendation, about interventions, seems a little bit contrived to me. While I can understand the desire for more spontaneity, I also see that it could become a vehicle for unpleasantness—and that is not putting too fine a point on it. We do not seem to have much of a tolerance for interjections in this place and I can see members wanting to use the intervention process as a method of putting their opponent off their pace. I can also see it becoming a way for there to be considerable difficulties between members who may be wanting to make an intervention and the chair because it puts a tolerance in the hands of the chair which sometimes is lacking. So I think we ought to have a rule that says people cannot do this or they can do it—that is point 1—and it should not be up to the chair to say, `You cannot do it.' But I also think that, if we were going to try it, it ought to be a very limited trial, because while there might be an idea in people's minds that there is a bit more goodwill up here, I am not quite sure that that goodwill would extend to someone deliberately trying to break up someone's train of thought.I do not have a problem with recommendation 4. I think it will remove some of the programming restrictions that apply to members statements and adjournment speeches. I had a close look at recommendation 5 and I just wonder why we are doing this. If we find that there is any sort of gross misbehaviour, it is quite easy to adjourn this body. I do not know whether we need to go to the extent of having a new standing order as suggested in recommendation 5.Recommendation 6 on the surface looks pretty good, but provides a considerable technical problem while this chamber is located a long way away from the whips' offices. If people want to sit everywhere, then my staff and, I am sure, the Chief Government Whip's staff will have a considerable problem with knowing who is where and who is what. Currently, in this room, there are two television cameras. No doubt if you relocated you might have four, five or six television cameras that would allow them to be able to see who is who and where is where. I have just been advised there are four here—well, they are still inadequate. I think if you allowed people to sit all over the place, the difficulty you would have in knowing where the next speaker was would be a problem. It also would provide a perception problem for the public, because I imagine if you are going to move you will want to have a bigger gallery and if the public come in and see everyone sitting on one side they will say, `Where are the others?' We would say, of course, `Well, it is the government—they could not give a damn about any of this and they never turn up.' But there will also be a tendency for people to sit around and chat, and it will look like some sort of a coffee club rather than people who are taking a particular interest in the way parliament works.I am all for getting away from the way the House of Commons works. But if we are going to have an adversarial system in the House of Representatives, then to change it for up here and have people sitting next to each other chatting might become rather difficult. And if you are going to have your intervention procedure, and if the person who really does not like you and thinks what you are saying is terrible and disgraceful and that he or she is going to do their best to make sure you never get your point out, then to have them sitting next to you trying to intervene on you could lead to more than unpleasantness—and then we would have more unpleasantness from the chair. So 6 looks all right on the surface, but I think you would have a problem with it in the end.I think recommendation 7 is a good idea, but I would take it further, mainly because of the problems that the whips find in having to run this place by a bit of remote control from their offices. If we are going to move, then we should provide some facilities for an officials gallery, the same as we have done in the House, so that our staff, or even members' staff, can have access to that officials gallery. So, if you are going to move, there should be better provisions for ancillary staff.The last recommendation is recommendation 8, which I do not like at all—and I am glad you are in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, because I want you to know I am not at all enamoured of the idea of the Selection Committee programming this chamber. To go back to my original point: this chamber has worked well because it has been the vehicle by which the whips have been able to respond to pressures from within both sides of the House to get material up here. I do not think there has been any committee or any person who has had an interest in a motion to take note that has not been able to get me or the government whip to get their matter on the Notice Paper here. That allows us a flexibility and a quickness that is not there in the way the Selection Committee programs the work of private members business in the chamber.While I was also one of the people who got up the idea of the Selection Committee—and I think it works very well for the House of Representatives chamber—I think the flexibility that we have in the way this forum works might be hampered by recommendation 8. I do not have a closed mind on recommendation 8, but I think it needs a lot more discussion before we deal with it. You could end up having some difficulty with it inasmuch as, if the Selection Committee came to the view that they wanted to do something that the whips did not want to do, something could be bounced out of this chamber back to the House of Representatives. I think that is unlikely to happen, but it is on a higher level than a possibility. In short, I think most of the report is pretty good and I commend the members of the Procedure Committee for their work. I am glad the Main Committee—and hopefully it will be named the `Second Chamber'—has survived for six years. I think it is pretty hard for anyone to strangle it now; they did not succeed at its birth and it has grown up to be a reasonable sort of adolescent.