2000-08-173917REPS1922302000-08-17—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous1922309:31:0019223Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition moving—That order of the day No. 42, Government business, be called on and debated forthwith in view of:(1) soaring petrol prices, especially in regional Australia, largely caused by the increase in tax on every litre of petrol due to the GST;(2) the failure of the Government to honour its promise to cut the petrol excise by an equivalent amount to the GST, leaving at least 1.5 cents more excise per litre;(3) the further indexation in petrol tax on 1 August which was driven by GST price increases in housing and insurance and on pre-emptive price increases before the GST commenced;(4) the cascading effect of the GST which is imposed on the excise indexation increase—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under the standing orders. The notice of motion is excessive and excessively long and is therefore not in accordance with the requirements for a notice of motion.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have been listening to the motion read by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It has not been inconsistent with other motions of this nature moved in the past. I assume, however, that he is coming to the conclusion of the motion, and I will allow him to proceed and will intervene should my assumption be wrong.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I would have concluded if not so rudely interrupted by the member for Gippsland. He knows that this petrol price issue is hurting him. To continue:(4) the cascading effect of the GST which is imposed on the excise indexation increase, meaning that the GST is a tax on a tax thereby further lifting petrol prices; and(5) the Government deliberately misleading the Australian public on the effect of the GST on petrol taxation, and that it is planning to increase the level of petrol tax by around a further 2 cents in February 2001 due to the indexation of petrol excise due to the direct inflation effect of the GST.Mr Speaker, this government has dudded the Australian public on petrol. It deceived them. It deserves to come in here and defend itself.Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the member be not further heard.09:38:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 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.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Ronaldson, M.J.C.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.61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.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.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'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.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J. Wilkie, K. Zahra, C.J..Draper, P.Byrne, A.M.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Moore, J.C.Ellis, A.L.Reith, P.K.O'Connor, G.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.09:42:0019224McMullan, Bob (Manager of Opposition Business)Mr McMULLAN5I4FraserALPManager of Opposition Business00—This is costing taxpayers an extra $1.3 million a day—Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the member be not further heard.09:45:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 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.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Ronaldson, M.J.C.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.61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.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.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'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.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J. Wilkie, K. Zahra, C.J.Draper, P.Byrne, A.M.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Moore, J.C.Ellis, A.L.Reith, P.K.O'Connor, G.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Crean's) be agreed to.09:46:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.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.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'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.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K. Zahra, C.J.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.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Ronaldson, M.J.C.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.Byrne, A.M.Draper, P.Beazley, K.C.Howard, J.W.Ellis, A.L.Moore, J.C.O'Connor, G.MReith, P.K.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills19225R113419225Bill presented by Mr Anthony, and read a first time.1922509:51:0019225Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill gives effect to the measure announced in the 2000-01 budget, which is intended to restore equity and integrity to the social security and veterans' affairs means tests.Under current social security and veterans' affairs legislation, assets held in private trusts and private companies generally cannot be assessed under the social security means test. This means that individuals can use private trusts or private companies to hold and control assets outside the bounds of the current means test.People who arrange their affairs this way are therefore often treated more favourably under the means test than a person holding similar levels of assets directly. Thus well-off or even quite wealthy people can receive income support payments. This isn't how the community expects the income support system to operate. It is also at odds with the principle that people with similar levels of private resources should receive similar levels of payment. This measure is about providing a level playing field for all social security customers, no matter how they choose to hold their assets or income.This measure has been prompted by the increased use of private trusts and private company structures to gain social security and veterans' affairs entitlements. A primary aim of the measure is to forestall the continued growth in the use of this strategy. Because assets held in these structures currently may be exempt from the means test, they are often the strategies behind advertisements in the personal investment pages of newspapers which ask `Would you like a pension?' or state `How to maximise your social security entitlements'.The measure seeks to avoid a loss of public confidence in the system, which could be expected if well-off and even wealthy people are receiving taxpayer-funded income support when they have the means to support themselves.The proposed new means test treatment is seen by the government as helping to ensure an affordable, sustainable social security and veterans' affairs systems through continued targeting of benefits to those most in need.The proportion of income support recipients affected would be very small: less than 1 per cent of all income support recipients. In total, it is estimated that only some 35,000 existing Centrelink customers (including 14,000 partnered parenting payees and 11,000 age pensioners) and 2,500 veterans' affairs customers would be affected. Of these, about half would have their payments reduced and half cancelled under the proposed rule changes. Even though only a relatively small number of customers will be affected by this measure the Government anticipates there will be significant savings for the taxpayer of more than $100 million per year from the commencement of the measure on 1 January 2002.Those who are affected would be those with considerable resources with which to support themselves. This is because of the `free areas' and `taper' ranges allowed under the income and assets tests. The largest proportion of the savings is expected to occur through the application of the assets test. It does not come into play until significant assets are available. For example, a homeowner couple can currently have $407,000 in assets excluding their home before losing all entitlement. Non-homeowners have even more generous allowable levels of assets.The government's proposal to alter the means test treatment of private trusts and private companies in no way signifies any discrimination against these legal forms of holding investments and conducting business. It is designed to ensure that income support entitlements are based upon a person's level of resources, not on the way in which he/she holds those resources.Only trusts and companies of a small and private nature will be the subject of this measure. Customers' holdings of shares or units in publicly listed companies or unit trusts (with more than 50 members) that they own in their own name will not be affected by this measure, as their value is already included in assessments for social security.The fundamental change being proposed under this measure is that when a private trust or private company is recognised as a designated private trust or company, the assets and income of these private trusts and private companies may be attributed to a person who controls or has contributed to these structures. Two alternative tests will be applied:First, there is the `control test'. It is clear that often the controller of a structure can be considered to be the de facto owner of the structure's assets where he or she can use the assets for his or her own purpose or benefit. This test will also make it possible to determine who is the ultimate, or actual, controller of a structure. It is possible for the actual controller of a structure to be different to the apparent controller. This test will make reference to the concept of an `associate'. An `associate' is a person who may, because of their relationship with the actual controller, assist this controller with maintaining control of the structure. The relationship between the controller and an associate is broader than just a family relationship. Secondly, there is the `source test'. This test is designed to identify the ultimate source of assets in a structure. It may be that this source needs to be traced back through several intermediaries. It is recognised that, generally, a person transferring assets to an interposed structure does so either because the assets will continue to be used for that person's benefit, or will be used for their family's benefit. If a person claims that assets transferred to a trust or company were gifted to that entity then the person will need to demonstrate that a genuine gift has occurred. This may be difficult to establish where the person retained an involvement with that structure. The source test will only apply to contributions made to structures after 7.30 p.m. on 9 May 2000.Once it has been established that a person passes the control or source tests the facts of that person's case will be examined closely, with a view to working out whether, and to what extent, the assets and income of the relevant private trust or private company will be attributed to the person. This process will be guided by decision-making principles that will be set down in a disallowable instrument. Regard will also be given to publicly available policy guidelines that will further elaborate aspects of the attribution process. Draft decision-making principles, in this regard, are being prepared for the consideration of the parliament, and will be formally tabled following the passage of this bill.It is proposed that the measure will affect entitlements from 1 January 2002. However, it will be necessary to collect information from social security and veterans' affairs customers prior to this date, so that both departments will be in a position to determine entitlements from 1 January 2002.Where a person is attributed with assets or income of a private trust or private company as a result of this measure, the person will still, where practicable, be able to access existing means test concessions that would be available to a customer who held the same level of assets or income in their own right.In recognition of the importance of succession planning issues to the rural community this measure contains a special concession for farmers who hold their farming property in a family trust. Under certain conditions a farmer may pass their farming business on to a younger family member and still retain some powers in regard to the trust deed, without the assets or income of the trust being assessed against the retiring farmer under the means test. This concession will be available where the retiring farmer, and their spouse, owns or controls primary production assets of less than $750,000 and has income of less than the family tax benefits threshold, being approximately $28,200. Both of these amounts are subject to indexation.This concession is offered to help an older farmer retain some control over the farm that they have built up and worked so hard on during their lifetime. The retiring farmer will be able to retain a power of veto over the sale of the farm, together with a power to appoint a new trustee in the event of the death or invalidity of a current trustee. Even though the retired farmer will no longer be able to exercise day to day control over the farming business, he or she will be able to access a social security pension, and ensure the farm remains in the family.Maintaining the integrity of the means test is essential if Australia is to continue to have an effectively targeted, needs based and sustainable safety net system that supports the most vulnerable and those in genuine need.At present people operating private trusts or private companies are often treated more favourably under the current means test arrangements than are individuals, sole traders or people in partnerships, of otherwise similar means.This is inequitable and inconsistent with the objectives of the income support system, which are to provide a `safety net' for those who cannot adequately support themselves, and to encourage self-provision by those who can.These practices already involve substantial costs to the social security and veterans' affairs budgets and the taxpayer. These costs are likely to rise, as increasing numbers of Australians retire with substantial superannuation wealth to invest in order to secure a retirement income, and are advised by an increasingly competitive financial advice industry. Unless the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 are amended to address these practices, the taxpayers' burden will increase further and the integrity of our social security and veterans' affairs systems and the support it has in the community will be undermined. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills19228R113519228Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.1922810:03:0019228Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 remedies a problem with the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 identified by the Federal Court in its decision in McBain v. the State of Victoria.In that case the court held that Victorian legislation restricting access to assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment to women who were married and living with their husband on a genuine domestic basis, or living with a man in a de facto relationship was inconsistent with the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act, and as a consequence was invalid under section 109 of the Constitution.It is the government's view that it was not contemplated that the Sex Discrimination Act would prevent the states legislating to restrict access to ART procedures to women who are married or living in de facto relationships.The Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to allow the states and territories to legislate to permit restrictions to be imposed on access to any form of ART services on the basis of marital status.The Commonwealth has limited constitutional power to legislate in this field. It is consistent with the states' responsibilities in relation to the regulation of the provision of medical care and treatment that they be permitted to legislate in the area of ART as they consider appropriate.This issue primarily involves the right of a child within our society to have the reasonable expectation, other things being equal, of the care and affection of both a mother and a father.The amendment deals with ART services. ART services are defined to mean services using technology to assist in non-coital fertilisation.The main forms of ART include in vitro fertilisation (IVF), artificial insemination, gamete, zygote and embryo transfers.IVF involves a range of procedures aimed at achieving pregnancy where there are issues of infertility. IVF actually means that ova are fertilised outside of a woman' s body to allow the fertilised ova (embryos) to be implanted at some later stage.Artificial insemination involves the transferral of sperm into the reproductive tract of a woman to achieve pregnancy. Fertilisation occurs within the woman's body.Artificial insemination is used to achieve pregnancy in women who are fertile, but do not have male partners and who do not wish to become pregnant by traditional coital means; by couples where the male partner is infertile (donor insemination); and in some cases where the woman may not be classified as `infertile' in the strict sense but nevertheless has been unable to become pregnant by coital means.Artificial insemination is by far the most commonly used procedure by single and lesbian women to achieve pregnancy in the absence of female infertility.IVF is generally only utilised by single and lesbian women if pregnancy has not been able to be achieved through artificial insemination. The bill will commence upon royal assent.When the bill commences, any provisions of the Victorian and South Australian acts that have previously been ruled inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act will revive. The amendment will also ensure the validity of the existing Western Australian legislation.If a state or territory chooses not to legislate in this area, the Sex Discrimination Act will continue to apply.The government is acting to ensure that states and territories have the power to enact legislation to limit the availability of assisted reproductive technologies to married women and those living in a de facto relationship with a male partner.In doing so the government is doing its part to protect the rights of children to have the care and protection, other things being equal, of both their mother and father.I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills19229R108819229Debate resumed from 16 August, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.10:08:0019229Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—It has been a pleasure listening to most of the speeches on the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000, and it was good to see the general support for the bill from speakers from both sides. It was very interesting to hear the previous speaker in the debate, who appeared to be of the belief that the government has not done enough to limit tobacco advertising. The way he spoke implied that the knowledge of the damage that tobacco has caused has really only been around since this government came into power in 1996. The way he spoke indicated that the previous Labor government had done everything in its power to achieve these ends. I found that quite strange but, by and large, the speakers on this bill have been very supportive and it is good to be involved in a debate which is productive.The final step in limiting exposure to tobacco advertising for the next generation of young Australians is about to be taken by the federal government. With the arrival of October 2006, those Australians watching sporting events such as international motor racing will not do so with images designed to increase the appeal of cigarettes in the background. The temporary loophole existed so as to allow the hosting of some major sporting events in Australia, such as international car racing, where tobacco sponsorship as a precondition meant the event could not proceed otherwise. Rugby league's Winfield Cup is long gone, the Benson and Hedges Cup and others are long gone, but it was thought that a comprehensive ban would deter a handful of hugely lucrative international motor races from continuing their association with Australia.What the federal government, through the good work of the minister, achieved was a continuation of the campaign to improve Australia's health while at the same time offering valuable events a time frame to make the necessary sponsorship arrangements before 2006. This allowed Australian health authorities to maintain an anti-smoking campaign that has seen the rate of smoking in Australia decline from eighth in the world in 1991 to 17th today, but without jeopardising events such as the popular Formula One Grand Prix, for example. This flexibility has resulted in the best possible outcome for this country. The grim statistics—18,000 dead Australian smokers annually—and a financial burden of $12.7 billion a year have been repeated so often as almost to lose their shock value. But it is important to remind ourselves why it is vital to minimise exposure to tobacco propaganda and counter its historic success in convincing people that getting addicted to a deadly pastime is something with which they should experiment.As we know, to succeed in totally redirecting a person's lifestyle onto a path of health damage, illness and early death, the tobacco industry only needs to get non-smokers to try its product a few times; the addiction does the rest. The battle to curb what was once seen as alluring behaviour with no harmful side effects is an ongoing one. The 18,224 deaths from tobacco in 1997 were four-fifths of the 23,000 drug related deaths in Australia, including those from alcohol and illegal drugs. That is to say nothing of the 150,000 people admitted to Australian hospitals in that year alone as a direct result of their addiction to tobacco products. Let us not forget the thousands of innocent victims of second-hand tobacco smoke whose untimely demise or health problems may never feature among statistics for tobacco related health issues. It never ceases to amaze me when I see parents of young children, especially those with asthma, who continue to smoke. Under this health administration, considerable ground has been made in educating the population in an effort to stem this harvest of misery, agony and wasted lives, yet still 22 per cent of adults continue to smoke. A quarter of teenagers smoked at some stage in 1998, and only half of teenagers—that includes children from the age of 14—have never smoked. While well down from eighth to 17th place on a world scale of smoking nations, Australia still smokes at a per capita rate higher than China, France and Italy, all nations with a reputation of enjoying far too many cigarettes. Furthermore, as a comparison, the United Kingdom rates 28th place worldwide, 11 countries further down the list from Australia.But since sport is the forum of today's debate, we should also consider how many people have their physical potential quietly poisoned by smoking. How many gasping lounge dwellers could have been active, fit, vibrant Australians had it not been for the insidious influence of cigarette advertising, and how many of their children are suffering the side effects of their parents' addiction? While our elite athletes are performing above world-class standards, Australians of all ages are playing less organised sport, and research indicates our children are becoming more prone to obesity and sloth.All that is of little interest to the tobacco companies who have consistently underplayed the health destroying effects of smoking worldwide for decades. From the perspective of the tobacco industry, the death of 18,000 customers each year in this country alone means the task of replacing one generation of dead smokers with another is vital for profits. The best way to do this is through large scale advertising—the more innocuous and non-intrusive the better—such as in the background at a handful of major motoring events. But promoters and organisers of such international competitions were given notice that this window of opportunity is to be closed for good.Australia was obliged to be flexible on the issue simply because geographically this country is at a disadvantage compared with European rivals in trying to attract the lucrative events which bring much valued economic impetus and profile to the nation and its sporting facilities. It allowed Australian authorities the opportunity to negotiate with international motor sport to find an alternative to flaunting tobacco sponsorship at Australian events. As a result, the federal government has been told by organisations such as the Federation Internationale d'Automobile and, reverting to Australian now, the Grand Prix Corporation, that Australia will no longer be in such a disadvantaged position in vying to host their events.The motoring bodies have indicated that Australia's flexibility has provided competitors with sufficient time to arrange alternative sponsors. So understandably this legislation, which effectively extinguishes the last link between smoking and sport, has won considerable praise from the health community. Although it was a leftover attitude from a different era, the idea that a product, so clearly anti-sport—in fact, anti-activity of any kind—should have been able to tie itself to images of physical endeavour and overall fitness seems outrageous to us today. Because then, as now, Australia's heroes have mostly been drawn from the ranks of sport, including racing drivers like Jack Brabham and present day motorbike champion Mick Doohan.In the modern age, motor racing has taken on a slick presentation where images of glamour, success and excitement—that we are led to believe go on behind the scenes—have all but taken front running over the action on the track. How much more appealing to the young, impressionable mind is the association of smoking and success, of beautiful people with million dollar smiles in the foreground, with a billboard for brand X cigarettes as a backdrop? But of course there is no after race accompanying commentary to tell young race fans that the drivers most likely do not smoke, and that if they did their potential to be international champions would be severely limited, if not destroyed. Figures show that while long-term smokers are quitting in increasing numbers, short-term smoking is increasing, especially among the young. It is essential that we send the right message to the next generation at every turn, and this legislation goes a long way to doing that. Every hospital bed not filled with a smoker awaiting leg amputation is a vacant bed that can be used by somebody else. In the interests of our national health, in the interests of the national pocket and in the interests of our children, we must continue striving to make tobacco use a mistake of the past.10:17:0019231Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The publication Tobacco in Australia: facts and figures from Quit Victoria showed that, in 1992, around 18,920 Australians died from disease due to active smoking. In 1995, the figure was still around the 18,000 mark at 18,124. The more recent statistics that have been quoted during this debate on the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 show that the situation has not improved. In 1992, the total annual health, social and economic cost of tobacco abuse amounted to some $9.2 billion, and around 70,000 Australians start smoking each year. That cost has since risen to some $12.7 billion a year.Quit Victoria states that tobacco smoking is the single most important cause of ill health and premature death in Australia. Data released in May prepared by the Anti-Cancer Council shows that of every 1,000 deaths in Victoria, smoking causes 146. This compares with 26 caused by alcohol, five caused by road accidents and 13 caused by other drugs, including heroin. Quit Victoria data also states that of all cancer cases, around one-third can be attributed to smoking, including the 80 per cent of lung cancer cases that are smoking related. Smoking is responsible for over 40 per cent of the cases of heart disease in people under 65 years of age. Almost all smokers will develop some form of emphysema—this disease is rare in non-smokers. However, the major respiratory disease caused by smoking is chronic bronchitis, of which more than three-quarters of all cases are due to smoking. Forty per cent of all strokes in people under 65 are related to smoking and nine out of 10 people with narrowing of leg arteries, leading to blockage and then amputation, are smokers. These smoking related diseases tend to occur in smokers who have had their habit for a number of years.However, there are immediate effects of having just one cigarette. As research both here in Australia and overseas, supplied by Quit Victoria, indicates, in a person who has not smoked for 12 hours and then has one cigarette, a number of things occur. The carbon dioxide levels in the lungs increase, leading to an uptake of carbon monoxide in the blood which reduces the blood's capacity to carry oxygen. The levels of carbon monoxide in the blood of someone who smokes 20 cigarettes a day can impair vision, perception of time and coordination. The nicotine from tobacco smoke reaches the brain and muscle tissue. This increases the heart rate, causes an increase in blood pressure and slows circulation, lowering the skin temperature. Tobacco smoke increases resistance in the airways leading to the lungs and reduces lung capacity.As is becoming increasingly well known, the effects of smoking do not apply just to those who actively participate in it. The National Health and Medical Research Council released an information paper in November 1997 which estimated that passive smoking in the home causes about 88 deaths per year. Of those 88 deaths, 77 are from heart disease and 11 from lung cancer. Although sidestream smoke is diluted in the air and, as such, passive smokers breathe in less smoke than active smokers, the components of sidestream smoke can be more dangerous because some particles are stronger and unfiltered. When the history of smoking in Australia is examined, it is important to note that there is evidence that it began here some 400 years ago when Indonesian fishermen introduced smoking to indigenous people in Arnhem Land. There have been surveys conducted over the years which show that a far greater proportion of indigenous Australians smoke than the general Australian population. A review published by the Western Australian health department of seven smoking studies found that nationally 59 per cent of Aboriginal males and 42 per cent of Aboriginal females are smokers. This contrasts sharply with the general population figures for Australia of 27 per cent of males and 23 per cent of females. Given the higher mortality and decreased life expectancy of indigenous Australians generally, these smoking statistics are of particular concern. During the inquiry into indigenous health by the Standing Committee on Family and Community Services, which resulted in the report Health is life, there was evidence produced at public hearings indicating the special damage done to indigenous Australians through smoking. Regrettably there was also much evidence of the participation of the community stores in not being able to send out appropriate health messages, which means that the amount of tobacco that is sold in some of these communities continues unabated. Also, assiduously, there is a reliance in these community stores on the revenue that is raised by the sale of tobacco, which is something that really needs to be addressed in the economic life of these communities. In evidence before the committee, Michelle Dowden, the community health educator in the Galiwinku community at the Ngalkunbuy Health Centre, told of how single cigarettes were sold at the community store—that is, one at a time, by stick—therefore making them more easily available to community members. Like other elements of the argument, because they are available by single stick, there is not the same price disincentive to not purchase the cigarettes in the first place. I also add that the growing phenomenon of selling the so-called chop chop in an illegal manner at a price which is just so incredibly reduced than what a carton of cigarettes costs is also a growing worry in urban communities and in communities such as the ones that I, you, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, and the honourable member for Batman represent. Comparing the Australian smoking prevalence to other countries reveals some interesting statistics. While smoking is decreasing in developed countries, it is increasing in developing countries in South-East Asia, Latin America and Africa. Eastern European and several other former communist countries continue to have very high smoking prevalence rates because their communities were never exposed to most of the health research and public debate that led to the anti-smoking movements in Western countries in the 1970s. The other statistic about developing countries that must also be of concern is the gender imbalance in the use of tobacco. Females, especially in Asian countries because of their low take-up rates of cigarette smoking, are very much a potential targeted market for the transnational tobacco companies. I think we should be wary of those behaviours of companies in developing countries and their ability to manipulate the market choice of the peoples of those countries.This bill amends the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992, removing the discretion of the Minister for Health and Aged Care to grant exceptions for international sporting and cultural events from Australia's general ban on tobacco advertising from 1 October 2006. This brings Australia into line with the similar European Union ban that will come into effect at the same time. It is important that these dates coincide. Many advocates of tobacco sponsorship of such international events claim that Australia's ban would place us at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to lobbying for these events to be held in Australia. By having the ban come into force at the same time as the European ban there is no disadvantage to Australia and everyone will be competing on an equal footing for these events of international significance. This bill has been negotiated with the peak bodies of international motor sports that are affected—the FIA and the Grand Prix Corporation. The longer time frame has been negotiated to enable such sports to have alternative arrangements in place well before. Perhaps at this stage I should apologise for my respiratory ailment today. I suspect that it may have something to do with the deep long past of my life as a result of secondary smoking, but that might be uncharitable. I have remarked upon my relatives and the way in which they are addicted to tobacco smoking, and I should report to the House that my father, who smoked for nearly 50 or 60 years, has recently managed to kick the habit but was only able to do so because of one of the nicotine replacement products that has been mentioned in the debate and has now been well and truly explained and made available. He found relief in being able to use a nicotine puffer because he acknowledged that one of the aspects in the psyche of cigarette smoking, besides the addiction that he had not been able to overcome, was what to do with his hands. Perhaps my nervous habit here today is a similar trait. I want to refer to the European Union's ban. Last month there was an interesting development in a court case which is being undertaken in the European Court of Justice relating to the European ban, particularly the Advocate General. The case is Federal Republic of Germany v. European Parliament and Council of European Union and The Queen v. Secretary of State for Health and Ors; ex parte Imperial Tobacco Ltd and Ors. In the European Court of Justice system, the independent Advocate General gives advice to the justices of the court. The Advocate General in this case has proposed that the court should annul the European Union directive on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. He has done this on the basis that in a legal sense the European Union has jurisdiction only over single market matters and that the ban has been put in place for obvious health reasons.The only reason that I mention this is that, given that the whole point of the legislation before us today is to align our procedures on tobacco sponsorship with the European Union, if this court case is successful and changes the arrangements in the European Union, it poses the question: what might we consider doing? I hope the government would still go forward with the legislation, on the present timetable, even in the case that this particular court action by these parties is successful in having the European Union directive overthrown. I note with some interest and some satisfaction that the Financial Times of 16 June this year, discussing—under the headline `EU legal adviser challenges ban on tobacco adverts'—the Advocate-General's position, used a quote from Max Mosley, President of the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, Formula One's governing body. Mr Mosley said:Tobacco advertising in the sport is diminishing all the time and will continue to do so regardless of what Brussels decides.He forecast that the sport would be free of all tobacco advertising within `five or six years'. I think that that is appropriate and it is the way that sports advertising has been going.Last night in the debate the honourable member for Corangamite mentioned a report by a committee of which we both were members. It was the second report on an inquiry into sports funding and administration which we entitled Can sport be bought? This report has a chapter on tobacco sponsorship. The report was brought down by us in the parliament in 1990. For completeness of the argument, I wish to indicate that this report has troubled me along the way because at the time we did not recommend the banning of tobacco sponsorship. But the basis, I think, of the committee's collective and unanimous decision was that there was an indication that there was a growing movement away from tobacco sponsorship. The sporting federations themselves acknowledged the need to explore other avenues of sponsorship. I think that now, as we verge on the 21st century, sporting groups have been able to come to terms with finding other corporate sponsors that are more appropriate; although I do acknowledge—as did the member for Corangamite in his comments—that the fact that there is continuing alcohol sponsorship of sport may again send out the wrong message. Perhaps that is something that we will see revisited. If we look, for instance, at the six teams that remain in the AFL finals race, we see that three are sponsored by Korean multinational companies: one that sells cars, the other two selling electronic goods. I do not think that back in the 1990s these companies involved themselves in sport. Another of the many teams the honourable member for Corangamite has allegiances to in the AFL is sponsored by a local Geelong firm, a Ford company. The other growing source of funding is from mobile telcos. That has tackled the problem that people said would occur: that this funding and sponsorship slack would never be taken up. There is a time line in the bill that the opposition believe should be altered. One part of the bill deals with new events for which exemptions will not be granted after January 2002. Given that currently there are no applications outstanding and no known proposals for future events using tobacco sponsorship, the opposition is seeking a new cut-off date of October 2000. I understand that the government is looking at that and may accept it, but we will wait and see what happens in the consideration in detail stage. The opposition believe that this is a more appropriate date for exemptions to be finished, considering, as I said, that there are none in the pipeline.The banning of tobacco advertising is an important part of the fight against smoking, and the breaking of any link through sponsorship between the damage caused by tobacco and the healthiness of sport is especially important. There are other compelling reasons that advertising this product is so completely inappropriate. The publication Tobacco in Australia: facts and figures, which I mentioned earlier, found that children's disposition towards advertising has been shown to be directly related to the likelihood of them taking up smoking and that advertising is a reinforcing factor in smoking among children. The key question is that if, as many of the tobacco companies state, there is no demonstrated link between tobacco advertising and take-up rates for smoking, why do they invest so much money and effort in it? The report of the US Surgeon-General identifies seven ways in which tobacco advertising affects consumption. Advertising and promotion could encourage children and young people to experiment with tobacco products, leading to regular use. It could increase tobacco users' daily consumption, reduce current users' motivation to quit and encourage former smokers to resume. The other indirect mechanisms include media dependence on advertising revenue discouraging full and frank debate on the dangers of tobacco advertising.A recent development that also should be highlighted is the case in the Florida circuit court where a compensation judgment was made last month: a staggering $145 billion in compensation against cigarette companies was found. Philip Morris took the biggest hit, $74 billion; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, $35 billion; Brown & Williamson Tobacco, $16 billion; Lorillard Tobacco, $16 billion; and the Liggett Group was ordered to pay $790 million. What is also interesting about this case is that a number of statements have been made on behalf of the tobacco companies indicating the connection between cigarette smoking and diseases. On behalf of Lorillard, earlier in the case, their attorney said:We agree with