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I must say that the chair is not surprised by the opposition to recommendation 8 of the Chief Opposition Whip.11:45:0019207Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to make a small intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have not had a chance to examine the report of the Procedure Committee in detail. I had a brief look at it yesterday and again today. I concur with most of the things that were said by the chairman of the committee, and I commend him and his committee on a very good report. I also commend the comments of the Chief Government Whip. There is a good case for shifting this chamber from here to some position closer to the House of Representatives itself. I think that is quite important. I would like to make a suggestion that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, might like to convey to the Speaker: we could perhaps do it as a special occasion for the Centenary of Federation. As part of the development of Australian style democracy in this place, the chamber could be renovated and opened as one of the seminal events of the year 2001.I share with the Chief Opposition Whip the idea of defining various areas where advisers and the public can sit. It is all a bit higgledy-piggledy here. This has been developed to have the advisers in one place and the public in another, but you never really quite know where they are. Also, there is no provision to bring in a school group, for example, unless it is a very small one. Perhaps there should be some provision for a public gallery behind glass for that purpose. I do not think members of the public would be offended by that. It would give the opportunity to bring at least the older students in here sometimes to show them the second chamber working. I agree with the idea of the analog clock rather than the digital clock in this particular instance because it is universal through this building. I always see the digital clock as being a bit anachronistic in this particular chamber. I also like the idea of the intervention. It would require a good trial and a lot of goodwill. If it were just used manipulatively, it would destroy itself very quickly. I commend the committee on that. That is well thought out. It would create a lot of interactivity. I hear the older members who served in the Old Parliament House say that the intimacy of that led to better exchanges and better interactivity between the government and the opposition. A lot more goodwill and humour came from that. When debates were quite fiery, good on-the-spot debating came out in members. The intervention might reawaken some of that latent ability that was perhaps lost when we moved from the old House of Representatives into the new one. The recommendation that I do have a reservation about is the idea of being able to sit anywhere in the chamber. I think it is important that, if this is the `Second Chamber', if this is a parallel of the House of Representatives, if this is a continuation of the Westminster style of seating, behaviour, protocol and all those sorts of things, it would be totally inappropriate to have people sitting around on different sides of the House. Quite apart from the points that the Chief Opposition Whip made about confusion in the minds of the public about who is who, it is difficult for the deputy speakers to know the order of speakers. Imagine them sitting around where intervention was occurring. You could have all sorts of cross-interventions going on and you would not know whether they were pro or anti the government or the opposition. It would create a bit of a hotchpotch. If this is to parallel the House of Representatives chamber, albeit that there is not a seat here for every single member, it should in principle parallel the procedures of the other chamber. With that one reservation, I think it is an excellent report and I again compliment the chairman and his committee on it and make the suggestion that we might look at doing something about this as one of the events of the Centenary of Federation.11:53:0019208Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)10000PON/A10—Before I seek the adjournment of the debate, as Deputy Speaker with responsibility for this second chamber, I would just like to say from the chair to the chairman of the Procedure Committee, congratulations and please convey my goodwill and thanks to your committee for a job that has been very well done indeed. Debate (on motion by Mr Sercombe) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 11.53 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing19209The following answers to questions were circulated:19209(Question No. 1429)142919209Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 April 2000: Have the estimated costs of the internal freeway through Albury, NSW, been understated and will it now cost over $316 million; if so, is the cost more than the combined cost of an external and a four lane second crossing in Albury.19209Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I direct the honourable member's attention to my open letter to the residents of Albury-Wodonga, published in the Border Mail on 23 May, which deals with this issue comprehensively.Briefly, I have been waiting on the NSW Minister for Roads, the Hon Carl Scully MP, to provide a report and an updated cost for the proposed internal freeway at Albury-Wodonga since January this year. This information is required before I can lawfully release funds to allow tenders to be called and construction to commence. In May Mr Scully formally advised me that costs have risen again. Cost estimates for Stage 1 in NSW have risen from $110 million to $240 million - an increase of more than 100 per cent. The entire project will now cost around $500 million, compared to the RTA's 1998 cost estimate of $200m.I have now requested Mr Scully to undertake an assessment of the costs of the external route to allow me to determine the most appropriate upgrade for the Highway. At the same time, I have asked Mr Scully to complete as a matter of urgency the current report on the internal freeway including its final cost, as well as a report into an internal relief route to be assessed in conjunction with any external bypass plan. I have asked Mr Scully to complete these reports by the end of September. I have also written to the Victorian Minister for Transport, the Hon Peter Batchelor MP, requesting his cooperation.In view of the RTA's poor record of cost estimation associated with this project, I have also decided to appoint an independent auditor to oversee further work on the bypass costings. The Federal Government has acted in good faith throughout the planning process. The States decided the route, and the Federal Government agreed to their request to fund its construction. If NSW and Victoria meet the September deadline, I will be able to announce my decision before the end of the year.NSW has agreed to review the scope and costs of the external option so a proper comparison can be made between the routes. However, Mr Scully has refused to fund an internal traffic relief route to meet the needs of the people of Albury and Wodonga, in the event that an external bypass proves more feasible and affordable. Mr Scully's refusal to accept his responsibility would adversely affect the people of Albury-Wodonga, were the Commonwealth to fund an external bypass of the Highway.19209(Question No. 1512)151219209Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 2000: (1) How many staff, advisers and consultants have been employed by the Western Desert Puntukurnuparna Aboriginal Corporation with native title funding since 1997. (2)What selection process have been conducted to employ and engage staff, advisers and consultants since 1997. (3)What are the terms and conditions of all employees, advisers and consultant contracts. (4)What were the issues under investigation and the outcome of the Australian Federal Police inquiries at the Native Title Unit at the corporation in 1999. (5)Since 1997 what percentage of the budget has been allocated to legal advice. (6)Is the Minister able to say whether in 1998 and 1999 the Martu legal advisers organised formal and informal meetings, without the knowledge or authority of the Martu people, between the Martu legal adviser and Rio Tinto (RTZ), and in some cases the Native Title Tribunal was involved. (7)On whose authority were these discussions and meetings conducted. (8)Have there been any discussions between the Martu legal adviser and RTZ in 2000; if so on whose authority. (9) How is the Martu legal adviser receiving his instructions in the matter now (10)In 1996 did the Martu instruct the WDPAC to prepare a report of Martu opinions about the environmental and social impact of the uranium mine at Kintyre and subsequently the company prepared a report in response to the WDPAC report. (11)When will the Martu have the opportunity to examine the RTZ report of early 1998. (12)What funds remain for the engagement of independent specialist to assess the report.(13)Does WDPAC intend to engage such a specialist. (14) Does the legal representative intend to conduct workshops in the communities about the report as agreed in September 1998; if so, when will they commence. (15) In 1997 did the Martu agree to a request from RTZ to send two anthropologists into the communities to question people about the social impact of a uranium mine at Kintyre and did the company agree to send a copy of the report to the Martu. (16) Has the report been completed; if so, when will the Martu people receive a copy.19210Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Western Desert Puntukurnuparna Aboriginal Corporation (WDPAC) has advised that the organisation employed approximately 18 full time staff in the period in question and 10 consultants were engaged during the same period. WDPAC has advised that no advisers were employed. (2) WDPAC has advised that ATSIC procurement processes were followed in the engagement of staff and consultants. In this regard WDPAC sought competitive quotes for services to be provided or sought the waiver of the need to obtain quotes if the circumstances were such that quotes could not be obtained. Staff were engaged following a standard selection process.WDPAC has advised that no advisers were employed. (3) WDPAC has advised that staff were employed under the terms and conditions of the Aboriginal Communities and Associations Award. WDPAC also advise that consultants were contracted using this award as a basis of the contracts. (4) WDPAC has advised that some staff were interviewed by the Australian Federal Police about an alleged theft of a TV/Recorder at the Punmu Community. The staff were not advised of the outcome of the police investigations as it did not concern WDPAC as an organisation. However, it is understood from ATSIC sources that the police investigations were inconclusive. (5) WDPAC has advised that over the period in question approximately 30% of its budget was allocated to legal costs. (6) to (16) WDPAC has provided the following information:“The issues surrounding the questions relate to Tenement applications presently subject to provisions of the Native Title Act 1993. The applications may be subject to Arbitration and the information requested is subject to privilege. The present position of the Martu people is that uranium mining and exploration in the area of the Martu Native Title claim is in abeyance until such time as a Native Title Determination is made.”19210(Question No. 1516)151619210Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 2000: (1) Has the Minister received submissions concerning the periodic payment of common law personal injury compensation from the Structured Settlements Group, representative of the Law Council of Australia, the Insurance Council of Australia, the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers, the Australian Medical Association, Injuries Australia and others. (2) Has the Government examined these submissions; if so, what conclusions has it formed concerning the issue of periodic payment of personal injury Compensation and their taxation treatment. (3) Is it a fact that in cases of common law personal injury compensation the Courts reduce compensation paid for lost earnings so that compensation is only for after-tax earnings. (4) Should accident victims be taxed on money paid to compensate them for pain and suffering, medical expenses and the like. (5) Should persons being compensated