the public health authorities and the Surgeon-General that smoking causes disease.Liggett owner Bennett LeBow said back in 1997 that smoking causes disease and is addictive. I think that they are important statements by the industry.The fact that tobacco advertising is present everywhere can lead to a culture that accepts smoking and thinks it is without hazard. That is a culture that people have over many years been fighting. This bill is a continuing part of that fight. I commend it to the House and indicate my support for the amendment to be moved at the consideration in detail stage.10:37:0019234Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 will phase out the special exemption given to some international sporting events from the general prohibition on tobacco advertising. The phase-out will be complete by 2006, which takes into account the commitments made for the Melbourne Grand Prix as well as the European timetable for ending tobacco company sport sponsorship.I especially welcome this legislation, given that the coalition has had a history of being soft on tobacco advertising. Of course, that comes as little surprise, given the close relationship with companies such as Philip Morris, which sponsored the lunch at the Liberal Party national convention in Melbourne recently. That is the same company that received hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax concessions from this government in order to develop tobacco products that have a higher rate of tar to sell not in Australia but in developing countries. There was a relationship between Nick Greiner and one of the major tobacco companies. And Bronwyn Bishop's comments in 1994, I think, were very important, when she said that it was the right of tobacco multinationals to push their products in Australia and that cigarette advertising was just like any other advertising. The problem was that she was shadow health minister at the time. And when she tried to say that there was no proven link between smoking and ill health she had to later retract those comments.Smoking is the biggest single cause of preventable death in developed countries. One study estimates that in 1995 there were three million people killed worldwide from smoking related causes. The number is predicted to increase up to 10 million in coming years. In Australia in 1997 the estimated number of smoking related deaths was about 18,200. That accounted for 15.3 per cent of deaths from all causes in all age groups. That is an enormous proportion of all deaths in all ages. It accounted for 22 per cent of deaths among 35- to 69-year-olds. And it means that about 50 people a day in Australia are dying from smoking related illnesses.Smoking accounts for 80 per cent of all drug related deaths. Of the 23,000 drug related deaths in 1997, 18,224 were tobacco related; 3,668 were alcohol related; and 832 were related to illicit drug use. Cigarette smoking is estimated to have directly caused 10,148 new cases of cancer and 6,986 deaths from cancer in 1996. Of course, cancer is not the only killer associated with smoking: heart disease and emphysema are also potential killers from smoking. About half of all regular cigarette smokers can expect to die as a result of their habit.This cost the Australian community an enormous amount of money in medical bills and lost productivity. The estimate is about $7 billion in 1988. This estimate does not include hidden costs such as fires that are started from cigarettes, which have artificial agents in them designed to keep them lit, and often keep them lit perhaps when the smoker has fallen asleep. Firefighters estimate that cigarettes are one of the leading causes of fires in homes around the country.The costs of cigarette smoking are somewhat controversial. The study that is usually quoted is the Collins and Lapsley study. There were two in fact—one in 1988 and one in 1992. The 1988 study estimated the lower cost that I quoted earlier, which was $6.84 billion. The 1992 study included the costs of passive smoking as well. If passive smoking is included the estimated cost to the community of smoking is $9.2 billion a year. Either way, that dwarfs the $4.2 billion that the cigarette companies claim they pay in taxes, and it really puts the lie to their claim that their industry is just a legitimate industry from which the Commonwealth benefits in terms of tax revenue.The tobacco companies have historically tried to deny that there is a causal link between smoking and ill health and, specifically, lung cancer. They are no longer able to do that. The evidence is incontrovertible—it has been for many years—and the cigarette companies have finally accepted it. In the United States last year 46 state legislatures managed to get $341.74 billion for the damage caused to public health by smoking. That enormous payout was an admission from cigarette companies that their product does indeed cause sickness and death.Philip Morris have put a statement on their web site. It states that there was `overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases'. They have said further that smoking is `addictive as that term is most commonly used today'. After denying this for many years, particularly since the 1960s Surgeon-General's reports into the link between smoking and disease, it is wonderful to see that the companies are finally admitting their role in these illnesses. What a shame that so many millions of people worldwide have died as a result of their product before these admissions were made. The reason cigarette companies advertise is that they have to replace smokers who have died or given up. If you think about the argument of the cigarette companies that they do not try to recruit new smokers, that what they are trying to do is just increase their brand share, the economics of that argument is patently ridiculous. The idea that they would not be trying to recruit new people to use their product just does not make sense. The cigarette companies make a bizarre claim that is made by the producers of no other product: that is their advertising does not work on people who are not already smokers. They say that their advertising only works on people who are already smokers. That, of course, ignores the fact that children are very heavily influenced by advertising and other promotional activities associated with smoking.This also ignores the fact that, where there is a monopoly, tobacco companies still advertise. Kenya is a good example of this. British American Tobacco is the only company in that country—it was a virtual monopoly—and a few years ago it used to spend $US10 million a year in Kenya on advertising. You can buy a lot of advertising in Kenya for $10 million a year. State run monopolies often advertise very heavily where they exist.Advertising to claim a market share of existing smokers without encouraging new smokers is an absurd argument, particularly when you look at the amounts of money tobacco companies are prepared to spend and the tactics they use when they are recruiting new smokers. It is hard to get figures these days on the numbers used because tobacco companies realise how unpopular their activities are and they are much less likely to give information about how much they are spending. But a decade ago Philip Morris in Europe estimated that they spent between $US600 million and $US1 billion a year in Europe alone.As advertising has become particularly restricted, tobacco companies have looked around for other ways of getting their product before the public. One of those has been through sports sponsorships. Another has been something that they came up with called `same name' advertising, where in Thailand, for example—where all tobacco advertising was banned for a time—they had biscuits, wrist watches, casual wear, blankets and pillowcases all designed to resemble the packets of particular brands of cigarettes. In Malaysia they had holiday tours. There was the Marlboro Country Tour, Peter Stuyvesant Travel and the Benson and Hedges Gold Centre. These were all travel businesses and social clubs with the same name as cigarette packets just to keep the name before the public. A decade ago Marlboro clothing was grossing $US100 million in sales around the world each year, so people were actually paying to advertise Marlboro cigarettes. A Philip Morris executive admitted that two decades ago they were planning this strategy to keep cigarette names before the public.The links between tobacco advertising and smoking take-up rates are obvious. The most worrying aspect of the relationship between advertising and smoking is that so much advertising and other promotion is aimed at children and young people. People who remain smokers for a lifetime usually start young—they usually start as adolescents. Very few lifetime smokers take up the habit as adults. In many countries there has been no attempt to hide the fact that advertising is aimed at children. In one country a journalist called Norma Alvarez reported in 1990 that a children's toy water pistol was available in Gulf countries that was in the form of a packet of a well-known American brand of cigarettes. The following words were inscribed on the toy:For use outside the US. In case this trick hurts your victims, please offer them a real cigarette to sooth their nerves.That was a toy for children. In the Trobriand Islands, where most people do not have access to a TV set and perhaps have never seen a TV set, Rothmans used to send a boat from island to island with a big screen on the back of it that would play continuous ads for Cowboy black stick tobacco. This was the favourite brand of both adults and children in the Trobriand Islands, where children as young as five commonly smoke. A few years ago—and they may still exist—mobile cinema units in Indonesia used to take outdoor screens around to isolated areas and play films interspersed with ads for British American Tobacco brands of cigarettes. Up to 3,500 people would be sitting there watching a film with continuous ads playing and free samples being given out the whole time to both adults and children. That sort of advertising would reach about 1.4 million people each year, with eight of those mobile cinema units owned by British American Tobacco constantly circling the country.The example that is most familiar to Australians of course is that of Joe Camel. Camel was not a particularly popular brand until they came up with the character of Joe Camel. Joe Camel has made an impact on children ever since. One US study noted that Camel was the favourite cigarette brand of children aged 12 to 13—67.8 per cent named it as their favourite brand. Children aged 12 to 13 with a favourite brand of cigarette—it is shocking! Teenagers aged 16 to 17 preferred Marlboro. Of course Marlboro's big claim to fame is not just the Marlboro cowboy that was designed to change Marlboro from a brand aimed specifically at women—that is what the red-tipped filter was about; it was to hide the lipstick marks. Marlboro, originally a brand for women, became a brand designed for men, particularly young men, with the introduction of the Marlboro cowboy. Marlboro is the favourite brand of 16- to 17-year-olds.As the advertising restrictions in developed countries have made it more difficult to advertise to children, two things have happened: sports sponsorship has become more important and cigarette companies have turned their attention more aggressively to children in developing countries as a potential new market. There have been several legal actions in developing countries where multinational companies, particularly ones based in the United States, have tried to bully local governments into not restricting their operations. One of the legal actions in the Philippines to prevent restrictions on advertising claimed that Filipino children had tougher lungs than children in the United States and therefore the restrictions should not be as tough as they are in the United States. American politicians like Senator Jessie Helms and others have intervened when other countries that have been trying to crack down on tobacco advertising have made all sorts of threats about the United States, perceiving this as contrary to their trade interests and as discriminatory trading practices. That certainly happened in the case of Singapore, when they tried to ban chewing tobacco, and in Japan when they tried to restrict cigarette advertising during children's viewing hours. They got a letter from Senator Jessie Helms saying that this would not be regarded well in the United States.One of the other new and growing markets where tobacco companies have sought to increase smoking is the women's market. In many wealthy countries there is not such a gap between the number of men who smoke and the number of women who smoke, but in developed countries there is still an enormous gap. You can see the historical progression in the United States. Cigarettes are first portrayed as slightly risque and they are supposed to appeal to women who are liberated and who have perhaps started to work. In the 1920s, testimonials from women like aviator Amelia Earhart and actor Jean Harlow helped make Lucky Strike the most popular brand in the country within three years of its launch. They came up with the slogan that has been so important in subliminal advertising ever since: `Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet.' They thereby positioned smoking as something that would help women keep weight off.During the Second World War, Chesterfield had a character called Rosie the Riveter who was working in a factory. She had a cigarette hanging from her mouth and a cigarette packet in her overall pocket. The slogan was: `When you're doing a bang-up job you want a bang-up smoke.' Virginia Slims is another brand that very much used the image of emerging feminism in the 1960s to encourage women to smoke. Their slogan, `You've come a long way, baby', was very well known for many years in Australia as well as in the United States. This process is paralleled in developing countries where there are many different brands, such as one launched by the Golden Tobacco Company, an Indian multinational company exporting from India. They launched a brand a few years ago called `Ms'. The advertising centred around a famous Indian actor called Deepti Nawal, who was portrayed in her work clothes, in her gym clothes, with her friends and with her boyfriend, giving an image of upper middle class and upper class Indian womanhood, and suggesting that modern, liberated, intelligent women smoke. What is worrying about this aiming of advertising at women is that one of the few groups in the Australian community that is actually increasing its smoking rate is young women, among whom the numbers have gone from about 19 per cent in 1995 to 22 per cent today. It is because young women are seeking to portray themselves as risk takers, in the same way that young men traditionally have. The link with sport confirms this idea for many young people. Sport is a risk taking, brave behaviour. A study conducted by Dr David Hill some years ago about the correlation between major football sponsors in particular states—New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria—and the brands smoked by 12- to 14-year-olds showed that sports sponsorship had a big impact on the brands that young people started to smoke. There are many studies that show the link between children's recognition of the brands that sponsor particular sporting events and the brands that they are taking up. There was a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that said:Many secondary and older primary school children are aware of the connections between cigarette brand names and sports. Moreover, as the brands and sports most frequently mentioned have often been shown on television, this suggests that children learn about these connections by watching televised sporting events.There is overwhelming evidence of the links there. Cigarette companies need this sponsorship not because they are in the business of selling cigarettes—cigarettes have very little to distinguish them one from the other—they are in the business of selling brands. Tobacco company executives are very frank about the fact that their products are not so different; it is the image that they are selling that is very different. Banning cigarette advertising and tobacco sponsorship is just part of the strategy, though. Price is a major determinant. A 10 per cent price increase leads to a four per cent drop in consumption across the board but to a 14 per cent drop in the take-up by children. But price increases on their own are no good because there are a certain number of people who will always be addicted unless they get special help and special intervention. The cost and availability of cessation programs are also incredibly important in the battle to stop cigarette advertising in this country. Forty-one per cent of smokers surveyed wanted to give up smoking. Every year about 180,000 Australians succeed in giving up smoking of the 1.7 million who try. This parliament owes it to those people to do whatever it can to provide them with cessation programs. (Time expired)10:57:0019238Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—This debate has been characterised by a large area of agreement. It is worth noting that it has been fairly characteristic of most of the bills in this area. It is worth while putting on the record the efforts of extra-parliamentary organisations. I still have a letter of 22 October 1992—which other members would have received—from the Australian Council on Smoking and Health. The kinds of statistics that a variety of members on both sides of the House have quoted today—on illnesses, et cetera—were certainly detailed in this correspondence and in attached material from the Royal Australian College of Physicians. Back in 1992 they were telling members of this House that:1. Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known carcinogens ...2. Tobacco is used by 28% of the adult Australian population.3. Tobacco smoking is the largest single preventable cause of death and disease in Australia today. Smoking is estimated to have caused 19,899 deaths in Australia in 1991.Other organisations have concentrated on public advertising billboards, trying to drive home the message to the general public. The parliamentary system has been pushed by external forces, by the general public and by interest groups that have concentrated on trying to convince the system that something had to be done. In that letter of 22 October 1992, Dr Bill Musk stated: There is no single measure that will do so much to improve the health of the community as effective governmental action to discourage cigarette smoking. There is overwhelming evidence from around the world that comprehensive programs in this area can be effective. Smoking is the largest avoidable cause of death and disease in our community; Parliament has already determined many years ago that cigarette advertising on television and radio should end; and all that is now required is legislation to deal with the loophole that has resulted in sixteen years of outstandingly successful communication with children ...As I say, we are here today disagreeing only about whether new applications should be terminated earlier than is proposed in the bill. As other speakers have detailed, there does not seem to be a very good reason for essentially not agreeing to this amendment. Smoking is the largest cause of preventable death. If advertising is effective in persuading more people to go down that road, quite frankly over time we should cease to give new opportunities to this industry. Of course, as people have said, there has been a concentration upon the Third World. The fact is that when this industry sees one market disappear, knowing as it does the severe hardship it causes, it tries to penetrate other markets.It is interesting to note the trends in Australia and the particular groups that are most acutely affected by the cigarette industry. The Non-Smokers' Update of May-July 2000 quotes the Sydney Morning Herald of 5 July and the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It states:The social trends report released on 2/7/00 says 24% of the population described themselves as smokers in 1995 (the latest figures) compared with 37% in 1977.So the long-term trend is downwards, despite the fact that young people are getting addicted every day and the industry is trying to penetrate other markets. It is interesting to note that it also states:About 47% of indigenous Australians, 40% of unemployed people, 32% of lone parents, 32% of people living alone and 29% of people with no post-school qualifications were smokers.In other words, information, advice and knowledge have essentially ensured that the market is more and more concentrated upon those deprived areas of the population and those people lacking information and under supreme pressure.The same journal also notes the interesting statistics from New Zealand. As I just said, smoking is prevalent among indigenous people in this country. They are one of the groups characterised by their smoking. The article compares Australia's efforts with the New Zealand government's effort to persuade Maoris to quit smoking. It notes that the New Zealand government has devoted $11.8 million to that effort. In Australian terms, that would be $60.69 million. In other words, New Zealand is prepared to spend nearly $A61 million trying to persuade its indigenous population to get off cigarettes. The Australian figure is a paltry $2 million with a further $8 million from state governments. That is a matter of concern.People have mentioned that the Liberal Party has had no problems accepting sponsorship from Philip Morris for events at its national conference. This of course highlights the degree to which this industry will try to affect the political system. We have only to look at the United States. Before the Clinton administration came in, cigarette companies in the United States roughly divided donations between the Democrats and the Republicans fifty-fifty. They basically shared the money between the parties. When Clinton started to make spasmodic criticisms of the industry and indicate that he might introduce new legislation against it, we saw a dramatic switch. This industry, which is supposedly interested only in the public good and in funding political parties because it believes in democracy and was until that date prepared to go fifty-fifty, suddenly switched its funding dramatically. Within a year or so, 84 per cent of the funding in the United States was going to the Republican Party and 16 per cent to the Democrats. Of course, at the same time, the Newt Gingrich resolution in the US Congress saw the Republicans take over the chamber. It was interesting that the people who tended to get control of the congressional committees and had an interest in the tobacco industry, in agriculture, in advertising, et cetera, went to a variety of congressmen who came from seats largely dependent on the tobacco growing industries and seats where there were large factories. So in Australia we have to have some real concerns about the possibilities. Of course, this is intertwined with the very sad situation we have with regard to the Greenfields Foundation in this country. The fact is that, despite the best efforts of the public and despite our attempt to basically tell the Australian people which companies are giving money to political parties, the Australian Electoral Commission, an independent authority not controlled by either political party, has come down with a variety of damning reports of that foundation. It has basically said that the political system in this country has to find ways of investigating who is giving money to this foundation so closely aligned with the Liberal Party and so vital in its fundraising.The industry, which for decades has suppressed internal reports about the health problems of its product, which changes reports and which hires consultants and gets scientific advice to try to combat the facts about addiction and health problems is one in which we cannot have much trust. This sponsorship of the Liberal Party's conference is a disturbing and very well-known facet of its operation. We have to be particularly concerned in this country because of the possibility of secretive fund donations. Despite the industry's own knowledge of what it is doing to humanity and of the severe suffering it causes, it is, as people have said, concentrating its efforts on the developing world as Western democracies, the developed countries, essentially try to combat it. I think the member for Moore particularly detailed a wide variety of the illnesses that are related to smoking. It is not just lung cancer. Smoking causes a diverse range of illnesses and death. It is interesting to note in the Guardian Weekly of 15 November 1998 the comments by the British Medical Association which drive this point home. In that article, Sarah Boseley states:British tobacco companies are among the world's “most efficient drug pushers”, using aggressive marketing tactics in developing countries, the British Medical Association claimed ...The promise of glamour and gifts offered by a number of companies attract young people in a way that would be illegal in the United Kingdom, the BMA maintained.In Malaysia, where direct advertising is banned, Dunhill cigarettes sponsors all league football and the screening of English Premier football matches.In Sri Lanka, Benson and Hedges sponsors discos and dance competitions, and gives away branded personal stereos and watches.Sir Alexander Macara, of the BMA, said deaths from smoking-related diseases would rise from 1 million a year to 7 million by 2030. He said tobacco companies were `the world's most efficient drug pushers'. Mary Assunta, from the Consumers' Association of Penang, Malaysia, said that in her country 60 per cent of men now smoke. In Vietnam the figure is 73 per cent and in Cambodia 65 per cent ...These are very chilling figures when we see the ability of this country to basically move towards a reduction in smoking and very chilling figures on the uptake in the developing world where there are not the barriers to their greed and their operations. The article later says:Clive Bates, director of Ash—a very vocal group in the United Kingdom against smoking—said British shareholders were profiting from the aggressive marketing of tobacco companies in developing countries now that smoking was declining in industrialised countries, which have controls on advertising and cigarette sales.That obviously demonstrates two realities: the fact that it does have an impact—from the fact that the industry has quite rightly concerns at attempts to restrict it—and the fact that they are developing other markets and exploiting other people. It is interesting to note the ludicrous remarks of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association. John Carlisle, a former Tory member of the British parliament, who was active in regard to various South African cricket tours said:Wild accusations from the World Development Movement that advertising by British manufacturers is directed at children are false. Our member companies adhere to the legislative and regulatory controls in each country where they trade.Obviously they adhere to second-rate requirements in the Third World. They adhere to them because basically they see that as an area they can exploit more fully, given their losses in the developed world. So of course they are prepared to adhere to controls and basically ensure that they are not made more stringent. If any example of the duplicity of this industry and of the reason we must be distrustful of its motivation were wanted, just look at the recent actions by Ecuador in relation to the smuggling of cigarettes. Not only are they making exorbitant profits through the sale of cigarettes in a legal fashion but there is mounting international evidence, supported by an all-party British House of Commons committee, that these legitimate public corporations are involved in trying to avoid in a very big fashion—involving millions and millions of dollars—the taxation laws of a variety of countries. Ecuador's action in the United States courts is a last instance of concern at exactly how much is being lost by these people, who—as the member for the Northern Territory said—unlike other drug pushers on street corners, are wearing suits. As I say, look not only at what they are doing to the world's health: with that very product, they are even trying to undermine the taxation requirements of the world.In conclusion, if there is any industry which dictates the need for government and the public to have oversight, controls, and powers of intervention, it is that industry. We hear the Prime Minister talking a lot of mumbo-jumbo about how he has asked corporate Australia to be more kind and more philanthropic, to give donations to charities, et cetera. If we want an instance of the other extreme in corporate Australia, it is this industry. Essentially it does require public oversight and very strong vigilance by the parliamentary system to ensure that loopholes like the current one are closed and that they do not in the near future accomplish others. It is a very clear picture, pointed out by a variety of members in this parliament, that this advertising sponsorship is related to their penetration rate in the market and their attractiveness for young people. I commend the legislation and urge the government to positively consider the opposition amendment.11:11:0019241Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000. I am delighted that this legislation is passing through the House of Representatives. It is over four years since I first started negotiating on this. It is certainly the first time any legislation like this has been passed in a parliament outside of Europe, and there are only a small number of European countries that have attempted anything like this.I thank the people who have been involved in bringing about this legislation. It has involved negotiations with Bernie Ecclestone from Formula One Grand Prix and Max Mosley from the Federation Internationale d'Automobile. They both gave me very clear undertakings that, if we were to progress in this manner with adequate horizons, Australia would not be jeopardised in the future as far as international motor sport was concerned—and I thank them for this. This is the first time that an international motor sport has been prepared to give such an undertaking, and I thank them for doing it and for negotiating in good faith.The opposition will move an amendment. The government will be happy to accept that amendment. Things have moved on since we first announced this in 1998. At that time it was thought the Olympics might make sponsorship difficult. But I have checked with all coalition state governments, the opposition tell me that they have checked with the Labor state governments and there are no events that this would affect. So the amendment is more symbolic than anything but, nonetheless, good symbolism, and we are happy to accept it. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.19241Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.Amendment (by Mr Swan) agreed to:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 12 to 13), omit “1 January 2002”, substitute “1 October 2000”.Bill, as amended, agreed to. 19242Bill (on motion by Mr Vaile)—by leave—read a third time.Bills19242R111619242Debate resumed from 29 June, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)11:18:0019242Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 2000 covers various areas of tax law to give new additions to the list of community organisations which will become gift deductible entities; that is to say, donations to these organisations of $2 or more will be tax deductible. Secondly, it makes corrections to the rewriting of the tax legislation into simple English. Thirdly, it corrects the operation of some of the capital gains tax provisions. Fourthly, there is a single technical correction to legislation which denies tax deductibility for bribes paid to public officials. Finally, there are further amendments to the pay-as-you-go system for trusts.Generally these amendments are not opposed, although there will be careful scrutiny undertaken in the Senate of the capital gains tax provisions to ensure that they do not weaken the tax base and to ensure that they are truly technical in nature. I also make the point that the pay-as-you-go amendments are further evidence of the government rolling back its own tax package by continuing to make further amendments to it—and I will come to that point a little later on in my remarks.The first area we turn to is that of gift deductibility entities. The income tax law provides that donations to eligible bodies receive tax deductible status for the donors. This bill proposes that some new bodies be granted `gift deductible' status. There are many worthy community bodies which do not receive this status, and from time to time additional bodies are granted tax deductible status. The bill proposes that the following bodies be added to the list. The Community Disaster Relief (Sydney Hailstorm Assistance) Fund, the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial Fund, the Global Foundation, the United Hellenic Earthquake Appeal, the Foundation for Gambling Studies, the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal Public Fund, the RSL and 6th Division Australian-Hellenic Educational Memorial Fund, and the Mount Macedon Memorial Cross Restoration, Development and Maintenance Trust Fund.I am not in a situation to be able to comment on the circumstances of each body, but these groups do cover important areas such as natural disaster relief, gambling and war service recognition. On that basis, Labor supports these new listings. It does seem to me that the listing of the Sydney hailstorm body is an important and overdue initiative. As it happens, I was in Sydney on the night the hailstorm occurred, and it was a very serious thing for those who experienced it and suffered as a result. I am concerned that, given the government's obsession with bringing in the goods and services tax, there have been a series of other taxation priorities like the listing of this body that have been delayed.While we are talking about hailstorm damage, I will also make another point. It was indicated to me on a visit to Townsville to talk to people there who had had problems with their insurers following floods—and this is an issue I understand you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, are familiar with—that one of the problems they had was that they were not able to get access to this kind of disaster relief fund because they were not prepared to forgo their rights to sue, their rights to claim insurance. I was concerned that, with their being in this kind of double-jeopardy position where they were not eligible to claim the disaster relief because they had not exhausted their other rights and because their insurance claims were taking a very long time to settle as they were being resisted by their insurers, they were not able to get the disaster relief either. I have not been able to ascertain what the current situation is in Townsville concerning that issue, but I do think that is a problem that needs to be dealt with rather better than it has been handled to date.Another of the bodies that have been listed is the Foundation for Gambling Studies. Somewhere here I have a press release from the Assistant Treasurer which talks about gifts to the value of $2 or more made to the Foundation for Gambling Studies being deductible for income tax purposes. The Assistant Treasurer's press release talks about this announcement following the government's recent response to the final report of the Productivity Commission on Australia's gambling industries, and also indicates that legislation to give effect to the government's decision will be introduced as soon as practicable. It gives as an address for donations to the Foundation for Gambling Studies Deacons Graham and James, lawyers, in Brisbane. I am quite interested in this issue of gambling. My office has made a couple of inquiries to try to ascertain the nature of the Foundation for Gambling Studies and just what it does. We have not been able to find out much at all about whom they are, how they have been constituted or what activities they are carrying out, so I request the minister at the table to endeavour to get some information for us about the Foundation for Gambling Studies, about precisely what it is, about what the make-up of its board is, about what its mission statement is and so on, and about what activities it has been carrying out. Obviously, if it is to receive tax deductible status it is a matter of considerable public interest that we be able to find out that sort of information. The second area the bill deals with concerns capital gains tax provisions. There are literally dozens of proposed amendments to the capital gains tax in this bill. There are a variety of highly complex and technical changes, some of which are difficult to evaluate on the limited information provided. There are non-controversial ones which include correcting the unintended double counting of assets and correcting inaccurate headings, and of course Labor has no problem with these kinds of changes. However, the explanatory memorandum describes all of the changes as consistent with the intended policy and claims nil financial impact from all changes, including the substantive ones. It also goes on to say that at least some of the measures will change the rules concerning capital gains tax to benefit taxpayers. It follows, from my point of view, that that will have to involve some cost to revenue. However, this is not reflected in the official material.This is a continuation of a somewhat worrying trend for the tax office and the Treasury to deny the financial impact of the government's tax changes. We have seen it constantly in the goods and services tax debate where we have had massive amendments regularly costed at nil impact to revenue. It reminds me of the Treasurer's reference to a magic pudding: `On the one hand we say that these measures will have no cost to revenue; on the other hand we say that they will be of benefit to taxpayers.' Why would taxpayers be lobbying the government to change the law substantively when it does not change the amount of the collections? The answer is that they would not do a thing like that. What they do is lobby the government to change the law when they have to pay a tax liability that they do not want to pay, that they disagree with. It seems to me that the tax office should not be complicit in producing financial impact statements which are constantly designed with the government's political interests in mind. The tax office is independent. It has an obligation to produce financial impact statements which tell us what is actually going on rather than saying that this will have nil impact on revenue but it will also be of benefit to taxpayers. Those two things are manifestly inconsistent and incompatible. So it is our intention that these items be closely scrutinised in a Senate committee to ensure that these changes are really minor and have no financial impact and that they are accurate claims.Turning to discount capital gains, the business tax reforms introduced a new system of taxing capital gains based on 50 per cent of the nominal gain being taxable for individuals where an asset was held for at least 12 months, rather than 100 per cent of the inflation index gain. Certain anti-avoidance amendments were introduced as part of the business tax reforms to ensure that individuals could not circumvent the 12-month minimum holding period rule by interposing an entity to buy the shares. Those amendments were supported by Labor. The government is now proposing to dilute these anti-avoidance measures, claiming that they can yield some inappropriate results. In our view this needs careful consideration in the Senate to determine the appropriateness of these proposals and to ensure that we do not have to see the tax base being threatened under the guise of minor amendment. The third area I want to talk about is the bribery provisions. The government introduced legislation to make bribes paid by Australian businesses to overseas public officials non-tax-deductible. Labor supported these measures, but in debating the bill when it came before the House at the time I moved amendments to ensure that brides paid to Australian public officials were also non-deductible. At the time the government opposed these amendments. Labor persisted, however, and we were successful in the Senate, and reluctantly the government accepted these Senate amendments. The bill here corrects a minor technical flaw in the amendments. We are happy to support this, but I make the point that this is an example of constructive opposition—that the government was forced to adopt—closing off a potentially significant rort. Some people say that Labor has insufficient policies. But here we are putting forward policy which the government indeed adopted. If you think it sounds unlikely that Australian public officials might find that these bribes are tax deductible, I draw the attention of people to an extraordinary case reported in the Financial Review, and subsequently in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, where a drug dealer managed to get a $220,000 deduction on the basis that it was money stolen from him during a drug deal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Perth ruled that that $220,000 was an allowable deduction for the dealer as a cost of doing business. The person concerned, who we note is in prison for drug offences, claimed that tax office assessments against him for years of unlodged tax returns were excessive. He told the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that his assessment should be reduced by the $220,000 which he had had buried in his backyard and which was stolen after it was dug up for use during a drug purchase. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that that stolen amount was deductible and said:In the opinion of the tribunal the taxpayer was carrying on a business of dealing in drugs, from which he derived assessable income.When you get rulings like that coming from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and we get a legal situation of this kind, you really have to wonder who it is who is on drugs. It produces the potentially outrageous situation where people would come to the tax office and say, `I've had this money stolen from me in the course of a drug deal, and I want it to be offset against my assessable income.' Irrespective of what the facts might be in this particular case, you can imagine quite readily that that is open to abuse. People could fabricate these situations and put the tax office in an impossible situation trying to work out what had happened and what had not happened. Clearly, this is something that the government ought to be investigating.We try to send messages in our community about drugs. We have been having a very vigorous debate in my own state of Victoria on the issue of supervised injecting rooms. Whatever people's views may be on the merits or otherwise of supervised injecting rooms, people frequently say that we need to crack down on those who are involved in dealing heroin and other hard drugs. We perhaps ought to be showing more sympathy to those who are addicts and in many respects the victims of this whole dreadful process, and we ought to be getting tougher on the dealers, yet here we have a situation where a convicted drug dealer is getting a tax deduction for the $220,000 he had buried in the backyard. That can scarcely be a legitimate way of doing business, and the fact that someone would prefer to bury money in the backyard because they do not want banks or authorities to become aware that they have that sort of money is scarcely justification for claiming a tax deduction when the money is ultimately stolen. So we support the amendment before the House, and we note that it is part of a policy change that Labor proposed and the government accepted.I turn now to the issue of the pay-as-you-go amendments. The pay-as-you-go system is the new integrated system of income tax instalments and withholding taxes. It is a system which is claimed by the government to be simpler. I remember when the government proposed the pay-as-you-go system there was quite a lot of fanfare around the idea that it would accompany the abolition of provisional tax and that this was a great leap forward. However, those who are involved in the pay-as-you-go system have proved to be rather less enthusiastic about it once they have come to realise what it actually involves. The system has already been the subject of many hundreds of amendments earlier this year. This bill proposes even more, this time in the area of instalments paid by certain trusts. Labor are not opposing these changes. Indeed, we welcome them. We welcome them because this is the government proposing yet more roll-back of their tax package. The minister's own second reading speech admits that the aims of the amendments are to:simplify the way beneficiaries ... work out their instalment income; andminimise the compliance burden on the trustees of those trusts— Labor welcome the government's aims of simplifying their tax nightmare and minimising the compliance burden. They are admitting that they have imposed an overly complex burden on small business, and we welcome them taking these minor steps to lift that burden. That is precisely what roll-back is about: making the new tax changes simpler and lifting the unfair burden which has been placed on small business. The government deny that there are any problems, yet they needed thousands of amendments before 30 June and here we are after 30 June with them still rolling their tax package back, even though they are publicly denying that.We have compiled something of a GST roll-back register. In July it was up to 67 and counting. We have seen GST roll back at the rate of almost one a week since November 1998, and much of this occurred after January this year, when Treasurer Costello told Neil Mitchell, for example, on the 3AW program that he had got it right and would not be making any more changes to the legislation. But we have continued to see roll-back at the rate of around one a week. The total cost of the roll-back package exceeds, in our estimate, $8.7 billion. The true cost of many of the uncosted roll-backs runs to hundreds of millions of dollars. This list does not include cases of roll-back contained in the thousands of tax rulings or the Treasurer's two sets of determinations of GST exempt taxes, fees and charges, and we have not included determinations by the Minister for Health and Aged Care or the Minister for Aged Care. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer want to tell us that any roll back by Labor would be bad, but they want the luxury of rolling back the GST whenever it suits them, which is what they are doing here. We welcome the government's acknowledgment in this legislation that they have inflicted on Australians a very complex tax system and that there is an ongoing necessity for change and amendment to it.While on this topic, I will also mention the issue of the aged persons bonus. My office has been inundated with visits and calls from older constituents during the last month and a half. They have visited me to discuss one thing: the aged persons savings bonus scheme and how it applied—or to be more precise, how it did not apply—to them. Not surprisingly, they were annoyed and confused. They had been led to believe, courtesy of the government's $400 million-plus taxpayer funded propaganda program, that they would get something like a $1,000 compensation bonus. They had done their sums on the GST, and they understood very well that, without compensation, the GST was something that would hurt them. They are not getting, for example, the tax cuts that working people are getting. The comments that they made to me were similar to those made on the 7.30 Report on 3 August by Mr Jim Armstrong, whom I know well. He was the Wills Older Person of the Year in 1999. Mr Armstrong participated in the 7.30 Report discussion on the effect of the goods and services tax. When he was interviewed, he said that he believed he had been hard done by under the GST. In particular, he said: `Eventually it (the GST) fixed my hip pocket.' The financial consultant contracted by the 7.30 Report agreed that Jim was the most disadvantaged of all the groups being interviewed, noting that: He's got extra bills to pay, he's got extra GST to pay on a whole range of services and goods he didn't have to pay before, and the only real advantage he's going to get from this entire transition is the fact that the imputation credits that he previously wasn't able to collect, he's able to collect now as a cash bonus.But other than that, I think he's quite badly off and it's a little bit of a shame that someone in his situation, who's worked all his life, is actually treated so unfairly under this new system.Indeed, Jim's comments typify the reaction of many retirees in Wills. They feel that they have been short-changed by the GST. The aged persons bonus has only exacerbated this situation. I think that there is nothing worse than building up people's expectations and then delivering nothing or, as we have seen in a number of cases, a single dollar.A woman who came into my office, Dorothy Scott of Pascoe Vale, said that she did have savings, was on the pension and should have received the aged persons savings bonus, but she got nothing. Why was that? Centrelink explained to her that she had not advised them of her savings account and, because she had not done that by the deadline, she had missed out. So she was eligible, and her savings level would not have resulted in a cut to her pension—she was not hiding anything from anyone. She had not done anything wrong, but she was being punished just the same. When she was asked why she had not updated her details with Centrelink, she replied that she had not been asked to do so, and she was not the only one.So after that $400 million-plus spent on advertising, older residents in my area believed two things: firstly, that they were going to get $1,000 as GST compensation; and, secondly, that there was no need to update their savings details with Centrelink. When we put these things to the government, their response is that there were no promises about everyone getting the $1,000 compensation and that older people had to update their details with Centrelink; otherwise it was just bad luck. So we have a situation where, after over $400 million was spent on advertising, the aged and retired people in Wills managed to get completely the wrong idea. Whether or not they were meant to get the wrong idea, others can be the judge; but it really has to be an appalling communications campaign that can yield that kind of result.Mrs June Fox of Pascoe Vale South also visited my office. She got $100. She indicated that, on the basis of her savings, she was in fact entitled to the $1,000. Each of the constituents indicated to me that they had received no notification of the need to update their details with Centrelink. So you have to ask the question: when sending all those letters to Australians, why did the Prime Minister fail to mention this small point—that they needed to update their details with Centrelink? Each of the constituents who visited Centrelink to tell them what had occurred were told, `That's just bad luck; you are going to miss out.' I think you have to compare this sort of thing with the treatment that pensioners or self-funded retirees get if they have been overpaid by Centrelink. It does not matter whether it is Centrelink's fault or their fault, they have to return the money. They have to return the money if Centrelink makes a mistake that sees them being overpaid. But in the case of GST compensation, no allowances are being made for these errors on the part of Centrelink in calculating the entitlements of the older citizens of Australia, and there is no backdating and no assistance for them.In closing, I indicate, as I did at the outset, that Labor do not intend to oppose the measures before the House. We will subject them to scrutiny in the Senate, particularly the capital gains tax provisions to make sure that capital gains tax is not being watered-down under the guise of minor amendment. I repeat the observation I made in the course of debate that I am interested in hearing something more about the Foundation for Gambling Studies which is to receive tax deductible status as part of the provisions of this legislation.11:43:0019246Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—This may well be unparliamentary, but I ask those who are listening to today's broadcast to go and get a biro because I am just about to give them an address which I would like them to jot down, and the reason for that will become more evident as I go through the matters that I want to raise today. While people are doing that, I would like to speak briefly about some of the matters in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 2000 and what it addresses. It will amend the pay-as-you-go instalments regime to simplify the way certain beneficiaries—those who are absolutely entitled to the assets of a trust and the beneficiaries of certain investment trust beneficiaries—work out their instalment income, minimising the compliance burden on these trustees, without affecting the PAYG instalments base. Secondly, the bill also proposes amendments to several tax acts, correcting unintended consequences made by the rewriting of other legislation. Thirdly, the bill also proposes amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that the integrity measures relating to the capital gains tax general discount operate more appropriately, and to clarify and ensure that the provisions concerning the capital gains tax small business concessions have the intended consequences. I want to speak at length today about some of the other matters in the bill that relate to the amendments to the income tax law to allow deductions for donations of $2 or more to be made to nine funds; namely, the Community Disaster Relief (Sydney Hail Storm Assistance) Fund, the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial Fund, the Global Foundation, the United Hellenic Earthquake Appeal, the Foundation for Gambling Studies, the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal Public Fund, the RSL and 6th Division Australian-Hellenic Educational Memorial Fund and the Mount Macedon Memorial Cross Restoration, Development and Maintenance Trust Fund. I am sure that these are all very worthwhile projects, and I am extremely pleased that they have effectively been given tax deductibility status. I would like to refer very briefly to the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal Public Fund—a philanthropic foundation to help provide a viable social and economic future for Australia's rural and regional communities. It was unveiled at the Regional Australia Summit in Canberra in late 1999. The foundation aims to encourage innovative collaboration between business, community and government in philanthropic endeavours that will boost the economic and social well-being of regional Australia. It is an extremely important goal and one that this government has been deeply committed to. The federal government will provide the foundation with funding at $10.7 million in 1999-2000. Up to $3.8 million will be provided over 2000-01 to 2008-09 to match contributions from the business, government and community sectors, taking the total government cash contribution to $14.5 million. The Sidney Myer Fund has contributed $1 million to help develop the project's concept and organisational structure. The foundation will provide a mechanism for the private sector to work with communities in regional Australia through grants for community capacity building, project facilitation and seeding grants for the community and economic development initiatives. I would like to place on the public record my grateful thanks and that of many of my colleagues in regional and rural Australia to the Sidney Myer Fund. The Sidney Myer Fund has been a loyal and dedicated supporter of Australians for many years. It has again risen to the challenge, and I thank the fund most sincerely.The fund about which I want to speak at significant length is the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial Fund. The reason I suggested earlier that people might like to get a biro ready is that this fund is desperately seeking donations to make sure that we can deliver what I believe is fundamentally justice to Australian ex-prisoners of war. Those donations can be made to the Ballarat RSL, 2 Lyons Street South, Ballarat 3350. I encourage anyone who is listening to today's broadcast and anyone who might read Hansard later—I plead with them and, indeed, beg them—to make a contribution to this memorial. It is always difficult in these circumstances to pick one group over another, but I think we would be hard pressed to identify a group of Australians who have made a more significant contribution to this great country of ours than our ex-prisoners of war.The amendments to this act to enable tax deductibility for donations to the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial Fund will enable a $2 million project to be built in Ballarat. I appreciate that there are some who accuse me of being appallingly parochial in relation to the region I represent, but this is not about a Ballarat project; this is about an Australian project. This project is going to recognise those tens of thousands of Australians who were prisoners of war, many of whom died, and I will refer to those figures later. This has been born out of the commitment of an extremely loyal and dedicated band of people from my electorate. They cross all political allegiances, but they have one thing in common: an absolute dedication to building this memorial. They have started raising funds and developing plans and have lobbied for this tax deductibility. The idea for the memorial came about four years ago. Up to now there has been a bronze plaque, mounted on a bluestone rock with a flagpole, in the Ballarat Botanical Gardens and that has been dedicated to the ex-prisoners of war. John and Gwen Heinz, who live across the road from this plaque, I know have taken a deep and abiding interest in what is a very small memorial but a very significant one. Each year on Remembrance Day a special service is held with a guest speaker, a minister of religion and a public gathering where wreaths are laid, and often there are flowers left at this monument during the year as well. After the November 1996 service was really when the idea was hatched and people believed that it was time a more appropriate memorial to Australia's ex-prisoners of war be erected. Ballarat sculptor Peter Blizzard was commissioned to work on this. I congratulate and thank Mr Blizzard for doing a fantastic job. He presented the committee with a model and suitable drawings. The Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Association was contacted and the plans were presented at the 1997 National Reunion in Queensland, after which the membership at a national level fully supported the endeavours of the Ballarat group. The national executive of the RSL were also advised and the group has their total support. Likewise, the City of Ballarat and indeed a very broad political spectrum in the state of Victoria supported the project.A large number of people have been involved in this project. It is still very much in its infancy. It is always dangerous to go through names, but I would like to mention in particular Mr David Baird OAM, who is an ex-prisoner of war. David has been passionate about this program for a long time, as have the likes of Les Kennedy, Peter Caligari, Bill Bahr, Phil Horwood, Bob Fewster, Frank Peebles and Barry Edwards, who is presently doing work in relation to getting the names to go on this memorial, and I recently met with that group and Rex Hollioake from Ballarat the other day. But a huge number of people have been involved, and I am sure I have offended someone by not mentioning their name, which I very much regret and for which I apologise.There was a highly successful concert at Her Majesty's Theatre in Ballarat on 16 April this year. More than 700 people attended, and it raised approximately $20,000. There were messages from the Prime Minister and Major General Cosgrove, both of whom generously donated their time to support the appeal. Being sold for the appeal are polished black granite bricks for $57.60; as an ad in the Ballarat Courier said the other day, a very small price to pay for the sacrifices made by our POWs. I encourage all members of the House and, equally importantly, all members of the general public, to get behind this appeal.The memorial will be built at the present site of the small memorial in Ballarat's beautiful botanical gardens and will include the names of Australian prisoners of war from the Boer War, the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War. It is, I think, chilling to look at the figures for prisoners of war who represented and fought for this country. In the Boer War there were 104 prisoners of war. In the First World War there were 4,044 prisoners of war, of whom 307 died in captivity. In the Second World War there were 30,560 prisoners of war, of whom 8,292 died in captivity. In the Korean War there were some 29 prisoners of war. The memorial has been designed as a pathway with paving stones cut in the shape of railway sleepers to represent the Burma railway. The names of 34,737 ex-POWs will be engraved on a granite wall, which will include, in a separate section, the 8,684 who died in captivity, mainly due to brutality, starvation and disease. Eight 4-metre high basalt obelisks will stand in a reflective pool. It will be a place of peace and a place for reflection. In future years descendants, relatives and other vitally interested Australians will be able to go to this memorial and reflect on this extraordinary contribution from this extraordinary group of people. It will be a very important place for those surviving POWs. I had the great honour to be articled, after I finished my law degree, to a gentleman who was a great man—he unfortunately died about one month ago—Mr Desmond Gaunt. Mr Gaunt was just one of those Australians who, when they came back to Australia, weighed, from recollection, some 4½ stone. I cannot put that into kilos, but I know what 4½ stone is. A strapping young man left Australia to fight for this country and he came back weighing 4½ stone. Mr Gaunt was just one of those many Australians. Mr Ray Wheeler, who is now the National President of the Ex-POW Association, was a POW between 1942 and 1944. He spent a lot of time with Sue Hewitt from the Sunday Herald-Sun, and I congratulate Sue on a fantastic article. He started off talking about the need for a national memorial here in Australia. The main reason is that it is extraordinarily expensive for relatives, friends and other Australians to travel to some of the memorials overseas that recognise our ex-POWs. I quote from the article:“On the Burma Railway they were buried where they fell.I had more than 500 mates die in the South China Sea and they have a memorial in Labuan (a Malaysian island). Some had not even served in that area.”He said it was difficult for relatives to pay tribute to deceased POWs at overseas memorials.“There are 20 of my best mates from my own unit (the 2nd/10th Electrical and Mechanical Engineers) at the bottom of the sea.”Mr Wheeler, 76, was an 18 year old in Singapore when it was surrendered to the Japanese. He was sent to work on the Burma Railway.When the railway was completed, the Japanese ordered the fittest POWs to be shipped to Japan to work in war industries.He was on board the Rakuyo Maru when it was bombed in the South China Sea on 6 September, 1944, killing 543 Australian POWs.“We were in the middle of the South China Sea at the edge of the deepest water in the world—it was 12 miles (19 km) deep” he said.“We were below decks and had to sit with our knees under our chins, when all hell broke loose.”United States submarines attacked the convoy of 15 ships unaware two ships carried 2300 emaciated Australian and British prisoners.“An oil tanker sank and then aviation fuel cylinders exploded, lighting the oily water,” Mr Wheeler said.“There was a flickering blue flame and you had to dive under the water to get away.We formed groups, grabbing floats, hatch covers, anything that floated.That night we had a typhoon with 25 metre waves.When the first man died we gave him a burial service at sea, remembering the prayers as best we could. By the third day they were dying so fast we just gave them a blessing and let them float off.”Six days later a US submarine rescued Mr Wheeler and other survivors. When the servicemen returned to Australia no one realised the extent of the Burma Railway deaths.“We had to go through the Missing in Action lists. There were only 86 of us but we signed off the death warrants for 2000 men we knew had died.Each warrant needed three signatures, but at first they (authorities) did not believe us.”That is the end of the quote from that marvellous interview that Sue did with Mr Wheeler. Again, I thank her most sincerely. Ballarat has a very close connection with the hellship Rakuyo Maru because 86 survivors were hospitalised in Ballarat when they returned to Australia.Last year the Minister for Veterans' Affairs came to Ballarat, together with the National President of the RSL, Major General Peter Phillips AO, MC (Ret.), the Victoria RSL President, Bruce Ruxton, Mr Wheeler and the veteran community to launch the fundraising appeal. I am very pleased that the federal government has been able to donate $50,000 to the memorial. I understand that the new state government is also looking at making a significant contribution. I thank them for that and encourage them to do so. If you speak, as I have, to ex-POWs the greatest difficulty in doing that is not speaking to these men but actually getting them to speak about their experiences. I do not think that in any way any of us, even those of us—and I do not include myself in this—who have been through the most horrendous experiences, can possibly contemplate what these men went through. It is absolutely incumbent upon the Australian community to make sure that this appeal works because, ultimately, if we do not build the memorial now then those 34,000 ex-POWs are not going to be, in my view, appropriately remembered and recognised. We have one chance, in my view, to get this done, and to get it done properly.While I very much miss Des Gaunt, as his family does, the reality is that the Des Gaunts of this world are no longer with us and are dying rapidly. It is absolutely incumbent on us that for those surviving POWs we get this built, and we get it built quickly, so that there is a place of remembrance for the families and friends of those POWs who either died in captivity or have died since, and where the Australian people are able to say with some pride that this was an extraordinary group of Australians—some 8,500 who made the ultimate sacrifice in captivity and the others who came back obviously absolutely physically and emotionally scarred, some of whom have been fortunate to live into their 80s and many others who have not.Can I please again beg the Australian community to make sure that this national memorial works. The Australian ex-prisoners of war memorial is a massive project. I accept that. It is a $2 million project. But I cannot for the life of me think of any other project that more thoroughly deserves the support of the Australian community that this memorial appeal. I thank the House.12:03:0019250Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 2000 changes the Australian taxation system in a number of respects, and I want to take this opportunity to speak on several of those. It gives me great pleasure in opening to support in full the remarks that have just been made by the member for Ballarat. I am the proud son of an ex-POW from World War II. The member for Ballarat has just spoken eloquently about the difficulty in talking with ex-POWs, in that they are very reluctant to retell and convey to us the horror of war and, in particular, the horror of captivity in POW camps in enemy countries. I certainly found that in relation to my father, who was shot in the leg early in the Second World War and later captured. He was taken off to a POW camp in Italy. When Italy capitulated, he and his colleagues thought that there was a very good chance that they would be going home. But no, they were put on trains and taken to Germany, where they spent the rest of the war in a German prisoner of war camp.So in a most bipartisan way I am proud to be associated with the remarks of the member for Ballarat and to reiterate the horrifying statistics that he has provided, because I too have done the same research, in relation to the Second World War in particular. Of 30,560 POWs in the Second World War 8,292 died while they were held captive, which is a truly horrifying statistic. It must have just been terrible, particularly for those who were captured by the Japanese, where the death rate was especially and appallingly high.The next item on the agenda is the pay-as-you-go amendments that are set out in this legislation. The PAYG system, as it has come to be known, is supposed to be an integrated system of income tax instalments and withholding taxes that was designed to simplify tax payments. We have in front of us changes that are supposed to make things simpler, but already the PAYG system has been the subject of many hundreds of amendments. Those amendments form part of the total number of amendments that have been enacted by this parliament following the introduction of the new tax system legislation—1,466 amendments in total—and the PAYG system has been one of those taxation measures that has been subject to a great number of amendments.On this occasion the bill proposes further amendments in the area of instalments paid by certain trusts. It is quite revealing that the second reading speech sets out quite clearly why these amendments are being made. The second reading speech says they are being made to `simplify the way ... beneficiaries work out their instalment income' and to `minimise the compliance burden on the trustees of those trusts.' So we have this amazing situation where, when Labor talks about making changes to the so-called `streamlined new tax system for a new century'—which has become incredibly complex—and when we say, `We will seek to simplify the GST and other measures,' the government says, `You cannot do that; you cannot simplify the tax system because that constitutes roll-back.' Yet here today we have a new set of amendments designed to do precisely that. So when the government seeks to simplify the tax system that is a virtuous cause, but when Labor says that we seek to simplify the GST and the tax system this lacks all virtue—it is a bad thing and something that cannot be done. I cannot imagine a more ridiculous proposition from the government than that you cannot simplify the tax system. Here we have the government, after 1,466 amendments and 6.9 kilos of legislation—in one of the most complex pieces of legislation ever introduced into this parliament—saying that they will simplify it but that it cannot be simplified by Labor. We shall see.We do in general support measures that will simplify the Australian taxation system. On this occasion these measures are to simplify the PAYG system, and we will not be opposing those measures here in the House. But the other aspect of roll-back that Labor have been speaking of is that we would make the tax system not only simpler but fairer. Again the government said, `That cannot be done.' `You cannot make the GST fairer'—that is the government's proposition. Again this is a completely ridiculous proposition. It is an unfair tax and the government is saying that it cannot be made fairer.I can see one area where the GST system lacks all fairness, and that is in relation to the pensioner bonus. The Prime Minister on a number of occasions before the last election promised older Australians that they would get $1,000 in a pensioner bonus to compensate for the reduced purchasing power of their savings caused by the GST. He has sought to deny or minimise the fact that he said that when questions have been raised in the parliament this week. He did say it, and a large number of pensioners have been misled. We have already heard from the member for Lilley about an older Australian living nearby the electorate of Rankin in the suburb of Loganlea, who said that he voted Liberal last time because he thought he was going to get $1,000. He did not get $1,000 at all; he got a pathetic amount.On this occasion in the seat of Rankin I have been approached by at least half a dozen pensioners who have said exactly the same thing: that they thought they were going to get $1,000 and they have not. One of those pensioners, ironically, is a man I met at a presentation of certificates of appreciation for the contribution of veterans to the security of this country during World War II, the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency, the Indonesian confrontation and the Vietnam War. This particular man, Mr Herb Armstrong, is a veteran of the Korean War; he had medals across his chest. Veterans were very proud about receiving these certificates of appreciation. The certificates stemmed from the Australia Remembers campaign of a few years ago, initiated and implemented most particularly by my friend and colleague the member for Bowman, then the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.You may recall the slogan associated with Australia Remembers. It was `a grateful nation'. Herb Armstrong remembered that and he called me aside at the end and said, `I would like you to do me in favour. Could you?' I said, `I will if I can.' The favour was this—and I am now about to do that favour: he gave me $1.10, which I have here, and asked me to give that to the Prime Minister because $1.10 was what he received as his pensioner bonus when he thought he was going to get $1,000. So I am fulfilling my commitment to Herb Armstrong—a veteran of this country, a war hero of this country—who received $1.10 from this Prime Minister, and this is supposed to be from a grateful nation. It is a disgrace. A second pensioner, Mrs Helga Mueller of Kingston, has asked me to do precisely the same thing. Mrs Mueller has also asked me to give the Prime Minister back his $1, which I am doing now. There are more and more examples of this coming to light every day, where people have been misled into believing they were going to get $1,000 and they are getting as little as $1. It is truly a disgrace. I move to the capital gains tax provisions of this legislation. The explanatory memorandum claims that the changes to the capital gains tax have a total cost to revenue of—wait for it—nil. And at least some of these measures changed the rules to the benefit of taxpayers. This is just repetitive behaviour, because when I went through the explanatory memoranda associated with the 1,466 roll-back amendments made to the tax system, time and time again when you look to the line on the revenue implications you see one of two words: `nil' or `neg'. In each case, as the government has rolled back the so-called streamlined new tax system for a new century containing the GST, on almost every occasion the tax office has said, `Although this is now going to be to the benefit of taxpayers, there is no tax cost to revenue.' This has made it particularly easy for the government to get away with this roll-back—they would never call it roll-back of course—because there are no revenue implications. I call on the tax office to scrutinise government policies far more carefully rather than getting into cahoots with the government. When you make tax changes that provide a lesser burden on taxpayers, you must put a revenue figure against those taxation changes. But that has routinely not been the case.I have to say I am concerned that the Australian Taxation Office is losing its independence in refusing to put figures against the government's roll-back. I know that, when Labor starts talking about the sorts of things it wants to do in relation to making the tax system simpler and fairer, there will be figures coming from the tax office to the Treasurer so that he can say, `No, this cannot be done because it costs a lot of money.' Well, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I call on the tax office, as the government continues its own roll-back program, to stop putting `nil' or `neg' when it is quite clear that there are revenue implications in this.I move now to the measures in relation to the discount on capital gains. Certain anti-avoidance amendments were introduced as part of the business tax reforms to ensure that individuals could not circumvent the 12-month minimum holding period rule by interposing an entity to buy the shares. That is, of course, in relation to capital gains tax. The government is proposing in this legislation to dilute these anti-avoidance measures. Labor does not oppose these amendments in this House, but we will scrutinise them closely in the Senate to ensure that the tax base is not being threatened under the guise of a minor or technical amendment. That takes me to the entire area of tax avoidance, an area in which this government has been incredibly reluctant to move.In 1985 the Prime Minister told this House that he had smashed the tax avoidance industry by introducing the general anti-avoidance rule in part 4A of the income tax act. This followed the notorious bottom of the harbour schemes. The reason he said `I, as Treasurer in the Fraser government, smashed the tax-avoidance industry' is that he was speaking in relation to the previous Labor government's capital gains tax measures, fringe benefits tax measures and, subsequently, the foreign tax credit system. He described the capital gains tax as an `iniquitous' tax and, on 5 June 1986, went on to describe it as `madness'. He described the foreign tax credit system as `stupid'. All of these were anti-avoidance measures. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer get very emotional when talking about measures to crack down on tax avoidance because they do not like those measures. I draw your attention to the description of the then shadow Treasurer and now Treasurer to Labor's repeated attempts to apply fringe benefits tax to employee benefit arrangements: he described that as atrocious. This is the sort of language used by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer: `iniquitous', `madness', `stupid' and `atrocious' when they are debating Labor's efforts to ensure that tax avoidance is not rampant in this country. They had a very sorry record then in respect of tax avoidance, and their record is just being replicated in government, when they refuse time and time again to tackle genuine and rampant tax avoidance. In this house, on 11 September 1996, the Treasurer said: This government is concerned about tax avoidance and tax rorting. This is a government that is prepared to act against it.I always say that actions speak louder than words. What the Liberal party does is say, `We are against tax avoidance; we want to smash tax avoidance.' But when it comes to legislation, it is notably absent. Speaking of notable absences, the government announced as far back as 1996 that it was going to do something about family trusts. It has had 4½ years to do something about tax minimisation through family trusts. It has even said that it wants to tax family trusts as companies so as to reduce this major avenue of tax minimisation and tax avoidance in this country. Four and a half years later there is no legislation. This legislation has been promised time and time again.You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, the words of the then Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, who said, `We will kill this in cabinet.' They have obviously done it a serious injury in cabinet because that legislation is still not in front of the parliament 4½ years later. I am advised by people associated with that legislation that it has become very complex and voluminous indeed. Why would legislation designed ostensibly to crack down on tax avoidance through family trusts become complex and voluminous? There is only one reason: the more the government looks at it, the more it sees that that legislation could bear down upon tax avoiders, upon friends of the Liberal Party and upon the families of the Liberal Party. This government does not want to do that. So, right as we speak, they are carving out aspects of the anti-avoidance legislation in relation to family trusts so that those interest groups and the families and friends will not be subject to these anti-trust measures. This government has no stomach for truly cracking down on tax avoidance. The Treasurer has been on record in the last year or so saying that it is the role of oppositions to pass the government's tax legislation, to pass the government's tax program. He said that in relation to the business tax reform—and we did. There were supposed to be anti-avoidance measures in relation to the business tax reform, many of which have been watered down, and others of which we are still awaiting. But those words come from a Treasurer who says that the role of oppositions is to pass the government's tax changes. Yet he and his colleague, the Prime Minister of Australia, were involved in continued opposition over a sustained period of time to Labor attempts to crack down on tax avoidance. The Prime Minister opposed the capital gains tax and voted against it, as did his entire party. He opposed the fringe benefits tax, he opposed the foreign tax credit system, and I have been able to identify no less than 12 occasions, under the previous government, when the coalition voted against anti-avoidance measures.So actions do speak louder than words, and those actions tell us that this government has no stomach for cracking down on tax avoidance because such an important part of its constituency is into it up to its ears and continues to this day to be up to its ears in tax avoidance. That is a large and financially very important part of the constituency of this government. I call upon this government to get serious about tax avoidance and to take proper measures designed to ensure that the tax system has some integrity. This government is absolutely committed to widening the base of the regressive indirect tax system by introducing a GST but at the same time narrowing the base of the progressive direct tax system. That is this government's agenda. At every opportunity they will narrow the base of the progressive tax system to benefit the people who support them. (Time expired)12:23:0019253Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in this debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 2000. The bill seeks to address five broad areas of tax policy: gift deductible entities, amendments to the PAYG system, new provisions for the capital gains tax regime, tax rewrite corrections and specific provisions in relation to the bribery of public officials. I do not propose to comment at length on the overall issue which has been addressed on many occasions in this chamber—that is, the sheer administrative complexity of the government's overall taxation package. I have not done the count recently, but I am sure we are now well on the way to the government's 2000th amendment of its overall package of tax measures. This, after all, was a package introduced principally on the rationale that what the nation needed overall was a simplification of what the government described as an overly complex national taxation system. I do not think 1,000 to 2,000 amendments on the way through is necessarily a way in which to convince the Australian business community that this is a whole lot simpler than that which it has replaced. I will not comment further on that, nor will I comment on the matters just addressed by my colleague the member for Rankin and, I believe, by the shadow minister earlier on the question of the unstated revenue implications which might arise from a number of the measures which are currently being contemplated in the bill before the House. I do share the concerns of the member for Rankin about what I perceive to be also an incremental eroding of the independence of the Australian Taxation Office in its being robust and transparent in its advice on the revenue implications which flow from amendments which are purported to be amendments only of a technical nature. But I will not dwell on that any further.I will refer in slightly more detail, however, to the proposed amendments to the PAYG system which have been canvassed in the legislation before the House. When we look at the impact of this regime, PAYG, on Australian small business, I think we are looking at very early days yet in terms of its digestibility—not just from a complexity perspective but more particularly in terms of cash flow management for Australian small business. The Australian Statistician and others will be waiting with great interest to see what happens in the upcoming data on the rate and level of small business insolvencies across the country once this change impacts, together with the raft of other taxation changes which have been introduced since 1 July. The post 1 October data will be waited upon with great interest by those of us on this side of the chamber but waited upon with even greater interest by the small businesses that are already facing difficulty managing the compliance burden.However, the question of compliance burdens raises the whole issue of roll-back—a term most favoured by the Treasurer of the Commonwealth in his repeated performances in the parliament. What do we in the Labor Party mean by the term `roll-back'? As the Leader of the Opposition has said on a number of occasions, it falls into three broad areas: the easing of the compliance burden, the examination of the existing raft of exemptions and, on top of that, the adequacy of the range of compensation payments offered through the various branches of the taxation reforms which have been introduced by the government.The question of when the detail of what we mean by each of those elements of the roll-back proposal should be put to the Australian public of course hinges on the impact of the tax and of the tax package more generally on the Australian economy and on public revenues. I think our position on this score is entirely defensible. It would be irresponsible of us to initiate a series of detailed proposals in any of those three categories until such time as we had concrete data in terms of what revenue impact will flow from the tax, whether it will be above or below the expectations which have been debated in this chamber and beyond and, more broadly, what the impact of the tax will be on macro-economic performance. I think that approach on our part, which is essentially to wait for the forward estimates data for 2001-02 and beyond, is an entirely and eminently rational, conservative thing to do.There is a further factor on which I think the Treasurer from time to time seeks to criticise the opposition. He says that if we have expressed opposition to this tax up until now then why don't we repeal the lot? Of course, that is an easy line to use in a debate, but it overlooks one key point—that the business community of this nation has expended in the last year or so something in the order of $26 billion, if you take the calculation done by Arthur Andersen, in gearing itself up for the compliance requirements which flow from the new taxation package. Frankly, on that score alone, it becomes an absolutely impossible ask for Australian business. It is impossible to say to Australian business after all that investment has occurred, `In 12 months time, we expect you not just to undo the lot but to reinvest a significant amount of money in gearing up for significant taxation change.' We cannot in this nation, given the size of it, engage in what effectively amounts to a triennial tax auction in terms of who has the biggest, brightest and breeziest approach to business tax reform. If we were to do that, we would make the economic conditions within which businesses operate simply untenable. The Treasurer is fully aware of that. So when he engages in this chamber in the complete hyperbole of saying, `Well, if you oppose the tax so much, why don't you repeal it?' our response is simply one which is entirely sensitive to the interests of Australian business: `You cannot turn the earth on its head every three years. You make business's ability to perform and compete in this economy simply impossible.'When we go to the heart of what Treasurer Costello's criticism of roll-back is—and, I presume, his criticism therefore of our proposal for possible roll-back in the area of exemptions, compensation packages and the overall compliance burden which Australian business currently faces as a consequence of the tax package—he ridicules roll-back across the board. But, when we actually look at the bill that is before the House—and I have read with great interest what the government says in the second reading speech on this—on the question of compliance, the second reading speech admits that the aim of the amendments are: point 1, to simplify the way beneficiaries work out their instalment income; and, point 2, to minimise the compliance burden on the trustees of those trusts. So it seems that what you, the government, are engaging in with this particular piece of legislation is your own unique little piece of roll-back—roll-back in terms of the compliance burden faced by a branch of Australian business. It seems that roll-back undertaken by Treasurer Pete is fine and dandy yet when it is mooted as a possibility by the Australian Labor Party opposite it is, of course, in his scheme of things the definition of irresponsibility.I would say that, when you look at this together with the other elements of roll-back embarked upon by this government in recent weeks and months, what we have now in fact is Treasurer Costello becoming the Roll-back Kid himself. Every attempt we see in legislation to simplify the taxation compliance burden for Australian business is, on the government's part, doing exactly what we in the opposition have suggested we will do in the lead-up to the next election—that is, roll-back the compliance burden for Australian business.There is another related issue, and it also goes to the heart of the government's consistency and what it says on one hand and does on the other. The government says it is against the roll-back of such things as the compliance burden on business; yet, when you look at its concrete actions in this and other bills, it is doing precisely the reverse. But we see this inconsistency of `Watch what I say, not what I do' in other key areas of economic policy performance by the government as well. I refer here, of course, to the saving bonus. What has the government said on this particular matter? If you look at the record of the Prime Minister's statements on the savings bonus in the lead-up to the last federal election, they represent a most eloquent testimony indeed. The Prime Minister said:You get a $1000 savings bonus for all people over the age of 60.He said that on Radio 6PR in Perth on 25 August 1998. The Prime Minister said at the Carseldine Retirement Village in Brisbane on 18 August 1998:... for every person 60 and over there will be [a] savings bonus—a one-off tax free payment of $1000 in relation to any investment income that you might have.The Prime Minister also said on A Current Affair on 13 August 1998:... because you have investment income, you'll get access to the savings bonus which is $1000 for everybody 60 years and over.As my colleague the member for Rankin has just said, and as others have said in this chamber in the past week, the experience of many Australian pensioners and others this past month or so is that the cheque that they have received from the Commonwealth as equalling what they will obtain as their savings bonus is a cheque for $1. We have had most eloquently displayed here this week the shadow Treasurer, on behalf of one constituent, returning that single dollar back to the coffers of the Australian Taxation Office, saying `Frankly, if that is all you have to provide, the whole exercise is as shallow as it sounds.' You see, the savings bonus exercise is a bit like the `never ever' promise in the lead-up to the 1996 election. Do you remember the Prime Minister's statements then? `Never ever a GST; finito. This is a dead parrot; this is an ex-parrot'—this is almost like Monty Python—`It is a non-proposal; it is a non-tax.' `What GST? It has never existed.' `This is polly, dead on its perch'—until, of course, we got the election out of the road, and then it was back on the agenda. It is a bit the same, when you look at what they have actually done most recently between the 1998 election and the present on this question of the savings bonus: misleading large numbers of Australians in terms of their entitlements for this particular compensation payment arising from the introduction of the GST. So much for Honest John!The GST, the savings bonus—but, of course, it does not stop there. This looseness with the truth goes on to that other area of public policy activity on the part of this government. I refer here, of course, to the impact of the GST on petrol prices and, again, the dissonance between what the government says on the one hand and what it actually does on the other. What did the Prime Minister have to say about the impact of the GST on petrol prices? Again the record is an eloquent one. The Prime Minister's Address to the Nation on 13 August 1998 had this:The GST will not increase the price of petrol for the ordinary motorist.That is fairly clear. We have on Liberal Campaign Headquarters letterhead a simple statement dated 6 September 1998, again in the election season:There will be no increase in the price of petrol as a result of the GST.I do not wish to leave Botswana Pete, the Roll-back Kid, Treasurer Costello out of this. His own release dated 7 September 1998 and entitled `GST and petrol: the facts' said:The Government's proposed New Tax System will not lead to any increase in petrol prices. In fact there will be, for business users, significant falls.`The facts'—that is what that particular press release was entitled. But, when we actually go to what has happened, we see once again the difference between what this government has said on the one hand and what has occurred on the other. If we look, for example, at the Informed Sources petrol price data released by the Australian Automobile Association, it shows that there has been significant movement in the price of petrol across Australia between June and July. The Prime Minister, of course, has said repeatedly that in an area such as this we have basically to look at the facts in terms of what is happening on the ground. In fact, he said in his Meet the Press interview:... nothing is as formidable as field evidence. ... it beats everything, it's like a football match. The result always beats the prediction, doesn't it?Not exactly, Prime Minister, if you look at the results of the informed sources petrol survey. For example, if you look at that period between June and July, we have had an increase in the price of petrol—in Melbourne, 4.2 per cent; in Sale, Victoria, 1.7 per cent; in Hobart, 3.2 per cent; in Burnie, three per cent; in Darwin, 3.1 per cent; in Alice Springs, 2.1 per cent; in Canberra, 1.8 per cent; in Perth, 4.1 per cent; in Albany, 2.7 per cent; in Adelaide, 3.1 per cent; in Whyalla, 2.6 per cent; in Sydney, 3.4 per cent; in Armidale, 2.1 per cent; in Brisbane, my own town, 2.9 per cent; and in Gladstone, 2.0 per cent. They are all increases.But I thought what the government said and I thought what Australians believed were the public protestations by both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that there would be no increase in petrol prices as a result of the introduction of the GST. Of course, they say that part of this arises as a consequence of changes in the international price of petrol. But the GST is not to blame for at least 1½ cents in each of the rises that I have referred to just now. There is a huge gap between, on the one hand, saying that there will not be an increase in the price of petrol to, on the other, the government's current politically convenient formulation, which is `there need not be a rise in the price of petrol'. When we come to all these matters being taken together, when we come back to the Treasurer's criticism, the Roll-back Kid's criticism of Labor's performance on roll-back, again we see this huge gap between government rhetoric on the one hand and policy reality on the other. This bill is, in fact, a classic expression of the government rolling back the compliance mess that it has imposed on Australian business. We also see the gap between Australian government political rhetoric, on the one hand, and what is happening on the ground in terms of the whole debate about the savings bonus, saying beforehand that everyone is going to get it and, after the event, only 50 per cent getting a slice of it—and, in many cases, a very narrow slice indeed. Also, on petrol, we see a huge opening chasm between `there will not be an increase' and `there need not be an increase'.All I would say is this. It all adds up to form a picture: what we have here is a government which, on these key elements of economic policy and tax policy, is misleading the Australian people. This is a government which has prided itself, through its Prime Minister, on its so-called honesty and forthrightness of approach. I would suggest to the House and the parliament, and the country through the parliament that, in these three critical areas, we have a gaping credibility gap on the part of this government that gives us no confidence at all that we will see anything like transparency of political commitment and policy reality in the remaining one year of this government's term.12:40:0019257Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—In summing up the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 2000, I would like to thank those honourable members who have participated: the members for Wills, Ballarat, Rankin and Griffith. This bill moves amendments to the income tax law to give effect to a number of measures. The bill either extends or grants gift deductibility to eight funds: the Community Disaster Relief (Sydney Hailstorm Assistance) Fund, the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial Fund, the Global Foundation, the United Hellenic Earthquake Appeal, the Foundation for Gambling Studies, the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal Public Fund, the RSL and 6th Division Australian-Hellenic Educational Memorial Fund and the Mount Macedon Memorial Cross Restoration, Development and Maintenance Trust Fund.The bill also amends the pay-as-you-go instalments legislation affecting beneficiaries of certain investment trusts. These changes should reduce compliance for trustees of some investment trusts, and they arise out of consultation with industry. The bill contains some technical amendments to the streamlined capital gains tax small business concessions inserted into the act in 1999. These concessions include the small business retirement exemption, the small business 15-year exemption, the small business 50 per cent active asset reduction and the small business rollover relief. The bill also contains some minor capital gains tax amendments coming out of the Tax Law Improvement Project. These amendments should correct some unintended consequences resulting from the rewriting of the capital gains tax provisions.There is also a small correction to the provisions that deny deductions for bribes by Australian public officials—removing the term `foreign' where it should not appear. The bill also contains measures to improve the integrity measures relating to the availability of the CGT discount where there is a sale of shares in a company or units in a trust. Broadly, the discount only applies where assets have been held for more than 12 months. These integrity measures apply where the shares or units have been held for more than 12 months but the majority of the assets held by the company or trust have not been held for more than 12 months. The existing legislation can deny the discount where it is not appropriate to do so, and the measures in this bill are intended to remedy this. There is broad support from both sides of the parliament for the contents of this particular bill, but one could be excused for not being aware of this when one listens to the contributions made by those honourable members who grace the opposition benches. The member for Wills asked the question `Do the proposed amendments to section 115(45) have the potential to undermine the effectiveness of this measure?' I am pleased to assure the honourable member that the proposed amendments involve finetuning of section 115(45) to ensure that it continues to operate effectively but without giving rise to anomalies revealed through practical application of the section.The honourable member for Wills and maybe one or two other opposition members queried how the capital gains tax changes could benefit the taxpayers but have nil financial impact. Again I am very happy to clarify this for the benefit of the House. The amendments reinstate the position of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, or make minor amendments such as rectifying incorrect cross-references. Some of the amendments will reinstate a tax benefit to taxpayers which was inadvertently removed by the rewritten capital gains tax provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Conversely, other amendments will remove a tax benefit which inappropriately resulted from the capital gains tax rewriting process. None of the corrections change the policy reflected in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, and the costings are and always have been based on the correct operation of the provisions. The member for Wills also said that he had been unable to ascertain the nature of the Foundation for Gambling Studies, the make-up of the board and its objectives. I am pleased to assure the honourable member that the government will review the information we have in relation to that particular foundation with a view to assisting his acquisition of necessary knowledge.When one listened to the outstanding and erudite contribution by the honourable member for Ballarat, one could understand how he is such an outstanding representative for that important Victorian city. The member for Ballarat has indeed held that very marginal seat at times under very difficult political circumstances, but he is an outstanding member who fully understands his electorate. When one listens to the details that he gave the House in relation to projects and in relation to people in that electorate, it becomes pretty clear why the honourable member for Ballarat will be the member for that area for just as long as he chooses to be. I want to commend him for his excellent representation.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—I ask the minister to come back to the bill.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I am. I am commenting on the contribution. I am summing up. If one listened to what the honourable member for Ballarat said, one could not have failed to have been left with the impression and the reality that he is an outstanding local member who will hold that seat for as long as he wishes to.The honourable member for Rankin refers to roll-back. The Labor Party talks about rolling back the GST. I want to refer honourable members to an answer given by the Treasurer to a question of him by the honourable member for Mitchell in the chamber on 14 August. The member for Mitchell queried what effect a roll-back of the GST would have on the Commonwealth budget position. The Treasurer responded by saying that roll-back would have a dramatic effect on the Commonwealth budget position. He said:Let's suppose that the Labor Party only roll it back 50 per cent. That is $12 billion, which would mean the abolition of every income tax cut which was awarded on 1 July. Let's suppose that they only want to roll it back by one-third. That is $8 billion—the equivalent of a 24c or 25c hike in petrol excise.Members opposite chant the mantra of roll-back. They claim that the new tax system is not as simple as it could be. They claim that is not as simple as the system we had before. They are of course quite wrong. Roll-back would mean increased complexity and it would mean higher taxes. It is about time they stood up and were counted and were honest. Roll-back means higher taxes and more complexity, and they stand and will continue to stand to be condemned by the Australian public for such a shameful approach to taxation law. The opposition claims it will make the tax system fairer and simpler. What a sick joke. They simply will not tell us how, and whenever we look at the possibilities which lie before them we see that the result will be higher taxes and more complexity. The member for Rankin also referred to simplification. I want to point out that the bulk of amendments to PAYG represent the comprehensive enactment of a comprehensive PAYG system. They are not changes to the fundamentals of the PAYG system. Generally these amendments are a refinement to simplify compliance for investors in unit trusts and the trustees of those trusts. For example, they will benefit many self-funded retirees who, during their working lives, have made a wonderful contribution to the great country that is the Australia of the year 2000. It also ought to be noted that the Australian Labor Party went to the last election supporting the principle of PAYG.I also want to take a moment in finalising to remark on the absurd proposition by the opposition that this government in some way has been soft on tax avoidance. I want to point out some of the things that this government has done to fight tax avoidance in Australia since it was entrusted with the keys to government in 1996. The government has taken action in relation to recommendations in the Ralph review of business taxation. The government has also been investigating the tax driven activities of high wealth individuals. We are stopping abuse of the research and development tax concession; we are stopping abuse of luxury car leasing; we are closing the infrastructure bond scheme; we are tightening thin capitalisation to address tax minimisation by foreign companies; we are taking measures to address tax avoidance through overseas charitable trusts; we are extending the general anti-avoidance provisions of the taxation system to combat withholding tax avoidance; we are preventing the trafficking of trust losses; we are taxing distributions disguised as loans from private companies; we are taking measures to prevent trading in franking credits and dividend streaming; we are denying artificially created capital losses and also taking measures to prevent trading in franking credits and dividend streaming; we are correcting the abuse of trusts and superannuation funds; we are preventing tax avoidance in hire purchase and limited recourse debt finance arrangements and also, and very importantly, we are combating tax minimisation in the cash economy. The introduction of the goods and services tax and the Australian business number and withholding arrangements will assist the Australian tax office to make greater inroads into addressing tax minimisation in the cash economy. These measures took effect on 1 July 2000. The Australian tax office is also conducting a project to increase tax collected from businesses operating in the cash economy. So it is pretty clear that that false allegation made by the opposition has absolutely no substance at all.As I said at the outset, this bill is a very important piece of legislation. It makes a number of vital changes. The government is very pleased to bring the bill before the House, and I commend it to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 19259Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Bills19259R92619259Debate resumed from 22 September 1999, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.12:53:0019259McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition will be supporting the second reading of the Family Law Amendment Bill 1999. By and large, we think it is a sensible and worthwhile bill, but we will be moving some amendments in the consideration in detail stage. By coincidence, I was recently reading the Herald newspaper, and where I tend to end up is the Hagar the Horrible comic. The scene in the comic is Hagar the Horrible sitting in a bar, as he is wont to do. It is regrettable that the member for Lyons, who occupied the chair immediately prior to my speaking, is not here now, because this Hagar the Horrible is a rather stout Viking with a substantial beard, with a frame not unlike the manly frame of the member for Lyons. In this comic, Hagar the Horrible is sitting there talking with a fellow in dented armour as they are both having a beer. The fellow in dented armour says, `I'm changing jobs. The stress from these constant vicious battles is killing me.' Hagar the Horrible says, `Are you a member of the King's combat troops?' The fellow in armour replies, `No. I'm a marriage counsellor.' Of course marriage counselling is a vital service, but I refer to that comic—I am not sure of the standing orders about tabling such a comic, which I will not even attempt to do—to indicate the tremendous emotion that is engendered in the area of family law. There will be members on both sides of the House who will have a particular point of view one way or the other in respect of matters that arise. Indeed, there are very active lobby groups advocating a particular view as to what emphasis the legislation should have. Overall, the responsibility of government and our responsibility as a national parliament is to frame laws which are balanced and which can see through that chronic trauma, tension and conflict that the comic alluded to. By and large, I think it is fair to say that the government has achieved that balance. It is certainly the case that we in the opposition also strive to achieve that balance between the competing interests. After all, at the end of the day, while that vicious conflict referred to in the comic occurs, there are innocent victims of that conflict, and we are always mindful of the fact that those innocent victims are children, and indeed our future generation. Family law legislation is vitally important because it touches very much the day-to-day lives of so many families in Australia, because of the trauma and because of the need to get it right for those innocent parties involved.This bill is partly a response to the 1992 report of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Aspects of the Operation and Interpretation of the Family Law Act. Essentially, that report, while it was lengthy and did cover a number of matters in detail, found that the Family Court was not using the powers granted to it to the greatest extent possible and was not making the best use of the flexibility of the act. Obviously, when you are speaking about the court, you are speaking generally; some judges will take a particular emphasis that others may not.The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry. I have to praise the members of that committee from all sides of parliament for their competence and objectivity. It is a committee noted for its reasonable and balanced approach to analysing legislation, rather than coming from a point of view of dogma. That committee concluded, as the opposition has, that this bill is basically wise legislation. Nevertheless, the committee did make several recommendations, and in my contribution I will discuss the more substantial recommendations. Firstly, the major area of this bill is a scheme for the enforcement of parenting orders. Essentially, it proposes a three-tiered approach. The first tier will be the introduction of preventive measures, and that is designed to improve the communication between separated parents and to educate them about their respective responsibilities in relation to their children and how the ongoing trauma and conflict will impact on their children and what the consequences will be for those children.The second stage is in respect of remedial measures to enable the parents to resolve issues of conflict about parenting. Frequently, they will arise. Every member in this House would have no doubt received a number of representations. Distressingly, they tend to occur more frequently at the Easter and Christmas holidays in terms of arrangements for access, visitation rights and the like. These are distressing incidents for all involved at distressing times of the year, but clearly there will be a need for ongoing remedial measures to address mechanisms for handling those particular traumas and complications that arise. The third stage is with respect to punitive measures to ensure that, as a last resort, a parent is punished for deliberate disregard of court orders. We have seen the trauma involved in such incidents. There was one reported in the media recently that I will not comment on, but clearly we saw the mother's relief the other night when she was reunited with her children. These will be issues where real trauma is involved if orders of the court are not complied with.The committee recommended, however, that rather than the first step, second step and then third step punitive level occurring, the court should have a discretion as to the point at which it decides to impose a penalty. We in the opposition strongly endorsed that recommendation of the committee. We note in particular that these parenting orders are frequently made on an interim basis. The need for those orders on an interim basis has substantially been as a result of lengthy delays in the Family Court before matters are heard.We in the opposition have been critical of the lack of steps taken to address the length of hearing times. The fact that one has to wait in some cases 18 months to two years to have a parenting matter resolved in a final hearing has meant that the interim order stage is all the more important.Research shows that sometimes these interim orders are not appropriate to deal with the particular circumstances involved. There may be, and quite frequently are in my sitting through Family Court lists, real complications involved in cases regarding appropriate access and visitation rights of children. There are all too frequently issues of alcohol and substance abuse, issues of domestic violence or even abuse of children. The court is entrusted with making very, very complex and heart-wrenching decisions. It is unsatisfactory, it must be conceded, that they have to make these interim orders without the ability to test these serious allegations. By and large, these interim matters are dealt with by way of documentation and, indeed, the court's guidelines—as they must to keep the list flowing—impose a two-hour limit on the hearing of what can be very traumatic and complex matters.In summary, with the pressures involved in getting quick justice on an interim basis without fully exploring or considering any family report or evidence from experts as to what is in the best interests of the child, there is a real prospect that the court will not get it right in the interim order that is made. In that context, we felt that it was quite inappropriate to have this automatic first tier, second tier and then third tier penalty applying where there could be real reasons why the orders were not complied with.The government has accepted those arguments and it has indicated that while the bill certainly imposes the current mandatory requirement, in the committee stage it intends to amend the bill so that judges will no longer be required to impose a sanction at that third stage but instead will effectively be able to refer the parties back to the second stage of the counselling or education procedure. In other words, the parents may, without facing a sanction, be directed back into that post-separation parenting program. We think that is appropriate.I should indicate that we agree with the government's stated intention to permit the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Service to be empowered to vary or discharge each other's community service orders in that same context. We think that is appropriate.Looking at that first tier again, in terms of the working of the systems, the bill will introduce greater requirements for informing and educating parents of their responsibilities. We say that is very important because if you can avoid these problems occurring at the outset by reinforcing to separating parents just what effect their ongoing conflict will have on their children you have much greater prospects of resolving it.The bill as presently draftedindeed, the Senate committee considered this toofailed to recognise that there could be many instances, and there are many instances, of consent orders and hence it was inappropriate to require that the information be imparted in open court. The committee recommended—and the government has accepted—that the information could be imparted by an appropriate clause in an order or by empowering the court to create their own documentation. We think that is appropriate. The court is in the very best position, having experienced the situations and the types of matters where there is a risk of non-compliance, to prepare such a publication. It does of course involve issues of resourcing the court and I will refer to those later on during the course of this contribution. Also in the context of the parenting program, we have suggestedand, indeed, the committee recommendedthat the court should have the ability to refer both parties to these parenting programs. We say that is desirable. While one party may breach the court order, more often than not it takes two people to cause a situation where that breach occurs. If there is real apprehension, for instance, of inappropriate treatment or some concerns as to whether a child is properly being cared for or whether medication is properly being administered if they are suffering from an ailment, for instance, it is appropriate that both parents be referred back to these post-separation parenting programs so that the problems can be ironed out and resolved. We acknowledge that the government has accepted that argument and will be amending the legislation to empower the court to refer both parties to those parenting programs.The second area of controversy is with respect to binding financial agreements. That has been the subject of some media attention. We received an inquiry as to whether these binding financial agreements would enable parties prior to entering into a marriage to reach an agreement as to who did the washing up and who hung out the washing. My reading of the legislation is that, regrettably, those things could not be regularised but it would only apply at the point of separation from the marriage. Nonetheless, they will make a significant difference to the culture of family law. If we look at pre-nuptial or pre-marriage agreements in the United States, which have been in existence for the last 20 years, it was not really until states adopted a mechanism whereby they were realised as legal and enforceable documents that they really took off. Now they are quite common in that country.We recogniseand, indeed, the government recognisesthat there will be instances, however, where those documents will not be fair and appropriate. There may well be instances of unequal negotiating power and, indeed, the romance that presumably accompanies the pre-marriage negotiations is perhaps not the time to reflect in a cold, considered and legalistic way on how these things are to be resolved. The government has partially acknowledged that in the legislation but, we believe, not fully enough.The government, it must be said, has taken on board the recommendations of the Senate committee and has foreshadowed to us an amendment to section 90K of the bill, which will include a new subsection, which I will just read, as a ground of setting aside these agreements where:...as a result of a material alteration in the circumstances relating to the care, welfare and development of a child of the marriage, the child or, if the applicant has caring responsibility for the child...a party to the agreement will suffer hardship if the court does not set the agreement aside.There is a real prospect of hardship following dissolution of marriage. The Australian divorce transitions project interviewed 650 people divorced in the previous nine years. It found that more than half of the older women and 35 per cent of young women with children ended up living in homes which had an income below the Henderson poverty line. So we should not be naive to the consequences of divorce and, in particular, the consequences for divorce on older women, who have particular difficulty in entering the work force, as do middle-aged to older men. But this is more so, I think it is fair to say, in the case of women, particularly if they have had a long period out of the work force raising children, and also of younger women who have the responsibilities of child rearing.Those circumstances may in themselves fall into the category of hardship that the government's amendment proposes to pick up, but on balance we think that is inadequate. We see in a wide range of areas, in respect of unfair contractsand, indeed, if you are looking at contracts involving sporting players, for instancethe tribunals have a much greater discretion in setting aside agreements if the circumstances in which they were negotiated involved a situation of duress or inequality or the agreement itself was harsh, unfair or oppressive, or circumstances changed such that the agreement became harsh, unfair or oppressive. The tribunals, which tend to be at state level, have the power in those circumstances to set aside or vary the agreement. We say that if there is justification in the commercial area to give those powers to a tribunal, there is all the more justification to give them in a situation where the interests of children are involved. So I should indicate that we will be accepting the government's amendment, but will move further clauses which we say take that matter just that bit further to empower the court to have a greater discretion in resolving those matters. Other formalities in respect of these prenuptial agreements involve the technicalities of entering into them. The government's current bill requires that in order for a prenuptial agreement to be enforceable the parties must have had advice from either an accountant or a lawyer. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended that, rather than it be by either an accountant or a lawyer, it be by both an accountant and a lawyer. The dissenting report, however, expressed some concern that that would involve expense to retain both a lawyer and an accountant to advise on these matters and recommended that in lieu of the provision of an accountant or a lawyer the requirement be for legal advice to be obtained. That is important because it will describe the legal consequences of entering into these agreements. We note that the government intends to pick up that recommendation from the dissenting report, which we will support.Another controversial area has been child support assessments. I think it is fair to say that while in opposition we do not mind seeing media reports criticising the government, there has been some unfair and unbalanced reporting in this area. That media reporting has been to the effect that there has been a risk of people being jailed because of their failure to support obligations under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. That is not the case, and we accept that it has not been and is not the intention of the government in this initial draft bill to suggest that such people will be jailed for those breaches. Nevertheless, in light of that debate and that controversy, we will agree with the government's proposed amendment to section 70NJ (6) to put that matter beyond doubt.The bill also deals with matters in respect of the return of abducted children. I should say I commended the government recently in respect of some initiatives to assist the return of children who had been abducted overseas. We as members of parliament frequently see those situations and it is extremely frustrating in that there is so little that we can do to assist an Australian parent in obtaining the return of children who have been abducted overseas. So anything to assist in this area is desirable. We welcome the amendments that implement the government's construction of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which is known as the child abduction convention. Essentially that will provide the Family Court with a broad discretion to decide what is appropriate in the specific circumstances of the case before them. That, we say, is important.The bill also refers to some technical matters relating to financial agreements and arbitrated outcomes, including allowing the court to make orders adjusting the rights of parties not only to the agreement, but also third parties to the agreement. There may be, for instance, need to apportion business assets and, as a consequence of that, other third parties not obviously a party to the marriage may be affected as a result of the division of some sort of business asset or shareholding interest, for instance. We say that those powers and those amendments are appropriate and we will be supporting them.The concluding points I would like to make, however, are in respect of the resourcing of Family Court generally. I started off by reading the Hagar the Horrible comic in respect of the traumas suffered by counsellors, quite frequently the victims of a vicious conflict or fight between parents. That does stress the importance of counselling. If counsellors are available to get in and do their work early in the piece, the prospect of resolving these traumas before they are magnified, exacerbated, and aggravated by ongoing conflict is much greater. Of course, if we can resolve these matters at an early stage we are far less likely to end up in a situation where additional resources of society are required, whether they are social workers caring for kids who have been abused or, in worst case scenarios, law enforcement agencies in situations of domestic violence. So we cannot underestimate the importance of resourcing courts and, in particular, resourcing the Family Court to provide for counsellors. In that context, we note that the operating budget of the Family Court was cut by more than 10 per cent from 1 July this year. As a consequence, we understand that the budget of the Family Court will be reduced by about $15.4 million over the next four years. That has to be seen in the context where the budget of the Family Court is substantially a fixed cost. The fixed costs involve the assets, buildings, salaries and the libraries. So very little of their budget is discretionary. It will mean that the staffing of the Family Court will be reduced by 10 per cent and that has been confirmed in a memorandum by the new Chief Executive of the Family Court. So the staffing level around Australia will be reduced from, I think, 800 to 720. It seems that that will affect primarily the areas of counsellors and regrettably it seems those counsellors will be removed from a number of registries in rural and regional Australia. Areas like Albury, Alice Springs, Cairns, Canberra, Coffs Harbour, Dandenong, Darwin, Dubbo, Geelong, the Gold Coast, Launceston, Lismore, Newcastle, Townsville and Wollongong all seem likely to be affected by staff cuts, whereas people in the major cities, as always tends to be the case, have a greater access to resources. It is another example, we believe, of where the government has broken its commitment given by the Prime Minister at Nyngan not to reduce resources available to rural and regional Australia. These are important resources and I should not underestimate that, because of the stress I have continued to place on the importance of counselling services and the trauma they avoid. This trauma, if anything, is more acute in rural and regional Australia where access to other support services is regrettably less likely.The other area on which I need to comment is that the government justifies its reduction in resources to the Family Court by the fact it is establishing a federal magistracy. The opposition has supported the creation of a magistrates level of justice, but not at any stage have we supported—indeed we have criticised it as being absolutely crazy—the decision to set up a separate magistrates court. It results in an unnecessary duplication of resources. The additional administrative expense unquestionably could be spent on greater resources of the court, particularly on counselling resources. For instance, developing a system of compulsory conferencing would be a much better use of the administrative expenses. To highlight this division in assets and the duplication, one need only look at the comments made recently by the Chief Magistrate, Ms Diana Bryant QC—who, I have to say, is an impressive woman in her own right—that unfortunately it appears there is an ongoing power struggle between the two jurisdictions. The fact it is likely must have been in the government's mind. For instance, Ms Bryant was quoted as saying in a speech, `We are all in the federal judiciary family but like many families there is a power struggle.' She was reported in an article in the Financial Review as saying in Adelaide that when she was trying to set up the magistracy there she foolishly mentioned sharing the existing library. If you cannot share library resources, it shows the difficulty the magistrates service will have. It would have been far more effective if it had been integrated in the Family Court system, such as in Western Australia, where they could work off the same docket system and mix and match matters as appropriate between the judges and magistrates. This federal magistrates court will not be the solution to these problems that still exist in the family law area. There will be an ongoing problem of funding and the government needs to address that urgently. (Time expired)13:23:0019264Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill today. If you are observing the Parliament in the gallery today it might be interesting for you to note how the parliament works in relation to this Family Law Amendment Bill. We have heard the shadow minister, in speaking on the bill, make some claims, which indeed he is entitled to do, but they are wrong. It is my responsibility to respond on behalf of the government to point out where they are wrong and why they are wrong. He claimed there will be some reductions across regional Australia, and he named many of the cities across regional Australia, including the city I come from, which is Australia's largest tropical city—Townsville in north Queensland, just north of Mackay, which the Deputy Speaker ably represents. He said there will be reductions in these regions across Australia. I inform the shadow minister that he is entirely wrong. The Federal Court made it quite clear and plain that there will be no reduction in staff or services in regional areas. I am very pleased to stand behind the government's commitment and the Prime Minister's commitment earlier this year that we have drawn a line in the sand, a red light has flashed, and we will make sure that the government services and staffing remain at what they should be in rural and regional Australia. It is a wonderful commitment to be able to make and confirm in the parliament this afternoon.The shadow minister said in his closing remarks that the Federal Magistrates Service should be combined with the Family Court and that it will be only handling some matters. Not surprisingly it will handle virtually all the matters of the bill before the parliament. It is sad to see a shadow minister claiming what in fact is not the case, particularly in a debate on the bill which provides for the Magistrates Service, rather than the Family Court, to handle these issues.Having said that, I certainly welcome the support the shadow minister has given to the government, by and large, in most of what the government is proposing in amending the Family Court Act. It is good to see. It is a bipartisan approach and I think the people of Australia welcome that. I hope we will see that in other bills that come before the parliament, particularly in relation to welfare reform, as the months go by.In starting my contribution to this debate, would it not be terrific if mums and dads did not separate in the first place? Would it not save the country, the parents and the children involved the trauma that goes on when parents separate? In some instances it cannot be avoided. Single mums become single mums and it is entirely beyond their control that it might happen. Single dads become single dads. I wish we did not have single mums and dads in the community and we would all be able to live and love each other and not have to go through the trauma of separation. But the reality is that it happens.We also see the non-custodial parents in the Australian community welcoming the provisions in this amendment bill. They certainly will welcome—as the opposition has—many of the amendments that are being put forward quite sensibly, in response to what has been found to be happening in the community, to try to tidy up those sorts of things. This amendment bill was introduced as far back as 22 September 1999. It is a pity it has not proceeded more quickly.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Hear, hear!HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I thank the member for Paterson for his support, because it is needed, and it is needed as soon as possible. I understand its primary function is to introduce a new regime of the enforcement of parenting orders to facilitate the making of binding financial agreements to enable the commencement of private arbitration disputes about property and to make a number of miscellaneous amendments. These arrangements are crucial to the development and the finetuning of the legislation which affects not only the parties involvedand that is importantbut also the wellbeing of any children involved, which is doubly important. In its present form, the legislation has attracted mass public criticism concerning the substantial delays and high costs of adversarial proceedings in property cases. It is my opinion that judicial proceedings should be significantly reduced if possible by providing for private arbitrarial determination of such cases.Time after time I see in my electorate office, as we all do, complaints from either custodial or non-custodial parents about how difficult it is to move through the current process in the Family Court and how costly it has been. People show me legal bills of $80,000 after attempting to get something ironed out about custody of their children, property settlements or some reasonable result. We see the inevitable adversarial one parent against the other when break-ups become bitter and then we see the children of the union in the middle of it all. It is really quite sad. There must be regulations to provide for the registration and enforcement of arbitrarial awards which will ensure the practical effectiveness of government policy. As discussed previously, arbitration must be available. These amendments will provide a workable scheme for both court referred and private arbitration as a cheaper, quicker and more accessible dispute resolution procedure than court litigation for the resolution of property disputes. That is a wonderful outcomea cheaper, quicker and more accessible dispute resolution procedure. So the bases are covered to ensure finality of resolution and provision is made for confinement of reviews of arbitrarial awards to questions of law. That is a sensible amendment as well.The bill will also address an area of very significant concern for many parents and which has general public disquietthe enforcement of parenting orders. I also see, as many members and senators would see, the problems with the current situation where the Family Court issues some kind of access order, for example, and the non-custodial parents find that the access order is effectively not worth the paper it is written on. It is very difficult when a non-custodial parent looks you in the face across your desk and says, `I'm required to support my children but I can't get any access to them. I have to pay, and I'm happy to pay, but I don't get any access to them. I've got an order from the Family Court of Australia; it doesn't mean a thing to me. I take it down to the Federal Police and say I can't get access to my kids and they say, “Go back to the court”.' To be fair to the court, some judges have recognised this and have tried to be responsive.I was very privileged last year to be part of a Family Court open day in Brisbane. One of the judges there said to me that if the access orders were not complied with he would threaten to transfer custody to the other parent. He said that was very effective. What is in the amendment bill will address this particular issue. It is aimed to establish preventative measures and to improve communications between separated parents and educate parents about their respective responsibilities in relation to their children. Remedial measures are addressed to enable parents to resolve issues of conflict about parenting and punitive measures to ensure that as a last resort a parent is punished for deliberate disregard of this court order.This is where the government and the opposition diverge. We heard the shadow minister indicate in the parliament today that, while he supports the first two situations where there are breaches of the parenting orders, in relation to the third breach the opposition will support imposing a penalty. They have suggested today that if it comes to a third breach they will put it back to the second breach stage. I respectfully submit to the opposition that if they took that view in all other areas where people break the law they would not get any deterrent whatsoever. There needs to be a deterrent.I believe that the Family Court judges or the federal magistrates need to have the power where they see fit to impose a penalty if, in their opinion, it is proper to do so. The government is saying that there is the opportunity to impose a penalty if the judge or the federal magistrate feels that that would be appropriate. I think that punitive measure has to be in. I suggest to the opposition that its particular position is pretty weak because if one parent who is trying to hold out the kids against the other parent wilfully disobeys the court order there is no sanction as to why that person should not continue to wilfully disobey the court order. That is the problem that we have now and, with the opposition's view, that is the problem that will continue. Under this particular amendment bill, it will be effectively addressed.Financial arrangements will be binding. Currently under the act people can make pre-nuptial or post-nuptial settlements about their property. In recent years the use of these has been limited because they are not binding and the court is able to exercise its discretion over any property with these settlement deals. This was one of the major problems identified by the joint select committee and in other reviews of the existing law about family law property. I think we should all pause for a moment to reflect on the implications if this reform is not forthcoming. I refer to some research that was published by the Bulletin magazine on 30 May this year. The Bulletin wrote a compelling story about the tragic implications the current Family Law Act has on all the parties involved.Perhaps I should start with a few of the facts which I see in my electorate and which members and senators also see in their electorates. Between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of Australian marriages will end in divorce. About 10 per cent of children will have experienced their parents' divorce by the age of 10. According to the study, this will increase to 18 per cent by adulthood. So almost one in five kids will have experienced the divorce of their parents by the time they grow up to be young men and women.International research suggests children of divorced parents are more likely to experience emotional and behavioural problems than those who have intact families. I do not want to be criticised by anybody for saying that, because these are just the facts of the matter. The research has been done. It is not a criticism of families that break up; it is just a statement of the facts of the matter.The same international study suggests that these children will record poorer academic achievements and they will be more prone to low self-esteem, high anxiety levels and social withdrawal. Children of divorced parents are more likely to become divorced themselves as adults than those who have grown up in intact families. That is quite concerning.Children in sole mother families are at a higher risk of emotional problems than those in intact families, partly as a result of diminished parental supervision. Families headed by sole mums are far more vulnerable to poverty, which in turn can generate career and educational disadvantages. In part, the shadow minister also referred to that.So they are the sorts of things that the Bulletin magazine published on 30 May, based on sound evidence, and the sorts of things that legislators should be mindful of in determining fair outcomes when we see the prospect of families breaking down. It is fair to suggest that, as a result of this evidence, the family law system in Australia is struggling under the weight of increasing case loads, arguments over legal aid funding, and which spouse should get what. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, who is looking after our biggest asset, our children? It is with, I guess, great relief that we see the coalition government is trying to look after the rights of children, is trying to do something very positive in this amendment bill today. The government believes there are important social consequences in the rearing of children. If there is a breakdown or uncertainty in the family unit and the needs of children are not effectively dealt with, the kids are going to be disadvantaged. This bill is aimed at reducing the stress on children of marital break-ups.As a result of this bill there will be greater compliance with parenting orders, which is fantastic, and people will better understand the serious consequences of failing to comply with such orders. The proposed amendments will improve the operation of the new parenting compliance regime and will give the court greater discretion to tailor an appropriate response to the circumstances of a particular breach of court order. Also people will be able to exercise greater choice and to take control of their own financial affairs and settle the distribution of their property on marriage breakdown without having to resort to costly court proceedings. Of course, that takes me back to where I started, that this will be dealt with in large by the Federal Magistrates Court, which will provide quick, inexpensive, uncomplicated help and a decision making process in what is a very traumatic time for everybody concerned.I was very pleased that one of the new 15 federal magistrates was based in Townsville. We have a great body of law in Townsville and that has certainly added to that body of law. I know that the new federal magistrate is very keen to get on with the job to get the court operating now to enable locals, in fact, north Queenslanders, to take advantage of and have access to quick, inexpensive and uncomplicated help, such as what is in the bill today. The bill also has the purpose of requiring parties to obtain legal advice before financial agreements become bindingthe shadow minister referred to thatand clarifying the grounds for setting them aside. That will better protect the interests of people entering into these agreements and especially the interests of children.Early indications from the opposition are that these changes will address most of their concernsand I have welcomed thatas reflected in the Senate committee's report and the minority Labor comments in that report. The reality is that these measures will enable the courts to focus on the welfare of the child. The courts will have the opportunity to consider imprisonment for non-payment of court-ordered child maintenance, but it will not be mandatory, and if the non-payment is intentional or fraudulent. Parties will incur costs reaching the agreement, as they would generally have to pay for the services of a financial or legal adviser. However this will be offset by the fact that people will not incur the considerable expenses associated with litigation and the considerable trauma associated with litigation about property settlements. I am pleased to be able to support the bill this afternoon and I welcome the opposition's support of the bill.13:43:0019268Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Like the member for Herbert, I have great pleasure in being here today to participate in this debate, a very important debate for many Australians. I certainly agree with the member for Herbert and I share his concern about the delay, because this was introduced to the parliament back in September last year. It has been listed for debate on a number of previous occasions and it has finally made it. It is urgently needed by our community because separations and the breakdown of relationships are increasingly prevalent.Like the member for Herbert, I support the bipartisanship agreement on most of the changes that have been proposed. It is important that all people in Australia realise that generally there has been bipartisanship agreement on family law, the need for family law legislation and the need for changes. It is important that this debate has proceeded through the parliament in what I would consider a most intelligent way, with both sides of politics agreeing on the need for change.What the parliament needs to remember is that most people involved in family breakdown find being present in a courtroom a very alien and threatening situation. Many of them are represented by the legal profession, but when you are talking about the breakdown of a relationship and the division of property in which both parties have had an interest and have been involved in the compilation of, to have a decision to say that you are going to have restricted access to your children, that you are going to lose your home, that all of that property that you jointly owned is going to be divided, then it is no wonder that, when you leave that alien situation, you automatically do not accept the decision because you feel that you have been harshly dealt with. It is important that we remove the formality of those proceedings, that we get the parties back close to an environment that they are used to and that the process of consultation allows them to feel that, yes, they can accept that. `I have had my input, I have been involved, and I can accept the decision. It is not simply being imposed on me. I have been part of the decision-making process.' That is very important.Recently, like a number of other members of parliament, I participated in an experiment with the Child Support Agency. When it was first proposed to me, I must admit I had to think fairly long and hard whether I wanted to be involved, because the suggestion was that the CSA hold a workshop and invite a number of people who were clients of the CSA to come along and at that evening there would be counsellors, community support workers and the local federal member of parliament. Every time I come across constituents who have been involved, there is generally a lot of angst, and I thought putting 50 or 60 of these people in one room was certainly going to be an interesting evening. It was held in the auditorium of a local club, which again was a non-threatening environment that most of them would be used to. They were dressed casually, it was informal, they were allowed to have their discussion, they met with other people who had similar problems, and they realised their situation was not unique. They realised there were other people out there who had similar or greater problems and, of course, they were able to discuss the way in which these problems could be solved. At the end of the evening, I think the majority of people went away feeling that it had been a successful evening. To return to the legislation, there is no doubt that all members of parliament find that the most frustrating and sensitive issues to deal with are issues involving family breakdown. Often it is impossible to come to a satisfactory conclusion when you are faced with a constituent who feels aggrieved because of the nature of the decision, the judgment that has been made. That is why I welcome this legislation and, indeed, the opposition welcomes it. It is interesting that the Senate Legislation Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs looked at this bill and has reported. It concluded that basically it is wise legislation and it has made a number of recommendations. I welcome the fact the government has addressed most of those recommendations. I welcome the government's response.Like the member for Herbert, I certainly agree that it is important that we reduce the cost, because we all know that going to court is a very expensive process. One of the major complaints that we get from the clients of the Child Support Agency is, `Every time my wife wants to see me she gets me in court and it costs me another five grand to go to court. If she just talked to me, I would give her some of the money.' It is the court that has been the beneficiary of many of the payouts. If we can get rid of that cost, all the available funds could go back into the family, and that is what both sides of politics are trying to do.It is important that judges have the discretionary powers in cases to determine what is the most suitable outcome for a situation. Despite the fact that a partnership or marriage breakdown might be prevalent, no two cases are identical. Each case is different and needs to be judged on its merits. I think back to Gilbert and Sullivan who said:The object most sublime We will achieve in time To let the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime.That is what it comes down to in each of these cases to ensure that the individuality of the case is addressed and, if we can, that both parties go away and think that justice has been done.I indicated I would not speak for my full time because I understand a member of the government wants to speak before question time. However, another point I want to address is that it is recommended that both parties should attend a parenting program together. I believe that this is important. Again I believe it is important that they attend that parenting program in the least hostile of environments so that they will come to an agreement where they have a greater chance of accepting that agreement. If there has been a breach of the original court direction and they are ordered or requested to attend a parenting program together, the likelihood is they will come out of that counselling program far more accepting of the decision. If the decision that establishes the ground rules can be made in a less formal environment, with both parties present and in agreement, it is more likely the agreements will be binding. Obviously there are some breakdowns of marriage and partnerships that are so acrimonious that an amicable resolution would never be possible. They are the ones we will hear about and the ones you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will confront in our electoral offices for years to come. They are the ones that will always be very difficult to address.There are a few other issues I would like to address today. One is the reduced cost. It is most important that this process leads to the reduction of costs to both parties. It is important that the maximum funds that are available to both parties on the breakdown of a marriage go to both parties when they break up the division of property. It is most important that a large slab of it does not go to the legal profession thus making it more difficult for the parties to comply with whatever the decision of the court may be. I would like to express concern that while the government is introducing this legislation it is also cutting the budget for the Family Law Court. On this side we will certainly be looking to see whether the government is capable of delivering the service it promises. I certainly hope it will. Everyone on this side certainly hopes it will and everyone in Australia who is going through a family breakdown hopes it will. I urge the government that if the backlog is building up and it takes extended periods of time to get a particular case into court, it should look at expanding the budget for this process.I compliment the Attorney-General and the staff who have worked on this. I also compliment the shadow Attorney-General for his input. I know that he particularly has been very involved and very concerned about it, as I think has every member of the federal parliament, because it is something we deal with on a day-to-day basis. We look forward to the changes and working with the new system and we certainly hope it will bring great relief to all the families who have unfortunately broken down and are in need of our assistance rather than a punitive measure by the court.12:58:0019270Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—The introduction of the Family Law Act in 1975 reflected changes to the matrimonial laws in much of the Western world. Prior to 1959, divorce law in Australia remained under the jurisdiction of the states. In that year, 1959, the Commonwealth government, pursuant to the powers provided to it by section 51 of the Australian Constitution, introduced its own legislation in the form of the Matrimonial Causes Bill. The effect of the bill was to consolidate the laws of the states into a code of general application throughout Australia. The act provided 14 grounds for divorce. The Commonwealth parliament subsequently dealt with the formalities for the creation of marriage in 1961 when it enacted the Marriage Act.Fundamental changes to the existing law were proposed when Senator Lionel Murphy, then the Commonwealth Attorney-General, introduced a series of bills into the parliament in 1973 and 1974 culminating in the Family Law Act 1975. In doing so, Australia, like many other nations over a period of two decades, changed its divorce laws to remove the legal concept of fault and replace it with the notion of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as evidenced by 12 months separation of the parties. Like many other nations, tragically we have experienced higher levels of divorce in the subsequent two decades. The Family Law Act was constructed on two fundamental principles: first, the centrality or importance of family and, secondly, the rights and obligations of spouses both during marriage and upon its dissolution. The former principle was expressed in debates about the new law at the time in parliament and were reflected in various provisions in the bill. In a series of debates prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act reference was made to the United Nations documents, particularly the covenant on civil and political rights. Indeed, Senator Murphy referred to it in his speech during the second reading debate. The covenant recognises the centrality of the importance of family in society when it states:The family is the natural and fundamental group unit in society and is entitled to protection by society in the state.The covenant also states that:Parties to the present covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provisions shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.The Family Law Act was constructed on both of these pillars, hence the bill introduced in 1973upon which subsequent bills were draftedwas based on a series of stated principles, the first of which was that good family law should buttress rather than undermine the stability of marriage. The central importance of family was explicitly recognised in section 43 of the act.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I note the request from the member for Menzies, but in fact it is after 2 p.m. and for that reason the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Menzies will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Ministerial Arrangements1927102:00:0019271Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs will be absent from question time today. I know that will be a source of great disappointment to those who sit opposite. He will be leading a delegation of senior university and research representatives to Israel, and he will also be visiting Malaysia. The Minister for Aged Care will be acting Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and will answer questions on his behalf.I also inform the House that the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will be absent from question time today to attend the funeral service of Corporal Stuart Jones who tragically died in East Timor while on active service last week. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Employment Services will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation will be acting Leader of the House.Questions Without Notice192711927114:01:0019271Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Has the minister seen reports today of a secret internal Telstra memorandum that political pressure is to play a part in shaping the Besley inquiry report? Is the minister aware that the secret memorandum says:Political exigencies will shape the Report, whatever the evidence before it.Minister, given that in March the Prime Minister assured the House that the Besley inquiry would be a `transparent public' one, will the government now scrap the inquiry and legislate to establish an independent one?19271McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—No. I would like to add that the government is certainly not concerned with some internal Telstra musings about the Besley inquiry. I have looked at this red-hot, top-secret, protected eyes only inquiry. It is from the head of the regulatory section. It is thinking aloud; it is reading the tea-leaves on the Besley inquiry. You might as well open up a chicken and study the entrails for as much knowledge as this might provide. What is more interesting is the transcript of the doorstop that the honourable member gave today. He was caught out, bowled out by a journalist who asked:What is in the memo specifically that leads you to draw the conclusion that the government has somehow tainted the inquiry? It is an easy question. You would expect a simple reference to the memo to find the words that allowed the member to make these outrageous claims that he has repeated just now. His answer:Well, firstly, it's a secret memo.That is really answering the question of what words in the memo led him to draw the conclusion that the inquiry was tainted, Mr Smith continued:Secondly, it's been leaked ...So, ipso facto, the inquiry has been tainted. It is just ridiculous. The journalist is not happy with that. There are some measly, mealy-mouthed words to add to that. The journalist asks:But what's in the memo that leads you to draw that conclusion? What are the words in the memo?The journalist repeats the question. The answer: what is clear from reports today and reports circulating in Telstra is that the Besley inquiry is fundamentally flawed and tainted. In other words, he just asserts that; he repeats the assertion. I have the same question: where are the words in the memo that would draw you to make the claims that you have repeated in your question? What is more interesting is: where are the Leader of the Opposition's words to deny that he raised privatisation with Mr Blount when he recruited him as the chief executive officer of Telstra? PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Blount has also agreed.XH4Mr McGAURAN—No. Blount has not agreed.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will address the House through the chair and not respond to interjections from the Leader of the Opposition.XH4Mr McGAURAN—Mr Speaker, Mr Blount said on radio 5AM on 20 October last year:I was told by some individuals within the government that they thought it should be privatised, but Kim Beazley's name has never been mentioned by me.Now that is not the same as saying that Beazley was not one of those people. What I am interested in is not whether or not Mr Beazley as minister for communication was in favour of privatisation but whether or not he raised with Mr Blount the government's views of the day—Labor Party views of the privatisation of Telstra. You have the chance at any stage in parliamentary life to stand up and tell us that you did not raise with Mr Blount the government's point of view.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order and it goes to relevance. Firstly, this is of course completely unrelated to the question. But as he wants it—yes, he can have absolute denial from me, and on consultation with Mr Blount—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition knows he should use other forms of the House if he believes he has been misrepresented. His opportunity to respond to the House is extended by me, not by the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. The Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation will come back to answer the question.XH4Mr McGAURAN—The hypocrisy on this issue is breathtaking. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the `Simply Simon' legendary interview of earlier this week goes off the record when he talks about Telstra and GST to express his personal views.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister is obliged to come back to the substance of the question.XH4Mr McGAURAN—Mr Speaker, I was asked about issues relating to the privatisation of Telstra. I have already said that the government places no importance on this supposedly top-secret memo, which is the internal ramblings of one person. What is of even greater concern in this doorstop is that the shadow minister says, in addition to trying to make out a case that even the journalist caught him out on:We have known that since the partial privatisation of Telstra service levels to country Australia, service levels to the bush, have fallen. That is a blatant, calculated untruth, as measured by the Australian Communications Authority. A press release by the shadow minister last December congratulated Telstra on its improved levels of service to country people under the government's introduced customer service guarantee. This is just Labor Party hypocrisy at its very worst.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—The minister challenged me on the secret memo. I seek leave to table it. Leave not granted.1927214:09:0019272Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of any recent ABS employment statistics, including regional statistics covering areas such as the western suburbs of Sydney which have in the past shown above average levels of unemployment? 19272Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Macquarie for his question. I know that members of the House will recall last week's outstanding ABS labour force figures, which showed that Australia's overall unemployment rate had fallen to a 10-year low of 6.3 per cent. Within that overall figure, it showed that the unemployment rate in New South Wales of 5.4 per cent was at its lowest level since October of 1981. Today the ABS published a further breakdown of unemployment rates by statistical region. These figures show that the areas of Australia with the lowest unemployment rates include parts of Sydney at around 2½ per cent, the Darling Downs at 3.6 per cent, southern Melbourne at 3.6 per cent and the Northern Territory at 4.8 per cent. Of course the government recognises that there are still regions around Australia where the level of unemployment is unacceptably high such as the Richmond-Tweed at 10.3 per cent, northern Adelaide at 9.2 per cent, the Mersey-Lyell in Tasmania at nine per cent. For a moment I will focus on an area which is represented in this parliament in part by my ministerial colleague the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who is the federal member for Lindsay, and as well represented in this parliament by a number of members of the Australian Labor Party, that is, the western suburbs of Sydney—an area of Australia that in the past has seemingly had intractably high rates of unemployment. For example, in late 1982, the unemployment rate in the Fairfield, Liverpool and the outer south-western region of Sydney was no less than 18.6 per cent. In early 1993, the unemployment rate in the central western Sydney region peaked at 20.8 per cent, while the outer Western Sydney and Blacktown region experienced unemployment well over 12 per cent. They were regarded as archetypal areas of intractably high levels of unemployment. I am delighted to inform the House that this situation over the last 4½ years has changed quite dramatically. According to the ABS figures released this morning, unemployment rates in those regions for July 2000 are as follows: in Fairfield, Liverpool and the outer south-west, the figure is 6.2 per cent—in other words, an area which under Labor was 18.6 per cent. In the heartland of what used to be the area that Labor claimed politically as its own the unemployment rate was three times what it is now. I think it is an incredibly proud boast of this government that we have been able to reduce unemployment to the national average in areas of Western Sydney historically regarded as having intractably high levels of unemployment. In central Western Sydney, the figure is 3.3 per cent. In outer Western Sydney and Blacktown, the figure is 4.8 per cent, against a national average of 6.3 per cent. This is perhaps symbolised by a small story in today's Daily Telegraph under the heading `Business couldn't be better'. It records:Business has been so good that Yassin Alhaify decided to take the plunge last month and start his own company. The Liverpool painter said last night he had no problem finding work since moving to Sydney's west six years ago.And since starting his own business Mr Alhaify has already put on two staff. “I think it's easy to find a job in Sydney,” he said. Mr Alhaify said he was taking his new business “step-by-step” but already had plans to get his builder's licence and expand. That is the message of hope, opportunity and enthusiasm in the western suburbs of Sydney under the coalition government. It is a great story and it is great news for the people of Western Sydney.1927314:14:0019273Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Leader of the National Party. I also refer the Deputy Prime Minister to the secret Telstra memorandum. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the memorandum says: We need to increase awareness of the fact that investment in Customer Access Network and in uneconomic services in rural Australia cannot be assumed.Deputy Prime Minister, if Telstra itself will not now guarantee investment in the network and rural services, how can you guarantee that a fully privatised Telstra will provide adequate services to rural and regional Australia? 