for after tax earnings be taxed on the after-tax compensation. (6) What is the Government's attitude to clarifying that periodic payments to common law compensation settlements would not be taxable. (7) Is the Government able to say whether the NSW and Victorian Governments are trying to improve common law compensation by amending their own State Compensation Laws to encourage periodic payments in the form of Structured Settlements.19211Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Assistant Treasurer has received submissions from the Structured Settlements Group. (2) The Government is still considering these submissions. (3) This question seeks legal opinion. (4) and (5) Whether the compensation payment is assessable depends upon whether it is a payment of income or capital. Payments of capital are not assessable. (6) See answer to Question 2. (7) These are matters for the NSW and Victorian Governments.19211(Question No. 1529)152919211O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 May 2000: (1) Does the Minister's department administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, business 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.19211Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No (2) N/A.19211(Question No. 1544)154419211O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 11 May 2000: (1) Did the Minister's Department, under the Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) Participatory Program, award a new research project grant for 1999 to the Queen Victoria Museum, Launceston, with the joint principal investigators being Dr Robert Blakemore and Dr Timothy Kingston. (2) Was that grant later refused by the Director of the Queen Victoria Museum: if so, (a) when and (b) was the refusal made in writing. (3) Was the grant subsequently transferred, re-allocated or awarded to Dr Blakemore under the administration of another institution; if so, (a) which institution and (b) what was the title and project summary of the grant awarded to Dr Blakemore. (4) Is the Minister satisfied that in the re-allocation of the ABRS grant to Dr Blakemore, due consideration was given to protecting the individual rights of Dr Kingston in his capacity as joint principal investigator in the original, successful application; if so, what is the basis for his satisfaction.19212Truss, 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) (a) and (b) The Director of the Queen Victoria Museum, Dr Chris Tassell confirmed in writing to the ABRS on 11 December 1998 that the institution was not in a position to accept the grant due to Dr Blakemore's intended departure from the Museum. (3) Yes. (a) CSIRO Division of Entomology. This decision was taken by the Advisory Committee of ABRS, taking into consideration the letter from Dr Tassell referred to under (2), a letter from Dr Blakemore dated 9 December 1998 requesting a transfer of the grant to CSIRO, Division of Entomology in Canberra, and a letter of 14 December 1998 from CSIRO Division of Entomology confirming their agreement to the transfer of the grant to their institution, with Dr Blakemore. (b) The project title and summary are identical to the project approved for the Queen Victoria Museum, as provided below. Project Title: Systematics and DELTA accounts of Tasmanian earthworms. Project Summary: Studies of the large numbers of specimens collected during field surveys of Tasmanian native earthworms, conducted since 1991, have increased the number of known species from 48 to over 230. Funds are being sought from ABRS, firstly to complete and publish formal descriptions of the new species and secondly to incorporate descriptions of all species into a computer program that will enable biologists and soil scientists to readily identify earthworms, now well-recognised as organisms beneficial to soil health, found during their studies. Land managers, conservation agencies (and anyone else interested) will also be able to determine the species of earthworms they have in their soils and learn more about them. (4) Yes. Before the ABRS Advisory Committee consider any variation to a project, formal letters are required from the institutions involved. The institutions are formally required to keep all parties to the application informed when it is proposed that changes be made. Under the ABRS Conditions of Award, Dr Tassell, as Director of the Museum, was bound to keep Dr Kingston and Dr Blakemore informed of the changes to the earthworms project. In a letter to ABRS of 8 September 1999 Dr Tassell indicated that at, the time the Queen Victoria Museum declined to take up the grant in December 1998, Dr Kingston was fully informed of this decision and the reasons for it.19212(Question No. 1575)157519212Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 May 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to claims that a US$4.8 billion IMF loan was laundered to Russian oligarchs' Swiss bank accounts via Australia. (2) Has he seen documentation on this matter by Victor Ilyukhin, Chairman of the National Security Committee of Russia's Duma. (3) Has his attention been drawn to a letter to the Russian prosecutor dated 23 March 1999 in which Mr Ilyukhin claimed that the US$4.8 billion was transferred from New York to Australia and back to London and New York over a three day period. (4) Is he able to say whether the IMF loan monies wound up in private accounts in Lausanne, Switzerland. (5) Who were the Russian oligarchs to whose accounts the loans were diverted. (6) What steps has he taken within Australia and with the IMF to see that such money laundering of IMF loans cannot be repeated.19212Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3,4,5 and 6) The matter was investigated by the IMF and no evidence was found to support the allegations concerning the misappropriation of IMF funds.19213(Question No. 1581)158119213Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 May 2000: (1) Has he received signed copies of the return section from a United Firefighters Union of Australia pamphlet outlining concerns with the direction of aviation fire fighting services; if so, how many. (2) What action has he taken in response to the campaign.19213Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Further to my answer published in Hansard, 29 June 2000, page 18813, the following additional information is provided to the honourable member's question: (1) The total number of responses received to end May 2000 was not the eighty-six (86) previously advised, but was instead one thousand and eighty-six (1086).19213(Question No. 1589)158919213Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 1 June 2000: (1) Were sums allocated in the 2000-2001 Budget for the purposes of insulating houses adversely affected by aircraft noise in the vicinity of domestic and international airports; if so, (a) where and (b) what is the associated cost and timeframe for the project. (2) If sums were not allocated, are there plans to allocate sums in future Budgets.19213Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Sums were allocated in the 2000-2001 Budget for the purposes of insulating houses adversely affected by aircraft noise in the vicinity of both Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and Adelaide Airport. An amount of $64.892m was allocated for Sydney in anticipation of works being completed by the end of June 2001. Timing will, however, be dependent on the response of building owners to offers of assistance. An amount $10.27m was allocated for Adelaide in respect of 2000-2001, with works commencing late in 2000. A total estimate of $63.749m has been provided over four years with the Program expected to be completed during the 2003-2004 financial year. 19213(Question No. 1593)159319213Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 1 June 2000: (1) Must B Double trucks travelling north to Brisbane and other main centres use the New England Highway, despite the ongoing upgrade of the Pacific Highway. (2) At what stage is Government consideration of the Maitland by-pass and what is the estimated cost of the by-pass.19213Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) The New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) has advised that due to progress with the jointly funded Pacific Highway Upgrading Program, B-Doubles can now travel on the Pacific Highway between Hexham and Ballina, and between Murwillumbah and Queensland, However, B-Doubles are restricted from travelling between Ballina and Murwillumbah because of conditions at Burringbar Range. Consequently, B-Doubles travelling between Sydney and Brisbane must use the New England Highway. To bypass the Burringbar Range, construction has commenced on dual carriageways between Yelgun and Chinderah. This work is jointly funded by the Federal and NSW Governments, and completion is planned for end 2002. The RTA will then reassess the use of the Pacific Highway by B-Doubles between Ballina and Murwillumbah. (2) The RTA has been planning a long-term National Highway link between the F3 and the New England Highway at Branxton (part of which includes a “Maitland Outer Bypass”) since 1993. However, a range of issues have arisen during environmental assessment of the preferred route and, as a result, the route is yet to be determined by the NSW Government. The RTA advises that route determination is now expected in 2001. The Government has allocated $0.2 million in the 2000/2001 budget for the project and will continue to fund planning. Further consideration will be given to the funding and timing of construction, as well as possible staging options, when planning work is more advanced. Preliminary estimates of costs provided by the RTA indicate that to complete Stages 1 and 2 of the F3 to Branxton route would cost in the vicinity of $250 million. Stage 1 together with upgrading of John Renshaw Drive (which would provide an outer bypass of Maitland), are estimated to cost around $115 million. Since these cost estimates were originally provided several years ago, the Commonwealth has asked the RTA to confirm the expected costs of the entire project and to provide more detailed explanation of how they are derived. 19214(Question No. 1601)160119214Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 June 2000: (1) Will he announce a decision on a second airport for Sydney at Badgerys Creek on or before 1 September 2000. (2) Further to his answer to part (1) of question No.1440 (Hansard, 29 May 2000, page 15615), what are the details of the minor impact the implementation of The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System will have on the Long Term Operating Plan at Sydney over the period from the end of July 1999 to mid October 1999.19214Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government is currently considering the complex issues linked to Sydney's future airport needs, and expects to make a decision on these issues in the near future. (2) Airservices Australia advise the following: Transition of Sydney Airport to a TAAATS environment occurred in 3 stages: . Departures - 24 July 1999 . Approach - 31 August 1999 . Complete Transition - 11 September 1999. During the transition period to Departures, runway changes at Sydney Airport were kept to only those absolutely necessary for the first 3 days. This resulted in Sydney airport operating on either R16 or R34 parallel operations for the most part during this period, with crossing runway modes being used only during quiet periods. After the Departures transition phase, Airservices adhered as much as possible to the nominal runway mode change times for the remainder of the transition to TAAATS while Air Traffic Controllers became used to the new operating environment.19215(Question No. 1604)160419215Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 2000: (1) Did Australia ratify the 1983 UNESCO Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific on 23 September 1985. (2) Has Australia formally raised the question of ratification or accession with any of the States which have not become parties to the Convention but which are mentioned in the answer provided by his predecessor to question No. 2115 (Hansard, 22 August, page 115). (3) On what occasions has Australia raised the question with each of the States referred to in part (2).19215Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australia became a party to the Convention through