19273Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I think the simple response to that is to say that the government are quite capable of putting in place—and have in place—a USO. We are quite capable of making it work. What is more, we have put in place a customer service guarantee. We put it in place; you never did. The appalling hypocrisy of the ALP on this— UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson!4K4Mr ANDERSON—whose performance in government in relation to telecommunications in rural and regional Australia gives the clear lie to their feigned and new found interest in this matter, ought to be recalled.UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is defying the chair!UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Paterson!4K4Mr ANDERSON—The member for Paterson touts himself as a representative of rural and regional Australia in this place. His mob are the people who phased out analog phones, which we had to find a replacement for. He gets up here and spouts about fuel: their new found interest in matters rural and regional. We did a bit of simple maths the other day which established that, if they had remained in office, fuel excise under them would now be well over 50c a litre on the annualised basis that they put in place while they were in power. All I can say to this is that their record in office was appalling. There was no commitment to an effective USO. There was simply no CSG under them. Governments are quite capable of insisting on decent standards in rural and regional Australia. That is the commitment that we make—pure and simple.1927414:16:0019274Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer comment on new analysis of the community response to the implementation of the new tax system?19274Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Barker for his question. I think I can say that the acceptance of the new tax system is growing and that its introduction in Australia has been much better than was widely anticipated. The Australian newspaper today reports:`GST support soaring'Public sentiment has shifted sharply towards the GST in its first six weeks ...I think all members of the House will welcome that, including those members of the Labor Party who now support the new taxation system. The number of people who think the reforms will be good for Australia outnumber the number who think they will not be good for Australia by a record of two to one: 50 per cent of Australians think that the tax reform is good for Australia and only 23 per cent think that it is bad. That comes on the back of a sharp lift in consumer sentiment—from the Westpac Melbourne index—and that indicates growing consumer satisfaction with the new taxation system.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition interjects, as he is wont to do, a constant barrage of noise, but the only noise we never hear from him is noise about roll-back. You will recall that he first of all said that the new tax system would be a `nightmare'. That is what he said. Down in Launceston, on 1 July, he said, `They face an absolute nightmare.' That is what he said on 1 July. On 21 February he said that there was a `dark cloud' hanging over Australia—a cloud that would become a `deluge'. Then, when the cloud did not become a deluge and when the nightmare did not materialise, it became a `slow burn'—we were going to have a slow burn then. First of all we were going to have a flood and then we were going to have a slow burn, according to the Leader of the Opposition. As time goes by in fact public acceptance increases.We have been waiting to hear all about roll-back all week. We are still waiting to hear about roll-back. Obviously there is some confusion in the Labor Party ranks about the roll-back policy because I have come across a letter which is being mailed out in South Australia by Senator Rosemary Crowley:Dear resident,On 1st July, the Howard Government's GST started. Last year I chaired an inquiry into the GST and I know how unfair the GST is ...Kim Beazley has promised if elected a Labor government will roll back the GST to make it fairer for all Australians. But we need you to tell us what needs to be changed.We will go down Rundle Mall and we will find somebody who will tell us what roll-back means. We will go out onto the street and we will find somebody who will tell us how to put together a tax policy. Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may not know this, but you are actually the person who announced the roll-back policy, not the people on the streets of Adelaide. And then Labor Senator Rosemary Crowley engages in the largest part of push polling I have ever seen in my life—absolutely disgusting push polling! She goes out with about 10 questions which are not designed to elicit roll-back at all, but which are designed to try to pull up what the Labor Party cannot do; namely, it cannot produce any consumer sentiment which is running against the GST—in fact, the opposite. So the Labor Party is now into push polling. I table Senator Crowley's letter trying to find out from the people of Adelaide a policy for the Labor Party. It reminds me of when the Leader of the Opposition went on the Jon Faine program. He was asked on the Jon Faine program how he was going to increase spending, roll back the GST and do all these things. He made the famous statement:Jon, I'll tell you what to do. You write your ideas down on a piece of paper and send them to me in Canberra.`And send them to me in Canberra'! We are a week into the new taxation system. I am still waiting for a question on the GST from the shadow Treasurer after the first week of implementation. The public is still waiting for detail on roll-back, and the best that the Labor Party can come up with is grabbing people off the streets of Adelaide. People off the streets of Adelaide would have a better idea of roll-back than you, and they are likely to be much more economically literate too.1927514:22:0019275Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I address a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Does the minister recall issuing a press release in December 1998 which said:Records show that several hundred Australians received South Vietnamese and Cambodian awards during the Vietnam War, but at the time Australians were not allowed to officially accept or wear such individual awards.Under the Government's foreign awards policy, there is now a mechanism whereby foreign honours and awards, issued by a former government which has ceased to exist, may be formally recognised and approved for wearing.Minister, in view of this, why do you continue to deny the survivors of the Battle of Long Tan the right to wear the awards which the then Vietnamese government wanted to present to our diggers but was prevented from doing so by the Australian Liberal government of the day? Secondly, Minister, if your reply is that the Queen had not approved the Long Tan awards, will you table copies of her approval for the awards which have been approved under the mechanism you announced in December of 1998? Minister, why are you so opposed to the diggers who fought at Long Tan?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I call the minister, the minister will ignore the last part of that question, which was an unfair and unsubstantiated reflection on him.19275Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I cannot recall the exact wording of the press release that I issued in 1998, but can I assure the member for Cowan that this is an issue that we have taken seriously, and there are good reasons why the situation remains as it is. I would also remind the other side of the House that I think the position that we have taken is the position that the now opposition took when they were in government.1927514:24:0019275Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—After a good night for a good cause, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister—and I declare an honorary interest. Is the Prime Minister aware that over 120 national teams have now signed up for the Paralympics in Sydney in October, making this the biggest Paralympics ever, even bigger than the Commonwealth Games KL held in 1998? I ask the Prime Minister: will the federal government continue its support, including subsidising country schoolchildren to attend? How will this benefit the Paralympics? Will you, Prime Minister, at this critical stage wish the Paralympics, along with the Olympics, well?19276Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Can I say that I would imagine that everybody in the parliament—including in particular the honourable member for Farrer, who is the honorary mayor of the Paralympic village, and the honourable member for Cowan, who is one of the managers of the Paralympic team, and every other member of the House—will want the Paralympic Games to be a great success. They will take place between 18 and 29 October, and there will be more than 4,000 athletes from at least 120 countries competing. Australia's Paralympic team from Atlanta was one of the most successful sporting teams ever. The Australian team for the Sydney 2000 Paralympics was announced by the Treasurer in Sydney on 27 July. There will be more than 300 athletes in the Australian team, which will be our largest ever Paralympic team. Of course we wish them and all other competitors well in the games when they begin. There has been considerable support financially, to the tune of $35 million, to the Sydney Paralympic organising committee. More than $6.2 million has been provided over the last four years for preparation of the Australian athletes. In addition, the government is providing $550,000 to the Australian Paralympic committee to cover the cost of the entry fees for the Australian team. And we have provided more than $500,000 to extend the Paralympic torch relay to all state and territory capital cities.We have made available a subsidy to help schoolchildren living more than 200 kilometres from Sydney to travel to the Paralympics with their schools. The subsidy will assist more than 30,000 schoolchildren to attend the games, at a total cost for the subsidy of more than $700,000. The participation of thousands of schoolchildren will be a special characteristic of the games.In a very bipartisan way—and I know that what the government have done in this area has had the full support of the opposition—we have been anxious to do what we could to ensure that not only were the games the best Paralympic Games yet but also that there was a very representative, competitive and, I believe, outstanding Australian team to compete. I know that many members of the House will attend many of the events of the Paralympic Games. I know that the Paralympic Games will be an outstanding success. We in this House wish all of the members of the Australian team the very best of good fortune in this very important sporting contest in their lives.1927614:28:0019276Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Briefly, with indulgence, could I say I entirely share the sentiments of the Prime Minister with regard to the Paralympics and look forward enormously to a very successful Paralympic Games. Prime Minister, yesterday you said in this House:We are not in the business of cutting benefits for needy Australians; we never have been and we never will be.Prime Minister, is it not the case that your government cut $850 million from child care; slashed funding for the JET program in half; abolished the earnings credit scheme— Government member—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—`Yes,' I am afraid—taxed families up to 111 per cent for each extra dollar earned under your youth allowance policy; abolished the Commonwealth dental health scheme, to the detriment of pensioners? In the light of this record, how can the Australian people trust you not to turn the McClure report into another round of cutting benefits for needy Australians? Is this why yesterday you and your ministers refused on five separate occasions to give guarantees that the McClure report would not be misused in this way?19276Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The claim made by the Leader of the Opposition that we cut $850 million out of child-care spending by Labor is wrong—it is simply wrong. The truth is that total expenditure on child care over the last four years was more than $4 billion. That is 30 per cent more—I repeat, 30 per cent more—than was expended during the last four years when Labor was in government. I do not know how many times figures like this have to be repeated. The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. He cannot pretend to the world on one day that he is interested in a constructive approach to welfare reform and then be back up here today, when he notices that maybe the reception given to the report was a little better than he had hoped, with a little sleazy argument about reductions in expenditure. Let me go on. We have committed $5.3 billion over the next four years, and this includes $600 million of additional funding for child care over three years for the introduction of the new child-care benefit. The Leader of the Opposition also referred to the dental program. This was a program with a limited life to address a specific need. I say `a limited life' because they were the words that were used by the Keating government. It was in fact introduced in the early 1990s by the Keating government to address a specific need in an area that was traditionally the role of the states. It was made very clear by the Keating government, when the program was introduced, that it was not necessarily going to go on forever—that once the need had been met then obviously the Commonwealth would withdraw.There is a much bigger dimension to this. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question, because it enables me to point out to the House and to the Australian people that the biggest single intervention by any government to underpin welfare spending in this country in the last 50 years has been the introduction of the GST. Those people who voted against the goods and services tax—and that includes every member of the Australian Labor Party—were voting against a decent social welfare safety net for the states, because the provision of many of these social services is the responsibility of the states. One of the great benefits of tax reform is that, as the years go by, every state in Australia—starting with Queensland—in no longer period of time than two years, will have more money to spend on government schools, more money to spend on government hospitals, more money to spend on roads and more money to spend on police services. Every state in Australia will be better endowed to provide those basic services. All of that is courtesy of the leadership of the coalition. All of those things were opposed by the Labor Party, and therefore the last party in this parliament that can claim to have the welfare of the vulnerable closest to its heart is the Australian Labor Party.1927714:34:0019277Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister outline to the House the success of the federal government's tobacco control strategy? Is he aware of any alternative views?19277Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in this matter. I am very pleased to be able to tell honourable members that the legislation to fully phase out tobacco advertising in Australia is well on the way to being passed and is before the other place. When this goes through, Australia will be the first country outside Europe to have comprehensively sought to phase out tobacco advertising. In fact if the European parliament's decision to ban tobacco advertising is overturned in the courts, which is widely expected, we will be among the first in the world to take such action.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! If the member for Jagajaga wants to ask a question I will accommodate her. She may, however, have also to negotiate with the Opposition Whip.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—This has built on four years of strong activity, with a national tobacco campaign that began in June 1997; a change to per-stick taxation of tobacco—something that the medical profession and antitobacco lobby have wanted for 20 years; a substantial increase in tobacco excise; and a national tobacco strategy that was adopted by all state and territory governments last year at the health ministers conference. This strategy is beginning to show real results, particularly in the honourable member for Boothby's state—I have to say South Australia is leading the country in this area.The national tobacco campaign, in particular, has received great accolades. Just last week in Chicago at the World Conference on Smoking and Health it was held up as an outstanding example of antitobacco advertising. It has been picked up by Poland, Singapore and New Zealand and by the states of British Columbia, Massachusetts and California. It is regarded as world best practice for any antismoking effort. Of course one of the results one has to look at is whether it is having an effect on the Australian public. If one uses figures from the National Drug Household Survey, between 1993 and 1996 the rate of tobacco smoking in Australia was static. It dropped only from 24.8 per cent to 24.6 per cent. Over the period 1996 to 1998, we have seen a drop from 24.6 per cent to 22 per cent—something that gives us enormous encouragement. I should also say that one of the greatest forms of flattery is mimicry. These successes have been accompanied by quite outrageous and inaccurate statements by the Labor Party—the shadow minister for health suggesting that Labor initiated the campaign that is getting so much success around the world and that they in fact put in considerably more than this government. I am happy to look at both of those in order—first, Labor's campaign that they say led to this campaign. When I became minister in 1996, I was begged by virtually every single antitobacco body in the country to bury the campaign that had been started by the Labor Party. The results are easy to see, and I read from the evaluation of that campaign.Negative findings to emerge were: less acceptance amongst regular and heavy smokers that smoking is a boring activity; a tendency for regular smokers in particular to become annoyed and irritated at repeated screenings; the approach only slightly challenged existing values and beliefs; the main barriers to the communication were the length and boringness of the situations, particularly of repeating screenings and lack of relevance and underlying concept; and there has been very little change in attitude amongst the target group between benchmark and tracking surveys.That was the campaign that Labor are claiming so much success for and that every antitobacco group I spoke to in the country asked me to ditch in 1996.The shadow minister for health also talks about funding and claims that the Labor Party spent more than the government has. I asked my department to pull out these figures. In fact, between 1993 and 1996, the Labor Party spent only $6.3 million on tobacco control activities. What the shadow minister for health is doing is taking numbers out of the budget as to what Labor promised to do and not looking at what they actually did. With the Labor Party, you have to make a distinction between what they promise to do and what they end up doing. In the three years of the national tobacco campaign, from mid-1997 to now, the government has spent $14.2 million on tobacco control activities. If you wish to compare the last three years of this government with the last three years of Labor, the increase in money spent on tobacco cessation activities is up 226 per cent. It is even more stark if you want to look at the media buy, because a very high proportion of that $6.3 million of Labor's money went into production activities. As best we can estimate, the media buy over those three years was only of the order of $2 million; the media buy over the last three years from the federal government has been $10 million. So it is five to one, if you wish to compare comparable periods. I am delighted the shadow minister for health has promised that Labor will come up with a tobacco policy in the lead-up to the next election. She might actually try to use accurate facts, though, and I hope she makes a better fist of it than of all the things she promised to do in July last year at the nurses conference.1927814:40:0019278Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that the final McClure report has recommended that tax credits be considered to assist people to move from welfare to work? Are you also aware that your minister, Senator Newman, ruled out tax credits on ABC radio this morning? Given that tax credits have been instrumental in successful reform in the United States and the United Kingdom, will you put your political biases aside and open your mind to this innovative policy to reward work over welfare?19278Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The minister indicated yesterday, and I would repeat it today, that we are going to have a look at all of the recommendations in the report, and we are going to give a whole-of-government response. I heard what the minister had to say this morning, and she quite properly drew attention—and I listened very carefully to what she had to say—to the circumstances of the Australian welfare system compared with the welfare system that obtains in, say, the United States. In fact, I would have thought that the Labor Party would want to preserve those features of the Australian welfare system that are different from those in the United States. I have always thought— Opposition members—Rubbish!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Rubbish? That is interesting. I had always thought that the Australian welfare system was more open and generous hearted than the American welfare system. One of the things I have said on numerous occasions—over the years and in many of the positions I have held—is that I have never been an advocate of the American approach to welfare. I think the American approach to welfare, in some crucial aspects, is less caring than the Australian approach. I think Australia, by and large, over the years, no matter who has been in office—and the Leader of the Opposition is asking that people put their prejudices aside—on both sides of politics, has been able to strike a better balance in social welfare than have the United States or most of the nations of Europe. That is one of the reasons why we have avoided some of what I regard as the excesses of the American system that have made a contribution to an unacceptably high jail population. Yet, in contrast to the European system, we have not gone down the path of so much intervention as to produce an unacceptably high public sector as now obtains in countries such as the Netherlands and Germany.I think that, by and large in this country, we have got it right. We have got a good balance, though that is not to say it is perfect. I think that both sides of Australian politics have made a contribution to getting that balance. I would have thought that McClure was an opportunity to move on in an Australian way to build an even better welfare system. I welcome the constructive contributions to the debate that come from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lilley. I know that on occasions they fall back into negativity, but I encourage them to put aside that temptation and I encourage them to join the government and join ACOSS and join Patrick McClure and join all other men and women of goodwill in the Australian community in order to build, in the Australian way, a stronger and better welfare system.1927914:43:0019279Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Would the minister advise the House how the McClure report into Australia's social welfare system has been received by the wider community?19279Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I would certainly like to thank the member for Pearce, who I know has a very keen interest in welfare reform, as do the members of the coalition and many members of the opposition. I am very glad to see that the McClure report has been well endorsed by the community, by business, by the Democrats and even by members of the opposition. It is interesting to note that ACOSS president, Michael Raper, said the report's recommendations `could lead people to better incomes, and to new employment opportunities'. He also described what the report provides as a `promising framework'. The Council on the Ageing welcomed the report's recommendation, saying that it `could help older unemployed' people. The Women's Electoral Lobby said, `This report offers some welcome ideas and suggestions for welfare reform.' Even the Leader of the Australian Democrats has described it as `a balanced package'. I note that the Leader of the Opposition agrees that there are some good ideas in this report, and we welcome that. Perhaps I am not quite as generous as the Prime Minister, but I think the member for Lilley at times gets confused about welfare reform. Maybe that is because the member for Lilley and some other members of the opposition are not as committed as we would like to see them. There is their confusion over their commitment to tax reform. One minute they are opposed to it and then they are going to back it. It is interesting that on 28 September last year, the member for Lilley said the welfare process had been `completely discredited'.7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is warned!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—On 29 September last year, he described the independent welfare reference group who produced this report as a `razor gang'. But yesterday he endorsed the recommendations, and we are very pleased. On the one hand, the member for Lilley is supporting welfare reform but, on the other hand, regrettably he is still resorting to scaremongering and fear with some of the most vulnerable in the community: pensioners, older Australians, families, sole parents—and many sole parents do a terrific job of bringing up their children, of course—and people with disabilities. Despite our reassurances that we will not be reducing any benefits, you continue with this propaganda. I suppose the bottom line is that in many ways you have been caught rewriting history for your own failed policies in the 13 years of stewardship of the Australian Labor Party. Let us look at some of these figures. Let us look at the unemployment queues. When the coalition came into government, we inherited 11.2 per cent unemployment from the halcyon days when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Employment, Education and Training. That figure is now down to 6.3 per cent. We have created 800,000 new jobs, and of course 174,000 people who were on the Newstart or youth allowance are no longer there because they are in employment. Your Working Nation absolutely failed. We found that 30 per cent of the people on Work for the Dole, which was never meant to give people false expectations of a job, actually get employment. Even the Leader of the Opposition knows the bottom line is you have no alternatives, only vague statements and imaginary policies. We would welcome your commitment. The coalition are serious about welfare reform. We hope you are serious about welfare reform and do not attempt to walk both sides of the street.1928014:47:0019280Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to a report in today's Daily Telegraph which states that the government is taking an extra $1.3 million in petrol tax every day. Can you confirm that the government is taking more tax for each litre of petrol, GST plus excise, than it was before 1 July—something you promised at the last election would not happen? Prime Minister, isn't this why John Laws said yesterday, `I don't think we can take much notice of the Prime Minister when it comes to petrol.'19280Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have no idea what John Laws or indeed any other commentator has in their mind when they make statements. I am most interested in what the Australian people have in their minds because, in the end, I am accountable not to the media but to the Australian people. I will always be very happy to take my ultimate riding instructions from the Australian people. In relation to the issue of petrol, the facts are very clear. The price of petrol has fluctuated an enormous amount. The principal driving force behind the fluctuation in the price of petrol over the last 12 months has not been tax changes; it has been changes in the world price of crude oil.It is about time that some perspective was put back in this debate in relation to the remarks being made by the opposition, the remarks being made by some people in the media and the remarks being made by the automobile and motoring organisations, which have the luxury of playing to understandable public unhappiness with the rising price of fuel. Basically, what the opposition and the motoring organisations of Australia are saying is, `We don't like the fact that the price of petrol is going up a bit'—we understand that; we do not like it either—`and really the government ought to do something about it.' The only way the government—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. I specifically asked the Prime Minister whether he could confirm that the government is collecting more tax from petrol than before 1 July.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I noted the question. The question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was about the amount of tax being charged on fuel and the amount of tax being collected by the government. I could in no way rule the Prime Minister's answer out of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—If you have a situation where the price of petrol is rising largely due to the influence of the world price of crude oil, you can do one of two things. You can abandon the policy of import parity pricing, which would have disastrous consequences for the long-term availability of fuel in this country and is not a policy that I understand is advocated by the Australian Labor Party, or you can embrace a discretionary reduction in the amount of excise charged by the government. We are not going to change world parity pricing because that would be a very unwise and imprudent policy. In relation to a discretionary reduction in the level of excise, I do not hear the Labor Party advocating by how much it ought to be cut. I do not hear the Labor Party advocating where the money ought to come from. I hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who asked the question, promising the Australian people that he is going to have a bigger surplus than we now have, and yet he is asking this question. There comes a time with these opportunistic questions when people have to face the consequences of what they are advocating. If you want to reduce the price of petrol, either you must abandon world parity pricing and have the honesty to say where the money is coming from or you must advocate a discretionary reduction in the price of excise. You can shout, rant and rave as much as you want in the opposition but, until you have the intellectual honesty—4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—This was `never ever'! Don't talk about honesty!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks is warned. The member for Banks is not one who normally does other than heed the chair's warning.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will deal no less sympathetically with members of the government. The member for Leichhardt will like or lump what I say about the member for Banks, who is someone who generally heeds the chair's warning. In this case, however, he has stepped beyond the grace I can extend to him.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on another point of order going to relevance. One of the mechanisms that the Prime Minister is alluding to for dealing with this issue he, in fact, advocated at the last election. What we want is for him to honour it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not raise a valid point of order. Has the Prime Minister completed his answer?ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, I have not completed my answer.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is about time that the opposition were made to face the reality of what they are advocating. They are trying to take political advantage of the fact that the price of petrol in this country is higher than the consumer would want. There are effectively two avenues available to government to do something about that. One of them is a radical change in policy that would make no sense, and that is to abandon import parity pricing. The other is to have a discretionary cut in the level of excise. If you advocate a discretionary cut in the level of excise, you have to have the courage to say by how much and where the money is coming from. You ought not to have the intellectual stupidity at the same time to advocate that you are going to have an even higher surplus than the coalition now have. The time for cheap opportunism on this issue of petrol pricing is over. If the opposition want a change, if they want cheaper petrol for the Australian community, it is about time they had the courage to tell the Australian people how they think that goal ought to be achieved.1928114:55:0019281St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. Would the minister advise the House of the significance of the John Webber portrait of Captain Cook for Australia's cultural heritage? Is the minister aware of any dissenting views on the acquisition?19281McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the member for New England for his question. The Cook portrait unveiled by the Prime Minister yesterday is an acquisition of immense importance to the National Portrait Gallery and the nation. The work is of enormous value both as an art work and as a vital part of our cultural heritage. I wish to acknowledge the magnificent contributions of $1¼ million each by Mr Robert Oatley and Mr John Schaeffer and their families. They have shown extraordinary generosity, and it represents the largest cash gift ever given to an Australian national cultural institution for the purchase of a single art work. Yesterday's unveiling highlights the importance of partnerships between the government and the private sector in the patronage and support of the arts in this country. The honourable member for New England also asks me whether I am aware of any dissenting views on the acquisition. Normally, in acquiring a work of this value, $5.3 million, you would expect there to be some controversy and dissent, because there is always hearty debate in the arts community and the community at large. But no; it has been universally acclaimed and welcomed as an invaluable work for the National Portrait Gallery. However, I must qualify that and say that there has been a sole, lone, dissenting voice—that of the honourable member for Denison. He did not issue a press statement yesterday congratulating the philanthropists or the government for their acquisition or commending the National Portrait Gallery for their perseverance over many years in finally bringing home the Cook portrait. He put out a press release headed `Captain Cook Portrait—GST in the Frame'. He makes this claim:... the cost to the Australian taxpayer for the purchase of the portrait was $5.83 million, not $5.3 million as first disclosed—the GST accounts for the extra $530,000.He goes on to say:Art galleries all over Australia will now have to find additional funds to purchase art works.Is there something wrong with that claim by the shadow minister for the opposition? There is. Put simply, what he does not understand is that it is a business input cost. What happens when it is a business input cost? You get it back. It is a tax credit. That is extraordinary. It is the same for all public galleries and across all government departments: registered galleries and collecting institutions are treated no differently from any other business. Now that you support GST, you have to understand it—at least the basics. Now that you support GST, you have got to stop misrepresenting it. That is the most blatantly ignorant or calculated deception anybody could do. It is an extraordinary statement by the shadow minister. The shadow minister also has been talking about GST. He told the Melbourne Age on 5 August this year that Labor is going to repeal the GST on books.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Oh? How much will that cost?XH4Mr McGAURAN—It is certainly going to be up towards $100 million at least. But the problem is: what books? Magazines, bound works, newspapers, brochures, newsletters? What? Tell us! What are `books'? As soon as you tell us what the roll-back on books is, we can cost it. All you are doing with your roll back on books is adding to complexity and uncertainty. The result will be increased taxes. So it is Labor again: increased taxes, broken promises.1928214:59:0019282Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the Labor Party's commitment, announced at our national conference in Hobart, to more than double the number of research fellowships for our best and brightest Australian researchers? Is he also aware that when I announced that policy I challenged him to match it? Is the Prime Minister further aware that the Chief Scientist's report into Australia's science capability has endorsed Labor's policy? Will you now agree to match this policy, which is vital for Australia's future?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to standing order No. 144. As I can only understand the question as a request for an announcement of government policy, it is clearly out of order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would not have thought the Prime Minister was being asked to enunciate government policy but, in fact, to respond to a question from the Leader of the Opposition about what he proposes.19282Howard, John, MPMR HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first part of the question is yes, I am aware of it. The answer to the second part of the question is that, although I had not specifically heard of that comment made by the chief scientist, I am not surprised. The other comment I would make is that, taken in isolation, something like that is commendable. I do not take the view that every single thing that emanates from the opposition is to be criticised; nor, in my more charitable moments, would I expect the opposition to take the view that everything that emanates from the government is to be criticised. The question of the timing, the place and so forth of the announcement of opposition policy is not something that the opposition normally consults the government on; and the timing and so forth of the announcement of government policy is not something that normally the government consults the opposition on. As always, let me assure the Leader of the Opposition: I always watch and listen very carefully to what you do and say. I have long learnt in politics that you never take your eye off your opponent. You always listen to what he has to say, you evaluate it, you assess it and you take it away. But, at the end of the day, you make your own judgment of what is good for the Australian people.1928315:02:0019283Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the recent Australia-China human rights dialogue? Is the minister aware of any alternative views on engaging China on human rights?19283Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—First, I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question. I know that the honourable member himself was in China recently, some two weeks ago, and used his visit there as an opportunity—as coalition members do when they go to China—to raise human rights issues with his Chinese interlocutors, and I appreciate the honourable member's effort.Yesterday and the evening before, a human rights dialogue, the fourth in a series, was conducted between Australian and Chinese delegations. This year the delegation was somewhat expanded—in fact, on both sides: China being represented by nine ministries and agencies; and Australia's delegation being expanded to include some members of parliament—in particular, the member for Boothby; and Senator Bourne on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The member for Griffith was invited but, unfortunately, due to a prior engagement, was unable to attend. Professor Alice Tay, as the Chair of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, also attended.Coming from this dialogue, which discussed a wide range of concerns in the area of human rights, is the Technical Cooperation Program, a program which Australia finances to address legal reforms in respect of human rights in China. This year more initiatives are being taken in that area.The honourable member asked whether there were any alternatives. When the opposition were the government, they did not conduct a human rights dialogue of this kind with China but chose the path of an annual human rights resolution in the United Nations which they co-sponsored—the idea being that this resolution would condemn China, once passed through the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and this would somehow lead to an improvement in human rights in China. The simple fact is that that particular policy, the Labor Party's policy, has now been tried nine times and that resolution has failed on all nine occasions. It is also important to note that there will be no human rights dialogue for as long as countries like Australia co-sponsor this resolution.In 1997 this government abandoned the resolution, deciding that for us the human rights dialogue was likely to be more productive. This was roundly attacked by the Labor Party. The member for Kingsford-Smith described this as `Chamberlain style appeasement'. In a press release, the member for Kingsford-Smith—when we abandoned this resolution—said that the Howard government had a `narrow and venal conception of international affairs'. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith may be interested to know that the word `venal' means financially corrupt.At the Australian Labor Party conference this year, there were sorts of resolutions and there was a desultory discussion about foreign affairs. But I searched for reference at the Labor Party conference to the continuation of the human rights dialogue if Labor were elected—and I found it. Labor is now in favour of our human rights dialogue. Something that was `narrow and venal' and `an expedient capitulation' they are now in favour of. Search harder for the human rights resolution that they were so devoted to, and there you are: you find that the human rights resolution has been abandoned. The press releases go out. Everything that the Howard government does is an outrage, appalling, astonishing, `We are totally against it'—and a few days later they support it. You did it with the GST. You are even doing it in foreign affairs—roll-back. Roll-back is not just in GST; even in foreign affairs Mr Beazley and his team are implementing roll-back.1928415:07:0019284Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. What advice have you received from the tax office since 1996 on the risk to revenue from employee benefit tax avoidance schemes? When did you first receive that advice?19284Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—That asks about advice going back to 1996. If the honourable member wishes it, he could put the question on notice.1928415:08:0019284Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker.Opposition members interjecting—83QMr SCHULTZ—Thank you, comrades. My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services.Opposition members—Oh!83QMr SCHULTZ—Hang on, guys; there is more to come yet. Minister, what does the latest research presented to community organisations on 26 July indicate about the effectiveness of the Work for the Dole Program? How does Work for the Dole compare with alternative approaches?19284Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Hume for his question. I note that unemployment in his region has fallen from a peak of 14.7 per cent in February 1992 when the gentleman opposite was minister for employment to just 6.7 per cent now. My department has recently completed a major study into the net impact of Work for the Dole. It compared income support outcomes for 2,100 Work for the Dole participants with outcomes for 2,100 similar job seekers not on the program. There are three key results. First, participants in Work for the Dole had a 76 per cent better chance than other job seekers of being off benefit three months later. Second, the study revealed that the net impact of Work for the Dole was 50 per cent higher than that of Working Nation programs. Third, this good result was achieved at one-third the average cost per outcome of Working Nation programs. So, despite the proven success of Work for the Dole, the Labor Party still want to abolish it. Despite the proven success of Work for the Dole, Labor still want to abolish it. They want to change the name; they want to change the nature; they want to abolish Work for the Dole. There is nothing about the program that they will ever support. The only thing they like about it is that it only lasts for six months. Someone said yesterday that people on welfare needed a government with a good heart—and that is exactly what they have got. They have a government with a good heart, not an opposition with no ticker.1928415:11:0019284Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer and it follows from the previous answer to the member for Wills, which was no answer. Treasurer, do you recall your `root and branch' opposition to Labor's anti-avoidance measures in 1994 and 1995, even though your own shadow ministry's submission admitted the risks from `a crude form of income splitting' and `executive employees able to abuse the schemes through deferral of tax'? Treasurer, having actively assisted these schemes from opposition, why have you failed to act in your 4½ years as Treasurer in the face of consistent advice that action was needed? Why do you go to water when it comes to making high wealth individuals pay their fair share of tax?19284Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Of course the question, which was a polemical speech, contained numbers of false assertions and false assumptionsas one would expect from a trade union leader in this place. MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr Mossfield—I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. That remark is an insult to every trade unionist in this country. I ask that the Treasurer withdraw it. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer's remark would not be deemed to be unparliamentary by me or by any of my predecessors.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I said, it was a polemical speech with numbers of false assertions and the fact that they are asserted does not, of course, make them true. I would say that since becoming Treasurer of the Commonwealth I have acted against numbers of Labor's tax avoidance schemesin particular R&D syndication, which was supported by the Deputy Leader of the Oppositionand he opposed every step to wipe them out. We moved against the infrastructure bond scheme, also set up by the Australian Labor Party, which was considered by the—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You have kept it.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am sorry; we moved against the infrastructure bond scheme, and your assertions to the contrary do not make what you say a fact. The infrastructure bond scheme was closed down by this government after advice from the tax office that it represented one of the greatest threats to the tax base introduced by the Australian Labor Party. We moved against thin capitalisation. We moved against rorts in superannuation with the superannuation surcharge—again opposed by the Australian Labor Party.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—Is the Australian Labor Party proposing to repeal it?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will not respond to interjections. CT4Mr COSTELLO—It was opposed all along by the Australian Labor Party. Again, it opposed it all the way, seeking to make cheap political mileage, and then after it was put in place it refused to do anything about it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order which goes to relevance: the question was specifically about his action on employee share ownership schemes which were being rorted. He has not mentioned it. He has had 4½ years to act and has done nothing. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I noted the question as it was asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had a preamble to his question about the root and branch approach to anti-avoidance measures, and the Treasurer was responding I thought to the question of anti-avoidance.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am, Mr Speaker. I am simply making the point that this government has been more active than any other government, including the Labor Party during its 13 years of mismanagement in the tax avoidance industry—all of which was left to this government to put in place because the Australian Labor Party, after 13 years, not only had not closed down those avoidance activities but had opened them. They had started them. They had started the R&D syndicates. They had started the infrastructure borrowings. They had done nothing about superannuation. It was up to this government to come into office and deal with it without any assistance, with the Labor Party opposing us. We have a record of great achievement against Labor Party opposition.1928515:16:0019285Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister advise the House of the impact that increased levels of private health insurance coverage have on people living in electorates like mine in rural and regional Australia?19285Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—On Monday we had the great result from the government's activity on Lifetime Health Cover and the 30 per cent rebate. While much is focused on private hospitals, people often fail to reflect on the importance of this in a number of rural areas around Australia. You would know this yourself, Mr Speaker, as your electorate has the second highest number of small private hospitals of any electorate in Australia. But in fact it is the member for Indi who has more private hospitals than anyone else, with the Bush Nursing Hospital System with hospitals in Walwa, Chiltern, Euroa, Yackandandah, Wodonga and Wangaratta. These small bush nursing hospitals have had a very difficult time over recent years, predominantly because of the drop out of private health insurance. In many communities, there is no alternative to them and their very existence has been threatened. The great news on Monday was that the increase in private health insurance that has occurred right across the country, including in rural areas, will make hospitals such as these that exist in the member for Indi's electorate much more viable. The 30 per cent rebate combined with Lifetime Health Cover gives these hospitals a degree of security they have not had for a very long time. Of course, members of the opposition would understand the importance of small rural hospitals as well. The member for Bass has one at Launceston. The member for Bendigo has Mount Alvernia Hospital. The member for Capricornia has hospitals in Rockhampton and Yeppoon. The member for McMillan has hospitals in Morwell and Neerim. Every one of these hospitals is under threat because of the Labor Party's plans to roll back the 30 per cent rebate. Every one of these hospitals' futures is at direct risk from the member for Jagajaga and the Leader of the Opposition because of their basic intrinsic dislike of the private sector and health. In many of these communities, there is no viable alternative to these longstanding private hospitals. I was staggered yesterday to be shown an article in the Wangaratta Chronicle where in fact the Labor candidate in Indi was criticising the government and calling our efforts in private health insurance blackmail. Ms Barb Murdoch said: The government is blackmailing people into taking private health cover at a time when they are confused about the GST. She also said:To do the two at once is wrong. Perhaps if you are in the Labor Party you cannot make two decisions at the one time. Her condemnation of the government's efforts in private health insurance is a direct threat to the small bush nursing hospitals in the electorate of Indi. My advice to Barb Murdoch and other Labor candidates is: be very careful when taking up press releases from the member for Jagajaga. The small private hospitals in your rural electorates are directly at risk. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Mr Costello interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will take action on either the Treasurer or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition if they do not stop this cross-parliamentary exchange.5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is not excluded. Personal Explanations1928615:20:0019286Ms WORTH,MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Adelaide claim to have been misrepresented?8V5Ms WORTH,MPMs WORTH— I do claim to have been misrepresented.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.8V5Ms WORTH,MPMs WORTH—In yesterday's debate on the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000, the member for Dobell—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—Government members interjecting— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell is entitled to be heard in silence, as is every other member of this parliament. MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—My point of order is that, under the standing orders, a member must raise a personal explanation at the earliest possible opportunity.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. If I were to enforce that standing order, most of the matters of personal explanation raised at question time would be ruled out of order.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—My point of order is that the member was in the chamber when it happened. It was 24 hours ago when it happened. She was here.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Adelaide is entitled to raise a matter of personal explanation. I do not know what it is since she has not as yet enunciated what it is. For that reason, I am prepared to hear her. 8V5Ms WORTH,MPMs WORTH—In yesterday's debate on the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000, the member for Dobell said, and I quote from page 17474 of the proof Hansard of that debate: If I were you I would not be talking about anything after misleading this House earlier today.That is a serious accusation—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Adelaide has made no case whatsoever that she has been misrepresented. None whatsoever.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat. The member for Adelaide will be heard and heard in silence.8V5Ms WORTH,MPMs WORTH—As I said, that is a serious accusation and it now stands on the parliamentary record. While I was personally confident that I had not misled the House, I have had officials from both the policy and legal areas of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs examine the Hansard and confirm that the accusation made by the member for Dobell is false and that I have not misled the House. The member for Dobell should apologise.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would have thought the performance of members on my right and on my left has left a great deal to be desired. If the member for Dobell has a point of order, or something he wishes to raise, he is entitled to do so. The chair has endeavoured in all instances to be accommodating of points of order, sometimes to the chair's disadvantage.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Speaker, are you saying that from now on, whenever someone disputes something a member says, they can come into this House a day later and claim to have been misrepresented? Is that the new ruling that you have made today?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell's intimation of a reflection on the chair is not appreciated, but I will respond to his question. There has been absolutely nothing new, revolutionary or different in anything that has happened in the chamber in the past 10 minutes. There is no provision under the standing orders that obliges matters of alleged misrepresentation to be raised within a specific period of time. In the past, as every member of this House is aware, the chair has in fact allowed people to bring in newspaper articles and other things where they feel they have been in some way misrepresented. The member for Adelaide felt she had been misrepresented and confirmed that by consulting the Hansard and has now cleared the matter up. I do not think there are any grounds for any indignation at all. Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Members on my right have very short memories, and the member for Melbourne is exercising very little courtesy.15:22:0019287Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Dobell claim to have been misrepresented?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I do, Mr Speaker. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell may proceed.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member for Adelaide claimed that I had incorrectly accused her of misleading the House. That is based on the fact that the member for Adelaide said during the debate on the vocational education and training bill that the states and territories had agreed to the funding which was in that bill. I made it clear yesterday that the states and territories are in dispute with the Commonwealth about the funding of the bill, which is why I stand by my claim that the member for Adelaide misled the House.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell must indicate where he has been misrepresented.Questions to the Speaker192871928715:26:0019287Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I have a question to you, Mr Speaker. I refer to my question this afternoon to the Treasurer concerning employee benefit tax avoidance schemes which he said he would answer if I put it on the Notice Paper. I further refer to my question number 798 to the Treasurer of 9 August 1999, which is over a year old. Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 150 I ask that you write to the Treasurer seeking reasons for his delay in replying, and I further seek a guarantee that he will answer this afternoon's question rather more expeditiously. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Wills in the manner in which the standing orders allow.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—I raise a point of order. The member has just admitted to the House that he asked a question in this place knowing it was out of order because it was already on the Notice Paper.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind some members of their status in the House. I know it is Thursday afternoon. I will obviously check the Notice Paper when I have an opportunity, but without that facility it is difficult for me to make a responsible ruling.Miscellaneous1928815:22:0019288Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—At question time I asked a question of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I now seek leave to table a document relating to that question.Leave granted. 83REdwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS—I thank the House. Questions to the Speaker192881928815:28:0019288Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you which pertains to some events today in the Main Committee. I think they indicate an anomaly in relation to certain matters of procedure in the Main Committee and I would ask you to examine this matter. I am referring to the members' statements debate which was cut off today, very dramatically, because of a division in the House. I think only two of the six speakers listed were able to speak today. The members' statements were cut off because apparently there is a standing order which requires that these statements finish at 10 o'clock. It was the case that the members' statements procedure was introduced as a similar procedure to the grievance debate. The fact is that if other proceedings in the House delay the grievance debate they still hold the grievance debate. I wonder whether you could examine the possibility of a provision which would ensure that, if something does occur in the House which prevents members' statements in the Main Committee, those statements could continue past that time so that those important opportunities for members to make statements could continue.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I imagine the member for Chifley wants to add to a comment made by the member for Calwell. I was going to reflect on the member for Calwell's comments and my action. I will accommodate the member for Chifley if he wants to add to that before I make a decision.15:30:0019288Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—The Procedure Committee has in fact recognised the very anomaly that the honourable member raises. It has made a recommendation in its latest report to fix the matter, and hopefully the Leader of the House will respond promptly to it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Chifley for that facility. I was conscious obviously of the Procedures Committee's recommendation. I was about to observe that I would be quite happy to discuss with the member for Cowper and the member for Scullin the Procedure Committee's recommendations and ensure that the three of us were taking them up with the government as well to see if what is concerning the member for Calwell can be appropriately corrected.1928815:31:0019288Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I have not had to wait as long as the member for Wills but, under section 150 of the standing orders, will you write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care asking him to answer my question regarding those who are unable to afford private health insurance, question 1627 on the Notice Paper.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will take up the matter raised by the member for Melbourne Ports.Documents192885T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—Peter, wake up!15:31:0019289McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—Forgive me. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—No, never.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—You are hard, unforgiving, relentless people, aren't you? Why don't you turn your attention to policy?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Will the Deputy Leader of the House resume his seat. I do not think that a suggestion that no-one will be forgiven would exactly be the sort of remark we would want to leave on the parliament record. But I should add to the Deputy Leader of the House that any suggestion that says, `You are hard' and whatever followed, which reflects unfairly on the chair, would not have been intended and would have been inappropriate. The Deputy Leader of the House may continue.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Mr Speaker, you are a softie—we know that! Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.I present papers on the following subject, being a petition which is not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Calls on the Prime Minister to exempt the RSPCA from the goods and services tax from the member for Blaxland—3,970 petitioners.Adjournment19289Motion (by Mr McGauran) agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 28 August, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Miscellaneous1928915:33:0019289SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 27 June and again on Monday, the honourable member for Grayndler asked me a question relating to a requirement imposed by the Minister for Community Services that requests for information from the Parliamentary Library to Centrelink be made through the minister's office rather than directly to Centrelink as had previously been the case. Subsequent to the member for Grayndler's 27 June question, both the member and the minister have given me their perspectives on the issue and the member for Grayndler has also issued a media release.Two issues arise from the member for Grayndler's questions. The first is the method by which the Parliamentary Library is able to obtain information from government departments and agencies. The second is the confidentiality of the identity of the questioner on whose behalf the Parliamentary Library is seeking the information.In regard to the first issue, the Parliamentary Library has no statutory or other right to be provided on demand with information from government departments and agencies. The practice accepted across the Public Service—and endorsed by successive governments—is that factual information which either is publicly available or can readily be made publicly available is to be provided at officer level to the Parliamentary Library without reference to ministers or ministers' offices. The key criterion is always that the information is publicly available or can readily be made publicly available if asked for. The Parliamentary Library deals only in publicly available information and data. It does not, nor should it, seek access to confidential information; nor does it seek to be a conduit for unauthorised information.The Parliamentary Library then, as members would be aware, analyses and interprets that publicly available information if requested by members, but the raw material is, as I said earlier, always publicly available. This mode of access has been the practice for many decades. The Minister for Community Services has advised me that in April Centrelink contacted his office to advise of the considerable workload created by the Parliamentary Library's requests. The minister believed that the requests were detracting from the portfolio's ability to respond promptly to requests made by members and senators through other parliamentary processes, principally on questions on notice. The minister's office subsequently asked that the library's requests be submitted through that office.While the minister's decision to direct requests through his office adds an additional step to the process of obtaining information, ministers are responsible to the parliament for the administration of their departments and agencies and it is open to the minister to give the direction he has. I would, however, ask the minister to ensure that this additional step in the process does not delay the provision to members of information nor inhibit the ability of all members to seek factual material on such an important policy area, one which generates many constituents' inquiries to electorate offices of all members. In regard to the second issue—the allegation by the member for Grayndler that the Parliamentary Library has been asked by the minister's office to identify the member for whom the information is being sought—both the minister's office and the Parliamentary Library advise me that this is not the case. The minister has assured me in writing that `at no time is the Parliamentary Library asked to identify the names of members or senators who request information'. The Parliamentary Library has advised me that in response to a specific question on 27 June from the honourable member for Grayndler's office—namely, `When you go through the minister's office, are you asked the name of the member requesting the information?'—the answer was and remains no. As all honourable members would be aware, the confidentiality of all requests made by members and senators to the library is paramount. The library would never agree to the provision of the identity of a member or senator being a condition of gaining information. Members must be free to ask for information, analysis, commentary and research with absolute privacy, and the Parliamentary Library holds that confidentiality as one of the basic underpinnings of its operations. I would like to assure all members that the privacy of their requests has always been respected and will continue to be respected.15:38:0019290Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to respond. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler may respond, knowing that indulgence is thin ice on which to skate.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Indeed. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I appreciate the fact that you have responded so fully to the questions which I have raised in the parliament, as is appropriate. I thank you for your assistance and your diligence in that. However, in your opening comments you indicated as one of the principles of the Parliamentary Library and research material that information would be given without reference to ministers' offices. I remain concerned and want to put on the record that we have received material, which I have provided to you, on the ministerial letterhead of the Minister for Community Services. As someone who is parliamentary secretary to the shadow minister for family and community services, I want to put on the record that I find that completely unacceptable. Secondly, I want to express concern about time. I am in a difficult situation with regard to that. I do not want to breach any confidentiality of comments that have been made to me by officers of the Parliamentary Library, and we have had a private discussion in your office about that. But certainly the issue of time remains a factor. In relation to the documents that I gave you, which were in response to a request that I made on 26 June, I do not think it is reasonable that the minister's office did not provide the answers to the Parliamentary Library until 24 July 2000. I think they were very simple questions relating to the number of people on rent assistance—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler should not be advancing an argument. I have heard his concern. R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—No. I think that is of concern. I am certainly not questioning your statement, but I have reason, as you are aware, to be concerned, ongoing, that in fact people have been asked to identify the basis upon which the request is being made.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I conclude this matter by indicating to the member for Grayndler that on the question of timing I believe that the chair has addressed that in the most positive way it can be addressed at this stage. On the issue he has raised of the letterhead, I note that it was signed by a person who is the departmental liaison officer or someone of similar title in the minister's office and, for that reason, it did not surprise me that it was on the minister's letterhead. On the issues of confidentiality, as the member for Grayndler knows, for every member of this parliament and every occupier of the chair there is nothing as important in our dealings with the library as ensuring that the library's reputation for confidentiality is maintained. Questions to the Speaker192911929115:41:0019291SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 27 June, the member for Chifley raised a point of order concerning a question asked of the Acting Treasurer by the member for Adelaide. The next day the member for Chifley commented that it had been the practice of the House for some time for alternative views to be canvassed but that normally the question was linked to a minister's portfolio responsibilities consistent with standing order 142. The honourable member asked me to examine the matter and report to the House.As the member for Chifley indicated, the practice of the House was developed for a question to be asked relating to government initiatives and relating to alternative policies. In 1992, when the respective positions of the government and opposition were the reverse of the current situation, 19 questions out of a total of 616 asked related to alternative policies, approaches and strategies, proposals or some similar description. This represented approximately three per cent of all questions. In 1999, the percentage had increased slightly to 3.5 per cent—46 questions out of a total of 1,370. For the autumn and winter sittings this year up until 29 June, the number had increased to 90 out of 683 questions asked, or 13 per cent. In all questions of this kind there is invariably a link to a minister's official administrative responsibility. Were this not the case, the question would be likely to be out of order. In the instance in which the member for Chifley raised the point of order and followed up with his question to me, the member asked whether the Minister for Finance and Administration, as Acting Treasurer, had `seen reports of suggestions to modify the new tax system'. The member went on to ask what the government's response was to these policy alternatives. The preamble or preface, to repeat terms used by the member for Chifley, was contained in the segment about `reports of suggestions to modify the new tax system'. This was clearly within the administrative responsibility of the Acting Treasurer. In responding to the question put to me by the honourable member for Chifley, I indicated that there were some issues about questions that I would be investigating as well. The member's question has also provided the opportunity to reflect upon the practice of a minister being asked about alternative policies or proposals and on the matter of preambles in general. As the member indicated, the canvassing of alternative views has become the practice of the House. I do not think it inappropriate if a member identifies an area within a minister's official responsibility and asks a question relating to alternative views, as the key consideration is the government's response to these views. However, there is also a longstanding practice of the House that questions should not ask a minister about alternative policies or views from a specific source, such as those of the opposition. Rulings from successive speakers have indicated that opposition policies are not considered to be within the administrative responsibility of a minister. Taking this into account, I propose to continue the practice of permitting general questions about alternative approaches to matters within a minister's area of administrative responsibility. I have also taken the opportunity to reflect on the practice of some members to preface a question with a brief observation or preamble. A study of Hansard over the last decade demonstrates that on occasions members have taken the opportunity to set the scene before posing their question. The chair has intervened when the preamble became lengthy, and I will continue this practice where necessary. As a general rule, questions should be asked without embellishment. Lengthy questions are to be avoided. I remind members that it is not appropriate to ask a series of questions or to make observations in interrogatory style concluding with a short sharp question and then to insist that the rule of relevance be applied only to the final question. Where a member asking a question ranges over a number of issues in delivering a question, a response by the minister touching on those issues is within the scope of the question and is in order. Matters of Public Importance192921929210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's continuing push to fully privatise Telstra irrespective of the needs of rural and regional Australia.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—15:46:0019292Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—We always knew the government's Telstra inquiry was a sham, now we know it is a political fit-up. We always knew that the government's Telstra inquiry was fatally compromised, now we know it will be the subject of political interference. We always knew the government's Telstra report could not be relied upon, now we know it will be moulded to suit the Prime Minister's ideological obsession to flog off all of Telstra. We have always known that the Prime Minister is committed to the full privatisation of Telstra by whatever means, and we have also always known that the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party will not stand up to him and do anything about it. The government's Telstra inquiry, the Besley inquiry, is a sham.XH4McGauran, Peter, MP5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—And the minister challenges me! Where from? The memo which he refuses to allow to be tabled is the evidence of that.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Distribute it!5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—You have been so courageous, Minister. You refused to give me leave to table this. I refer to the first paragraph of the secret memo, which the minister disingenuously describes as the `ramblings of an officer'—a person who is a senior officer reporting direct to the CEO of Telstra and the group manager of Telstra Country Wide. It says:... political exigencies will shape the report whatever the evidence before it. Irrespective of the independent, objective, impartial evidence, political exigencies will shape the report.And what are those political exigencies? Those political exigencies are that the government will do anything to flog off all of Telstra. In breach of its election commitment, in breach of its commitment to rural and regional Australia, it will do anything to flog off all of Telstra, and the National Party will do nothing to stand up in defence of rural and regional Australia.What do we know about the history of the government's commitment to the full privatisation of Telstra? It is interesting to remind oneself of the history of this matter. In the 1998 election, the coalition's formal election commitment was that they would establish an independent inquiry which would assess Telstra's service levels to customers in metropolitan, rural and remote areas. They said that the assessment would occur against performance criteria which the coalition would specify in legislation. So the government's commitment was an independent, impartial inquiry which would be legislated for, and that only when that independent, impartial, objective inquiry established by the parliament said that Telstra service levels, particularly in rural and regional Australia, were adequate would the government move to seek to fully privatise Telstra. What do we know? The government walked away from that election commitment and appointed, as an executive action of the government, the Besley inquiry. And even before today, what have we known about the Besley inquiry? Firstly, we know that its chairman, Mr Besley, is a well-known supporter of full privatisation. He is on the public record as a supporter of full privatisation. In the secret Telstra memo which the minister refuses to allow me to table, we find some interesting remarks about Mr Besley. The Telstra memo says, for example:... Besley might avoid expressly stating that service levels are inadequate. So Telstra is proceeding on the basis that the chairman of the committee is going to proceed on the basis that he might avoid expressly stating that service levels are inadequate, which reinforces the central thrust: political exigencies will shape the report, whatever the evidence before the Besley inquiry. It goes on to reinforce the point that Mr Besley is a well-known supporter of full privatisation, on the public record; that Mr Besley is `committed to market based solutions'; and that Mr Besley has questioned the efficacy of regulation over competition in an area where traditionally the Commonwealth has proceeded on the basis—precisely to ensure that service levels to rural and regional Australia are comparable to those in metropolitan areas—that we do have public policy intervention. That is the whole point of the public policy framework which provides Telstra in public hands, now in majority public hands, and complementary obligations which you find by way of universal service obligations and customer service guarantees, none of which have ever been met on the basis of the objective Australian Communications Authority performance monitoring supports since Telstra was partially privatised, and none of which will be met even when this government and this weak, insipid National Party allow the government to fully privatise Telstra.In addition to that, what do we know about Mr Besley's conflict of interest? We know that he held Telstra shares. We know that his company held Telstra shares. We know that, immediately before his appointment to the Besley inquiry, he was appointed to the advisory committee of Credit Suisse First Boston, a company which benefited from the partial privatisation of Telstra. We also know that he is the Chairman of Leightons, a company which benefits from outsourcing contracts with Telstra and which would stand to benefit further if Telstra were fully privatised. We also know that Mr Besley has on the public record a statement where he holds out the banks as the role models for the provision of services to rural and regional Australia.So even without the evidence that we have today that this is a political fit-up, the chairman of the inquiry is subject to a range of conflicts of interest, and the chairman of the inquiry is fundamental and fatally compromised. In addition to that, his colleague on that inquiry Mr Braithwaite is a former National Party member of parliament and, however well regarded Mr Braithwaite might be—and I am amongst those people who so regard him—the mere fact of his former tenure in this parliament disqualifies him. Ms Bennett, the third member the committee, is a person who has sat on a tribunal distributing proceeds from the partial privatisation of Telstra and—just to turn the knife ever so delightfully—featured in pro-GST ads on behalf of the government. So, even without the evidence that we find today, even without the secret memo which the minister runs away from, we find the Besley inquiry fatally compromised.And what have the Prime Minister and the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister said in respect of the integrity of this inquiry? They walk away from the election commitment, but they say, `Don't worry.' The Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party said on national TV on 26 March, `Don't worry. This will be a rigorous and credible inquiry.' And the Prime Minister in this place in March said, `Don't worry. This will be transparent.'What do we know now? We now know the Prime Minister and the government are quite happy not just to rely upon the conflicts of interest, not just to rely on the fatally flawed composition of the Besley inquiry, but also to politically thug them, to ensure that the Besley inquiry is a report which is moulded to suit the ideological obsession of the Prime Minister and the government to fully privatise Telstra. This is a political fit. This is a political fix up. The government should junk this inquiry automatically today and satisfy its election commitment and come to the parliament and establish by legislation an independent, impartial, objective report. Do not think that the Sydney Morning Herald was too distracted by the media ball last night. The Sydney Morning Herald got the analysis precisely right on its front page of today when it said: ... political pressures were likely to play a part in shaping the report.That is the correct analysis, and that is the analysis that the minister and the government run away from. If it was not enough to retail to the House the history of the Besley inquiry, let us just retail the history of the Prime Minister's ideological obsession with the full privatisation of Telstra this year. In February we saw his federation speech, where he reaffirmed his commitment to the full privatisation of Telstra, and you found reference to an inquiry—the government's election