deposit of an instrument of acceptance on 23 September 1985. (2) No. (3) Australia has not formally raised the question.19215(Question No. 1616)161619215Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2000: (1) Did the 1991 Special Premiers' Conference agree that road funding should be based on the Commonwealth Government being responsible for national roads, State Governments being responsible for arterial roads and local governments being responsible for local roads. (2) What understandings were reached with State and local governments associated with the Government's new taxation system in the context of the government response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform Planning not Patching report. (3) Does the Government response at page 41 state that the (a) new taxation system provides an important devolution of financial independence to the States, Territories and local government for the road program and (b) Government provides an appropriate level of funding in the Budget for its road program; if so, how does this reconcile with the agreements from the 1991 Special Premiers' Conference and calls to improve local roads and bridge infrastructure throughout Australia, particularly in rural and regional areas.19215Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) That is a summary of the 1991 agreement in relation to road funding. (2) No understandings were reached with State and local governments in the context of the Government's response to the Planning not Patching Report. (3) The response to the Planning not Patching Report is consistent with the 1991 Agreement and the new taxation arrangements. The 1991 Agreement apportioned responsibility for road funding to the appropriate level of government. The Commonwealth continues to directly fund the National Highway and other roads of national importance, which are the roads for which it is responsible. It provides an appropriate level of funding to meet its responsibilities. Other levels of government fund the roads for which they are responsible. The Commonwealth does assist other levels of government to meet their responsibilities but does not assume responsibility for local roads and bridge infrastructure. The Commonwealth is providing over $1.32b in assistance to local government in 2000-01. $30m has been offered to the States and Territories to assist with bridge upgrading on strategic freight routes off the National Highway to facilitate the implementation of higher mass limits for heavy vehicles.19216(Question No. 1644)164419216Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 June 2000: (1) What sum would it cost to upgrade the section of the Calder Highway between Woodend and Kyneton to dual carriageway standard. (2) What is the cost of upgrading the bridges on this section of the highway. (3) Are there plans to complete the upgrade of this section of highway; if so, when is it scheduled to commence.19216Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $50 million (1999 dollars) (2) $11.8 million (1999 dollars) (3) The Federal Government is committed to progressive upgrading of the Calder Highway, subject to the availability of funds. The Calder Highway is a state arterial and the responsibility of the Victorian Government. I understand that the Victorian Government has allocated some funding for the Woodend to Kyneton section.19216(Question No. 1645)164519216Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 June 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn by the Victorian Roads Alliance that Victoria contributes 25% of the nations fuel excise, accounts for 25% of national road usage, yet receives only 15% of Federal road funding. (2) Is there any basis to the claim; if so; are Victorians deprived of $130 million additional road funding per annum. 19216Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Municipal Association of Victoria has written to the Federal Government on behalf of the Victorian Roads Alliance. (2) No. The Victorian Roads Alliance's claim misguidedly compares fuel excise collection with road funding. There is no relationship between these two issues. Victoria receives a high level of direct Federal road funding commensurate with the length and Importance of the State's National Highway and Roads of National Importance systems.19216(Question No. 1651)165119216Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 21 June 2000: (1) Has Radio Australia's service been of enormous importance in enhancing understanding of international relations for people in the Asian region and beyond and generating goodwill between people of diverse ethnic and religious communities living under a range of political systems. (2) Has Radio Australia been very important in fostering greater understanding through the support it has given to international conferences and meetings, such as the religion and culture in the Asia Pacific - Violence or healing conference to be held in Melbourne in October. (3) Will the decision to cut the services of Radio Australia be reconsidered. (4) Will the decision to sell the Radio Australia transmitter to a private organisation be reconsidered.19216McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Radio Australia continues to provide an important service in the Asia Pacific region as it has done over an extended period of time. (2) See response to question 1. Radio Australia regularly participates in meetings of regional broadcasting associations (such as the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union and Pacific Islands Broadcasting Association) and organises seminars with Australian universities on Asian-related topics. (3) The Government is committed to ensuring that Radio Australia continues to provide a service to the Asia-Pacific region. (4) No.19217(Question No. 1659)165919217Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 June 2000: (1) What sum (a) was obtain from passport fees in (i) 1998-99, (ii) 1999-2000, (estimated or outcome) and (b) is expected to be obtained from passport fees in (i) 2000-01 (ii) 2001-02, (iii) 2002-03 and (iv) 2003-04. (2) For each year referred to in part (1), what sum has come from, or is expected to come from, passports, observation made after issue, certificate of identity (renewal), document of identity (renewal) and UN Travel documents.19217Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) (i)1998-99$ 119.014 million(ii)1999-00$ 125.342 million(b) (i)2000-01$ 131.298 million(ii)2001-02$ 132.830 million(iii)2002-03$ 123.898 million(iv)2003-04$ 123.058 million(2) PassportsCOIDOIUN travelTotal*(a) (i)$118,861,286$38,505$20,497$93,712$119.014 (ii)$125,172,262$51,781$20,136$97,821$125.342 (b) (i)$131,124,860$48,360$21,853$102,927$131.298(ii)$132,654,840$48,925$22,108$104,129$132.830(iii)$123,734,618$45,635$20,620$97,127$123.898 (iv)$122,895,726$45,325$20,482$96,467$123.058 *Total amount is expressed in millions of dollars.Note: Fees obtained from Observation made after issue are minor and are not identified separately from Passport Fees.19217(Question No. 1662)166219217McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 June 2000: Further to the answer to question No. 1480 (Hansard, 31 May 2000, page 15813), would she provide a breakdown of the funding provided by the Government under the Indigenous Sport Program setting out, in particular, desired outcomes and parameters of the program.19217Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Further to my response to Parliamentary Question on Notice No. 1480 the $257,433 provided in 1999-2000 to the Northern Territory for the Indigenous Sport Program (ISP) is used to employ 4 regional development officers. The ISP is a joint initiative of the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The Program aims to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in sport and recreation with a specific community development focus. The ISP strategy is founded on the principles of self-determination and self-management which sees Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders working for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders from a community level through to the ASC's management of the strategy. The ISP consists of a number of specific schemes or development tools: . Indigenous Community Sport Development Program . National Elite Indigenous Travel and Accommodation Assistance Program . Regional Indigenous Sport Assistance Program . Cross Cultural Awareness Training . Athlete Development Initiative, including: Olympic Training Centre Scholarships; Indigenous Sport Scholarships; Uluru Athletes Forum; and Googlagong Sports Libraries.The ASC and ATSIC are currently involved in negotiations to expand the ISP in the Northern Territory.19218(Question No. 1663)166319218Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 22 June 2000: (1) What information was provided to self funded retirees who are on a part pension about their eligibility for the GST compensation package. (2) When and how was the information provided.19218Anthony, 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) Information provided (2) Method of delivery(2) When providedArticles outlining changes to pensions, personal taxes and the Saving Bonuses for older Australians.Age Pension NewsAge Pension News is a quarterly publication from Centrelink covering issues relevant to age pensioners. It is delivered to the homes of age pensioners and has a distribution of around two million.September 1999Representatives of peak welfare organisations, including for self-retirees, were given the opportunity to attend a one day seminar. All compensatory aspects of tax reform were covered and attendees were provided with an information kit that included the material on computer disk. The expected outcome of the seminar was that peak bodies would be able to disseminate information about taxation reform to their members.One day seminar held in Canberra.November 1999An article to help age pensioners understand how the Goods and Services Tax (GST) will affect health-related goods and services.Age Pension NewsDecember 1999Detailed articles covering the general impact of tax reform, the compensation available, personal tax changes and the Savings Bonuses for Older Australians.Age Pension NewsMarch 2000Press advertisements targeted to age pensioners and self-funded retirees.Press advertising (national distribution).Week commencing 26 March 2000Television advertisements targeted to age pensioners and self-funded retirees.Television advertising (national distribution).26 March 2000 to 15 April 2000The Information Kits contain overviews and fact sheets about the portfolio's tax reform measures, such as the restructure of family assistance, compensation available to pensioners and allowees and information on the Savings Bonuses.Information KitsDistributed to community groups, peak welfare organisations, Members of Parliament and customers making queries.March 2000 onwardsThe Website contains general information about the portfolio's tax reform measures. The Website includes overviews, fact sheets and multilingual information (including information for self-funded retirees).FaCS Internet siteMarch 2000 onwardsAn article summarising information previously provided in Age Pension News about tax reform.Age Pension NewsJune 20001.5 Million information pamphlets and claim forms for bonuses. Pamphlets provide full information on bonus program, including how the bonuses will be calculated, payment method and what customers need to do.Direct mailJune 2000Education and advertising material produced by the Australian Taxation Office also provided information about compensation for retirees.19220(Question No. 1670)167019220McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 22 June 2000: (1) What agency is responsible for supplying facsimile machines, photocopiers and terminals for use by job seekers in Centrelink. (2) What are the criteria used for calculating the number of facsimile machines and photocopiers supplied to each Centrelink Office for use by job seekers. (3) What agency or contractor is responsible for the maintenance of the facsimile machines and photocopiers supplied to each Centrelink Office for use by job seekers. (4) How many photocopiers have been provided for use by job seekers in the Centrelink offices in Innaloo and Mirrabooka, WA. (5) How many facsimile machines have been provided for use by job seekers in the Centrelink offices in Innaloo and Mirrabooka. (6) Does the agency or contractor which is responsible for the maintenance of the facsimile machines and photocopiers supplied to each Centrelink Office for use by job seekers keep records of maintenance costs and down-time; if so, (a) how many hours were job seekers left without the use of (i) photocopiers and (ii) facsimile machines at the (A) Innaloo and (B) Mirrabooka Centrelink offices in (I) 1996-97, (II) 1997-98 and (III) 1998-99.19220Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB) has overall responsibility to supply facsimile machines, photocopiers and terminals for use by job seekers in Centrelink. Different contractors provide equipment under DEWRSB contract. Those contracted agencies are : . Copiers - Canon Australia, . PC terminals and printers - IBM Global Services Australia, and . Facsimile machines - Canon Australia in approximately 130 sites and, DEWRSB owned, ex-CES facsimile machines of various makes (Toshiba, Ricoh, Voca etc) in approximately 170 sites. (2) DEWRSB provided one photocopier and one facsimile machine to each Centrelink Customer Service Centre and to selected Youth Servicing Units. The criteria for provision of this equipment was that the Customer Service Centre should be a permanent and full time site and that the Youth Servicing Unit should be located separately from the Customer Service Centre. Sites are able to request more facilities by completing a `Business Case Proforma' and forwarding this to DEWRSB. The decision to provide extra facilities is made by the Employment Self Help Steering Committee (made up of DEWRSB and Centrelink representatives). (3) The following contractor or agency is responsible for the maintenance of: . Photocopiers - Centrelink is responsible for reporting maintenance problems and toner replacement to Canon on a dedicated phone number. Canon (or it's contracted service providers) is then responsible for maintenance and replacement. . Facsimile machines - If the facsimile is a Canon machine the same process is followed as applies to the photocopier (above). If an office holds an ex-CES machine, the Centrelink office is responsible for maintenance (replacement of drums, toner, paper and fixing) and must contact the local agent, according to the make of the machine. DEWRSB have agreed to replace these machines with the new Canon machines if it is more cost-efficient. (4) There is one photocopier provided for use by job seekers in Innaloo Customer Service Centre and one photocopier provided for job seeker use in Mirrabooka Customer Service Centre. (5) There is one facsimile machine provided for job seeker use in Innaloo Customer Service Centre and one facsimile machine provided for use in Mirrabooka Customer Service Centre. (6) No official records are kept of photocopier or facsimile machine down-time at Innaloo and Mirrabooka offices by either the offices or those agencies contracted for maintenance. Canon reports indicate, however, that they had 19 maintenance call-outs to Innaloo office between January 1998 and June 2000 and 14 maintenance call-outs to Mirrabooka office between January 1998 and June 2000. 19221(Question No. 1679)167919221Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, 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 what19221Truss, 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: It is not possible to provide a meaningful answer without a more precise definition of “transactions”. I would be happy to consider a more specific request.19221(Question No. 1704)170419221Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 28 June 2000: (1) Is RAAF Base Amberley being used for any civilian purposes; if so, by whom and for what purpose. (2) Does the Minister's Department have plans or proposals to use the site for other than RAAF uses; if so, what are the plans. (3) Is the Minister's Department investigating or developing an alternative use for the site; if so, what are the projects.19221Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) This is a matter for the Minister for Defence. (2) No. (3) No.19221(Question No. 1723)172319221Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 29 June 2000: (1) Has the Minister received an application under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act from a Mrs Edna Bropho and others concerning the WA State Government placing a prison on an Aboriginal site at Eden Hill, Western Australia. (2) Has the Minister requested Mr Peter Marks to report to him under subsection 10(4) of the Act. (3) What qualifications does Mr Marks have to undertake such a reporting task. (4) Is a prison a suitable institution to be established on land of special significance to the Aboriginal people of WA. (5) Is the Minister aware that any approval by him to allow the prison to placed on the site will, in all probability, mean Aboriginal prisoners being placed in a prison on an Aboriginal sacred site. (6) When will the Minister be in a position to take action to protect the Pyrton site against this proposed action by the WA Government. (7) Will the Federal Government allow this insult to be visited on Aboriginal people by the WA Government.19222Truss, 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. I have received applications for protection, under both section 9 and section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, over the site of a proposed prison in the Eden Hill area. (2) In line with the provisions of the Act, I have nominated Mr Peter Marks under s.10.(1)(c) of the Act to invite representations from interested persons, and to prepare a report to me on the matters prescribed in the Act. Mr Marks provided his report, along with representations made to him, on 6 June 2000. (3) Mr Marks is an experienced lawyer and able to perform the functions prescribed in the provisions of the Act. (4) and (5) These matters are dealt with in Mr Marks' report, which I am considering. (6) and (7) I am required under the provisions of the Act to consider Mr Marks' report, the attached representations made to him, and any other relevant matters. When I have done so I will decide whether to make the declaration of protection sought by the applicants.