commitment—only by way of a footnote.Then we had the Prime Minister's bush tour—and I notice that the minister at the table, the member for Gippsland, was only too happy that the Prime Minister did not actually tour his electorate on that occasion—where, to his surprise, the Prime Minister suddenly found that everywhere he went in rural and regional Australia none were too impressed with his commitment to fully privatise Telstra. So we then saw the Nyngan declaration. We then saw the Prime Minister saying, `You don't need to worry. We won't allow anything to occur which will reduce services to rural and regional Australia. A red light will flash. A light bulb will go off.' We have seen two things since then: no red light has flashed, and no light bulb has gone off, particularly in the minds of the National Party members in this place, with the possible exception of the member for Kennedy.So we have the Prime Minister's declaration. We then see Telstra in March of this year announce a $2.1 billion profit and the slashing of 10,000 jobs. The majority shareholder, the government, was advised by Telstra before it made the announcement. Not only did the government of the day not do anything to prevent the announcement, to stop the announcement, but it popped the champagne corks and cheered the $2.1 billion result on the day it was announced. If you think—with the majority shareholder sitting on its hands and doing nothing in the face of that—you would see any improvement in Telstra arrangements if it were fully privatised, then you are off with the fairies.So as to ensure that the Prime Minister's Nyngan declaration was worth something, the Leader of the Opposition and I asked him whether his Nyngan declaration would apply to a fully privatised Telstra and, of course, he said, `No, it would not. The Nyngan declaration cannot apply to a fully privatised Telstra,' just as today the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister refused to give any guarantee and could not make any assurance that in a fully privatised Telstra investment would be made in the network and in rural and regional services. That is the second important part of the secret Telstra memo, where the officer says to the head of Telstra and to the head of Telstra Country Wide:We need to increase awareness of:i) The fact that investment in CAN and in uneconomic services in rural Australia cannot be assumed.Telstra is saying even under the current arrangements people should please proceed on the basis that you cannot assume that Telstra will invest in rural and regional Australia or make sure that services are delivered to rural and regional Australia. You will have absolutely no hope under a fully privatised Telstra.Since the announcement of Telstra's profit we have had two Performance Monitoring Bulletin reports from the Australian Communications Authority: the March report and the June report. The March report shows Telstra in breach of customer service guarantee obligation on up to 25 per cent of occasions, and the June report shows Telstra in breach of customer service guarantee obligations on as many as 22 per cent of occasions. I note that the minister in question time again seeks to disingenuously use a comment I made in response to the December 1999 ACA report, which was a report into Telstra's systemic difficulties in being unable to discharge its USO and CSG obligations, in which I said I welcomed the modest small improvement but there was a long way to go yet. And that long way is nowhere near being approached.It is interesting in all of this history to note the lack of performance of the National Party. There is no greater threat to rural and regional Australia's service provision than the Prime Minister, and there is no weaker defender of it than the Leader of the National Party, Mr Anderson. He is the weakest and most ineffectual Leader of the National Party we have seen since Charles Blunt. At least Charles Blunt could put his stamp on something. But there are a couple of people from the National Party who will stand up. The member for Kennedy, Mr Katter, is the only member of the National Party in this place who has not sold out to the full privatisation of Telstra. The Deputy Premier in Western Australia, Mr Cowan, again repeated over the weekend—in the presence of Mr Campbell and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson—that so far as he was concerned they could go he for chasey if they tried to use the Besley inquiry report to privatise Telstra. Mr Cowan said on the weekend:Anyone in Telstra or anyone in the Federal Government who thinks the National Party is going to change its view on the basis of a report ... we won't.But such is the weakness of the Leader of the National Party that, when in this place he was asked to choose between Senator Alston, a Liberal lawyer from Melbourne, and Mr Katter—when Senator Alston had described Mr Katter as a national disgrace because he questioned the delivery of service levels to rural and regional Australia—the Leader of the National Party chose Senator Alston. And when there was a chance for the Leader of the National Party to choose between Mr Cowan and Senator Alston he again chose a Liberal Melbourne lawyer over his National Party colleague who was speaking the truth about the provision of service levels to rural and regional Australia.What we have seen exposed today in the course of the public exposure of the memorandum from Telstra is the transformation of a fatally flawed, fatally composed, conflict of interest inquiry to a political fit-up—to a situation where it is quite clear that the government of the day will do anything it can to seek to mould the Besley inquiry report as a vehicle to fully privatise Telstra in breach of its election commitment and in breach of its obligation to ensure adequate service levels to rural and regional Australia. At the next election the people of rural and regional Australia will have this clear, simple choice: if you want decent service levels in rural and regional Australia, vote Labor; if you want to ensure that a weak and insipid National Party will roll over to the Prime Minister and you want to see Telstra fully flogged off, then vote for the National Party or for the Liberal Party. If you want to ensure that you have decent communication services in rural and regional Australia, stick with Beazley and Labor.16:02:0019295McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—There must be as many members of the opposition —and I am sure there are—who are as incredulous as I and my colleagues are that this is the topic for the matter of public importance, particularly having heard the contribution by the honourable member for Perth. Many of his own colleagues in the Australian Labor Party would have given him the benefit of the doubt—they would have seen that the tactics committee bequeath this topic of a matter of public importance onto them but waited for his delivery. Having heard and listened carefully to every word he said, thank heavens he is not a public defender. He cannot make out a case and could not save a client to save his or their life. This is the most pathetic contribution—to raise the spectre of the government fixing the Telstra inquiry by way of this leaked internal memo.Even though the opposition started the parliamentary day with the suspension of standing orders so as to debate the issue of petrol pricing, that is not the issue of the matter of public importance debate and nor is the GST—any inequities or inefficiencies that they can possibly invent. No, that is not it at all. Nor is it about social welfare reform. Instead it is this issue of the Telstra inquiry because there is a secret leaked internal memo from Telstra. It is not a government memo—it is nothing to do with us. No-one in the government, at least to the best of my knowledge, perused it or had any input into it. It is instead something put together by a middle ranking or senior ranking Telstra employee to be circulated who knows where. It is not a government document. Even so, there is no smoking gun in it about the Besley inquiry—nothing like the member for Perth claimed at a doorstop earlier today and has again repeated during his debate on the matter of public importance. Let me help the honourable member through his rambling, almost incoherent presentation and summarise what his charge is. I will do it for him because he has given us the words in the transcript that he released of his doorstop earlier today. He says: ... today the cat is out of the bag. The Besley Inquiry is being thugged politically to come up with the result that the Government wants.Okay, that is the charge, and the evidence is the leaked memo. So a journalist asks him:But what's in that memo specifically that leads you to draw that conclusion?He cannot point to any words. It is the musings of a Telstra officer—some prediction, some assessment of the possible outcome of the Besley inquiry. So he cannot answer the question, and the journalist has to again ask:What is it in the memo that leads you to draw that conclusion? What are the words in the memo?There are no words in the memo. The most amazing thing above all else is not just the honourable member's inability to sustain his allegation but that he released it as a transcript. He is proud of this transcript. He put it out under his letterhead. Any other professional practising politician, let alone someone supposedly as senior in a political party as he is, would be ashamed of it. The reporter asks—and I would love to know whether it is one of the junior reporters straight out of journalism school in the gallery or whether it is a senior reporter, because it is a brilliant question, although a little obvious: where are the words in the memo which show that the government is thugging the Besley inquiry to get the results the government wants? The reporter asks that question twice and he cannot find any words. Again I asked him to here today and the only words he gave us from the memo were these, where the author says:Rather than the Report enriching the policy environment, it is likely—likely—that the political exigencies will shape the Report ...Likely—it does not say they will. But in any event, that is the author's opinion. Every middle or large size corporation or organisation in this country has external affairs managers, corporate relations managers, community relations managers and government relation managers—they are always tapping away at the terminal justifying their existence and their salary, trying to read political events. They make judgments and assessments of individuals, including the honourable member for Perth. I would love to see some of the internal secret memos on his performance by people in the information technology and communications sectors.The report has nothing to do with the government, and the government places no importance on it. Whether or not Telstra do is entirely a matter for them. It continues to amaze me that the glimmer twins—the honourable member for Perth and the honourable member for Lilley—can continually hijack the opposition's political agenda with the most concocted, illusory political attack points. They seem to get their MPIs and questions up almost at will. I wonder how other shadow ministers with legitimate policy—dare I say it: points to make or positions to stake out—feel being denied the dispatch box. It is extraordinary to me. When it is all said and when the honourable member for Perth really tries to mix it in a policy sense, he is sadly missing. I wonder how many people knew what happened to him at the national conference in Hobart a fortnight ago. There were 14 sessions for the national conference of the Australian Labor Party, and he joined in the last session. It was a worthy session; it was the arts, heritage and culture session, which the shadow minister for arts, the member for Denison, conducted, as he rightly would. That is his place. But the shadow minister for communications shared the platform with him in the arts, heritage and culture session of the national conference. That is how much emphasis they place on communications—or it was the camouflage for his total lack of policy. So forget about e-commerce; forget about the information technology revolution; forget about telecommunications in country areas. He does not have a session. He does not have a policy. He has got nothing to say. He is just going to join in the `enjoying life' session, as we like to call it. So much for his contribution to the knowledge nation, or the `knowledge notion', as it is better known. Good old Labor. There is no doubt about them—when they have got nothing to say and no case to make, they will attack the person, and they did it again here today. They have done it again today. They attacked the chairman of the inquiry, Mr Besley—very briefly, in that snide, underhand, unsubstantiated way they do, almost in passing. But the words come out: `conflict of interest', `tainted'. They always do it—play the man every time. They do not have the courage to stand up and ask a direct question of the Prime Minister or me, representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Oh, no. That would expose them to too much judgment, assessment and accountability to the press gallery and the parliament. They will just use these throwaway lines which slur people's character, standing and reputation and then run away. It is sadly typical of many members of the Labor Party.There is no conflict of interest between Mr Besley's role as chairman of the telecommunications service inquiry and his business activities. I can say that because the member for Perth does not provide any substance or evidence of his claim that there is a conflict of interest. What is the claim? What lies behind this grievous accusation of his? I would like to know. If it is in relation to his involvement with Leighton, tell us the particular part. As far as I understand—and I am willing to be corrected by anything the member for Perth wishes to put before me—Leighton has undertaken a venture with Lucent Technologies and a number of other investments in regard to a very significant investment—an $850 million fibre optic cable link between Brisbane and Perth. It is just ludicrous to claim that Leighton's decision to become a partner in this fibre optic cable project conflicts with his role, because it is not being funded by Telstra. The $850 million project is not being funded by Telstra. To my knowledge, Telstra is not a participant in it at all. The project will result in more infrastructure, which will naturally give a better benefit to country people. I welcome the fact that Leighton and Lucent have recognised that, in a new economy like Australia, there is a rapidly developing demand for bandwidth for Internet and other data services and have seen fit to make such a major investment. Slurring members of the Besley committee is no substitute for debating the issues of the full privatisation of Telstra on their merits.We have seen Labor do this on so many policy issues. Whether it be budget deficit reduction strategy or fiscal responsibility by the government, they will oppose us, they will crank up fear campaigns, they will alarm people unnecessarily and then they will accept the benefits and endorse the policy once completed by this government. We see it again with GST. They now support GST but are very vague and evasive on the costing and extent of roll-back. So it is very disappointing that, in the total absence of policy alternatives and formulation by the member for Perth, he resorts to character assassination. The inquiry has been very accessible to people in the length and breadth of the nation. It has held meetings in all states and in the Northern Territory and it has met with almost 300 people—individuals and representatives of a wide range of community and business groups. It has had 31 roundtable meetings, some of which were conducted via video teleconferencing, so as to overcome the physical separation limitations of remote and isolated communities. The inquiry has received more than 1,000 submissions, many of them addressing the interests of a large number of people within different community groups. The inquiry reports that it is now finalising its market research on customer demand for telecommunications services, research and analysis into the telecommunication needs of Australians, research and analysis into new market models for the delivery of telecommunications and online services in regional Australia. In accordance with the government's election commitment, the inquiry will assess telecommunications services against specified performance criteria, namely, the government's legislated customer service guarantee, which holds Telstra and the other carriers against certain standards, which are policed, administered and enforced by the Australian Communications Authority. We brought it in, not Labor. Our constituencies in rural and regional areas are so much better off as a result of that, as well as our expanding the universal service obligation. It is this government that has got brought in those legislative benchmarks that all telecommunications licence holders must meet. Regarding the whole issue of telecommunications, I was very struck by a comment by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Prime Minister, not long ago. He said, `You don't have to own the automotive industry plants to set safety standards.' Similarly, you do not have to own telecommunication companies to set service standards. In the same way, Labor came to recognise that with regard to airlines, banks and insurance companies. Where was Labor's inquiry when they sold the Commonwealth Bank? Where were the service guarantee standards for an inquiry to test when they sold Qantas? Labor's hypocrisy knows no bounds on this issue, and they have done it again. They have come in here with no policies and no issues, and they leave the hard work of meeting Australians' rightful and legitimate expectations of telecommunications services to the government to fulfil.Time is going to beat me on this, but truth is such a scarce commodity in the Labor Party. Della Bosca told the truth and look what happened—he got punished for it. Funnily enough, Della Bosca owns 1,000 Telstra shares. He knows the truth when he sees it. He knows the benefit for himself at least. But, gee whiz, so does the Australian Labor Party machine. The registered address of Labor Holdings Pty Ltd and Labor Enterprises Pty Ltd is 16 Peel Street, Brisbane. Queensland Australian Labor Party Associated Entities together own $310,000 worth of Telstra stock. The list goes on and on. We have it state by state. In the Australian Capital Territory, there is a Michael Kerrisk—the same name as the ACT ALP secretary—of 6 Jobson Place, Chisholm. He owns 1,000 Telstra shares. There is an Eric Roozendaal—the same name as the state secretary of New South Wales—of 78 Denning Street, South Coogee. He owns 2,500 shares. There is a Damien O'Connor—the same name as the Left's assistant secretary in New South Wales—with a George Street, Redfern address. He owns 400 Telstra shares. It goes on. The Victorian state minister Monica Gould has declared Telstra shares on her pecuniary interests. There is Paul Crittenden, an MLA in New South Wales. The list goes on and on. Labor are hypocrites on this issue. (Time expired)JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I require the minister under standing order 321 to table the second document from which he was reading, which I believe was a memorandum from Ms Deena Shiff.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is it a confidential document? Does the minister wish to table it?XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Mr Deputy Speaker, this document has my own confidential notes on it.16:17:0019298Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Like most members today, I received an email from the Local Government Association which, in association with National Economics, is holding a regional cooperation and development forum on 3 December. One of the stated guest speakers on regional issues such as `the sale of Telstra and the consequences for Western Australia' is the Deputy Premier and Leader of the National Party in Western Australia, Hendy Cowan. According to Mr Cowan's statements reported in the Australian on 15 August, the conference will hear from Mr Cowan:Anyone in Telstra or anyone in the Federal Government who thinks the National Party is going to change its view on the basis of a report ...He does not stand alone in coalition ranks. The state Leader of the New South Wales National Party, George Souris, has publicly stated his opposition to the further sale of Telstra. Mr Souris says:Service levels are not adequate, maintenance levels and repair times are way too slow ... I can't see how the Inquiry— the Besley inquiry, that is—could declare that Telstra has delivered. I know they haven't, and I have plenty of war stories.I found that reference to war stories interesting. The memo which has been referred to today on this issue states:While public hearings did attract some negative media coverage, the reporting was fairly limited in scope and usually quite parochial. Participants had generic complaints about quality and speed of service, mobile coverage and data speed, but the expected war stories failed to eventuate (even in sensitive regions like western Queensland or Tasmania).I find that very interesting. The statement says `expected war stories'. The reason it says `expected war stories' is that those Telstra operatives expected to hear bad news, and you do not expect to hear bad news unless there is bad news. Regional Australia does not support the full sale of Telstra because it does not believe it is fully and adequately serviced. The other thing I find very interesting—and we could all play lawyer on this if the minister were still here; he is not unfortunately—is the words `even in sensitive regions like western Queensland or Tasmania'. Again, why are western Queensland and Tasmania sensitive? Is it because we have delicate natures? Of course not! The reason it is sensitive is that those areas are manifestly deficit in telecommunications. That is why the operative had that to say.Moving on from there, I notice that the member for Hume is under siege at the moment, but he is a very perceptive man on some issues, particularly those that affect people in terms of telecommunications. When the inquiry was announced, the member for Hume queried the real independence of the inquiry members and whether they were sufficiently at arms-length from the political process. So we are not the ones who have some questions to ask about some of the people on that inquiry; it is people on the other side who have something to say. If you want to really hear it embellished, you need only hear the member for Kennedy, my good friend Mr Bob Katter. He will tell you exactly what he thinks of that inquiry and what he thinks of his colleagues, who are now falling like dominoes one by one after their good leader, Mr Anderson, because they have now moved away from their trenchant criticism of the further sale of Telstra. They now say, `Let's wait and see. It might get better, how do you do, beg your pardon.' Well, we are going to wait and see what happens—there is no doubt about that.I will refer to some other punch-drunk Nationals on this issue. Let us go to the Queensland National Party Conference proceedings of April 2000. Having spent a couple of days at my own conference, I think words are very important, particularly when you look at proceedings; so let me quote what they had to say on this in the conference proceedings of April 2000:An inquiry now is premature because everyone knows it will find that service delivery is substandard—I repeat: everybody knows it will find that service delivery is substandard—and if it does not—this is listed in their proceedings—it is a whitewash.This is the National Party, not the Australian Labor Party, in its comments on the inquiry. This is the National Party. We all know that the conference eventually passed a motion opposing the further sale of Telstra. So what more do we need to hear on that issue? You might remember me quoting this extraordinary memo, and I hope everybody gets the opportunity to see it, because it is not tabled, unfortunately. Anyway, let me point out to you that the operative could not understand why lots of people did not come out and talk about war stories. The reason is basically that it was tainted from the start, let's face it. Public comment said: `Another inquiry! It is not independent.' It did not come before this House; we know that.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr Andren—Heaps of war stories.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Heaps of war stories. The terms of inquiry were not discussed in this House and, of course, the performance criteria for an inquiry happened to remain very vague. Any examination of what this inquiry has been doing would have to tell you it is a whirlwind of an inquiry. It whipped around Australia, quicker than Virgin Blue. It flitted from place to place, granting some people an opportunity to speak—and I was very pleased to be one of those. When I got my acceptance, along with my good colleague the member for Lyons I was told I had five minutes. You cannot offer many war stories in five minutes. But I had put in my submission to the inquiry. There are not many war stories in it, but it happens to be the result of a telecommunications black spot audit that I just managed to knock up in five minutes in my electorate with 600-odd people responding to it. These are black spots, half of which are related to mobile phones. That is not to mention the charade that we have going in Australia with the so-called rollout of CDMA, whereby we are told it is the exact equivalent of the old analog system and so all will be well. It is well, all right! Some people I know now are going out to get the latest technology to overcome the problems with the CDMA: a carrier pigeon. Frankly, the CDMA rollout is a fraud, and we know that. We also know that Telstra have this system called a paging system. That is pretty important if you are in emergency services—and the vet in my little village needs a paging system, because we move in and out of hamlets, in and out of valleys. Unfortunately, the paging system was closed down. But Telstra said, `Fear not! We have an alternative for you; it is Link.' Unfortunately, no-one can link with Link, and the war stories continue to grow. In the end you say to yourself, “What's the point? Why bother? Telstra is hell-bent on having itself privatised.' I would like to conclude with the following quote from the report:We need to continue to promote alternatives that the government believes will offer comfort to rural Australia that its needs are secured. Regrettably, although Besley is committed to marketplace solutions, the rural constituencies are not.The reason we are not is that the system is not good enough now and it will not be good enough in privatised hands. We can use the profit that Telstra already makes forever onwards and forever upwards—because we can continue to invest in regional and rural Australia's telecommunication needs. If we flog off Telstra, it is gone for good, and the moneys that we could have used will be used once and once only. Rural Australia does not like market based solutions because it does not trust them and they do not work.16:22:0019300Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The words of the matter of public importance—`the government's continuing push to fully privatise Telstra irrespective of the needs of rural and regional Australia'—bring to the fore the history of telecommunications in this country. It is presumed that, because you have a publicly owned entity, you end up with a service superior to that of any other kind of entity—for example, a privatised entity. The fallacy of this whole argument is that, if you have something in public ownership and you have a monopoly and do not allow or encourage competition and new players, somehow or other you can claim by some magic wand that you can have an improved service compared with any other ownership model.In my lifetime, as a boy, in my home we had no phone—absolutely no contact whatever. Then we had the old party line, predominantly made up of eight-gauge fencing wire; then the automatic exchange; and now we have this absolutely bewildering array of technology, this wonderful exciting new era of communications. The constant criticism from the other side for purely political, opportunistic reasons—to say that because something is held in public ownership you end up with a better service—can be so easily demonstrated to be absolute nonsense.Let us just look at ALP history around 1991, when it corporatised the then Telecom. From 1983 to 1996, those Labor years of government, what did we see from Labor in power in the way of improvement in telecommunication services? We saw very, very little—and I suggest that the little we saw had much more to do with advancing technology than anything any government ever did or any mode of ownership. So we have the ALP corporatising Telecom—basically, in a sense, privatising it—making sure that it obeyed or played by commercial rules. We also had the Keating Council of Australian Governments agreement on competition policy—and can we say that Labor is going to abandon competition policy? Labor was the architect of competition policy. HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr Georgiou—They privatised everything.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN— As the minister explained earlier, they privatised the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, et cetera. Can I just for a minute examine the modern telecommunications industry—just give a few snapshots? Research firm Dataquest has predicted revenue from the worldwide public telephone networks will grow from $US882 billion—or $A1,357 billion, I presume—in 1997 to almost $1.4 trillion by 2002. This represents an 11 per cent compound annual growth rate. We have a dynamic fast-growing industry. Quoting Ziggy Switkowski:We no longer just sell phone calls, we sell the future mode of business operations.... ... ...Supporting this grand design, Telstra is hard at work evolving its core network from circuit-switched technology to packet-based technology. Called the data mode of operation, the massive project is designed to provide the company with infrastructure on which to build future services.The Chief Executive Officer of Telstra, Mr Switkowski, is `backing this vision with an infrastructure development budget of more than $4 billion annually'. Mr Switkowski is quoted as saying:Yet another challenge exists for carriers to extend the capacities and speeds enjoyed in backbone networks to end users. For many, the major bottleneck continues to be the link between the user and their local telephone exchange—the so-called last mile or local loop.Just to conclude and give a snapshot of the dynamism of this industry:Another technology attracting interest, particularly among new market entrants, involves providing alternative local loop access using wireless systems. This is particularly attractive for new players, as it allows them to completely avoid incumbent networks and reach customers directly.So does anyone really believe that, under anything less than an open system, Telstra half publicly owned half privately owned is going to have the full impact in this dynamic industry, particularly since the corporatisation process that Labor introduced in 1991? Does anyone really believe that the ownership model will make that much difference?Let us have a look at Telstra's interesting attempt at and approach to the universal service obligation. Back a couple of years ago, Telstra said it needed $1.8 billion to run the USO. The USO was then pegged by the government at $253.32 million. An alternative company says that, for that same kind of service, they could do it for $178 million. So the real issues around telecommunications have much less to do with ownership models than they do with the technology and the new developing management technology competition that is out there in the marketplace.Just coming to the issue of the Besley inquiry, let us have a look at what the minister for communications said when he introduced and set up the inquiry. He said `the inquiry shall certify whether or not existing telecommunications service levels are adequate'. Quite frankly, they are not. But does anyone say that in the last 10, 20 or 30 years the mode of ownership has made any difference to that? The minister continued that the Besley inquiry:... shall also provide advice to the Government on:- the appropriate circumstances in which the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) should consider using its services power of direction to ensure the ongoing adequacy of telecommunications services.His second point was:- whether existing and future technologies combined with the competitive market model are likely to continue to meet the telecommunications needs of all Australians.That is what the Besley inquiry is charged with. It is charged with looking at the new era to make sure that the USO is adequate and that it may be enlarged, that the ACA may be able to give direction to give an improved universal service obligation. It is not about all this talk about the hypothetical of what is not there or what might not be there; it is about having a look with the new technology, with the new competitive model—introduced by Labor—to see whether it is adequate. The minister made the third point:- whether any adjustments to existing Government policies are required to provide equitable access to telecommunications services and to overcome identified areas of disadvantage, including in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia. Yet Labor sits over there and says, `If you leave it in public hands we will deliver the services that we had in the 70s, 80s and 90s.' That is what Labor says—`By leaving it in public hands, we'll deliver the services that we had in the 70s, 80s and 90s.'OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr Nairn—But the services in the 1970s were lousy.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—Absolutely. In the minute or two left to me, I would make the simple point that, in terms of the efforts of this government with the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund, we have access to many services. We would never have had access to things like mobile phone services in much of regional Australia. We have had access with points of presence through Internet services at more reasonable prices than we would ever have had. We did not have a customer service guarantee that we required of Telstra, and we did not have a universal service obligation adapting to the new era in this `dynamic' industry. I keep coming back to that word. This is a dynamic industry that is going to service this country in the future in a way in which we are going to be absolutely amazed. So I reject Labor's absolute nonsense on this issue. (Time expired)16:37:0019302Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The memo that has been referred to in question time and which was reported in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald confirms my concerns and those of rural Australians that even a still publicly owned Telstra is not interested in the infrastructure investment necessary to deliver quality telecommunications services for all Australians. The memo was sent by Telstra's head of regulatory affairs to the most senior Telstra management. It was not some middle management musings, as the minister suggested. Apart from CEO Ziggy Switkowski, these executives also included a former senior staffer of the Minister for Finance. I cannot believe that there is not continuing collusion between the government and Telstra to do whatever necessary to sell a story to rural Australia that `Everything will be okay; trust us.' Indeed, how possibly could anyone suggest that Mr Tim Besley's inquiry into Telstra is likely to find Telstra's service has manifestly improved. This prediction is made in the Telstra memo, but such a finding would mock the evidence presented to the inquiry's Dubbo hearing that I attended last month and flies directly in the face of the facts, irrespective of the most recent reports on Telstra's performance from the Australian Communications Authority. In fact, just last week the ACA released findings that the digital mobile phone coverage in the wake of the analog closure was reasonably equivalent as promised by the government. In fact, what the ACA report finds is that CDMA coverage combined with conventional GSM digital together provide a little more coverage than analog used to. This leaves many disgruntled former analog users in country Australia with no mobile coverage where once they had reliable coverage due to analog's so-called `fortuitous coverage'. They can now only get a reasonably equivalent service if they carry both a CDMA and GSM phone.Among other things this Telstra memo says that:Investment in uneconomic services in rural Australia cannot be assumed.And that:... the new USO arrangements have increased the capital risk in USO areas and Telstra needs to explore ways of reducing that risk.These statements back up everything I have said in this place and elsewhere about the risk, not to Telstra, but to Australians outside the cities or large regional centres. For example, in my submission to Mr Besley I said:While I have no doubt that competition in the telecommunications industry can lead—OK6Nairn, Gary, MPKL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Listen, I gave your guy a fair go. What about me? While I have no doubt that competition in the telecommunications industry can lead to cheaper and better services in areas where there is profit to be made, I have grave doubts that competition can deliver improved services for all Australians, regardless of where they live.One need only look at the mobile telephony market for evidence of how interested Telstra's competitors have been in servicing rural and remote Australia. It cannot be denied that recent entrants into Australia's telecommunications sector have `cherry picked' the market, providing services in profitable areas but ignoring areas where it is simply uneconomic to operate—unless of course the option is beyond the affordability of average subscribers. Therein lies the basic problem of the competitive market model as it applies to telecommunications delivery. Competition may be capable of delivering results in a telecommunications market like the United States with its much larger population and spread. However, in Australia, with such a relatively small population, the costs involved in providing state-of-the-art services to regional and remote areas ensure that the only way private companies will ever service these areas is if they are compelled to do so. Glib assurances that any successful bidder for the USO subsidy will be required to provide better services than those currently offered are no guarantee that these services will actually be delivered.If, as the internal Telstra memo says, these services cannot be assumed now, what possible chance after the rest of it is flogged off? In question time today the Deputy Prime Minister said that the government is quite capable of putting in place a universal service obligation. But it is one thing to have an obligation; it is entirely another thing to ensure that those services are actually delivered and are enforceable, not only in the short term but for decades ahead. Indeed, I had discussions with another telco executive today who suggests that the only way the USO can be delivered is with a substantial government subsidy, and that is exactly what needs to happen. In fact, it has been suggested by Professor John Chudleigh at Orange that we might need to look at a separate telco for rural and regional Australia—not privately owned—run by the government but owned by the people.From my experience of dealing with over 400 local Telstra complaints in the last 2½ years, the ability of a member of parliament to act as a public advocate—or, dare I say, ombudsman—has been a crucial fact in delivering basic services to aggrieved customers. The same cannot be said for representations to some of Telstra's private competitors. This Telstra memo confirms my concerns that Telstra, by so actively pursuing a full privatisation agenda, is not acting in the interests of rural Australia and its majority shareholder—not the government, but the general public. The memo says that `We'—that is, Telstra:need to continue to promote alternatives that the government believes will offer comfort to rural Australia that its needs are secured.Well, I do not feel comfortable; nor do my constituents. It goes on:... regrettably, although Besley is committed to market based solutions the rural constituencies are not.Surprise, surprise! People in rural and regional Australia are not committed to market based solutions for one simple reason: they know what Telstra admits in this internal document that the market will not deliver services where it is uneconomic to do so. That is a fact of market life. The leaked memo predicts that regardless of the evidence presented to Tim Besley's inquiry, political considerations are likely to shape his report. It goes on to predict how the government is likely to handle Mr Besley's report and proposes—now it is writing policy—a range of strategies Telstra should take to promote the full privatisation agenda and an election strategy for the government. It boldly asserts that the Prime Minister could campaign on a commitment to full privatisation. This would be achieved by requiring further investment in high fault areas, but Telstra says now that that would be $1.8 billion. With an estimated 15,000 jobs backlogged, according to my information, in central and southern New South Wales, and with Telstra admitting to me that they effectively will have to remap large slabs of their network, such a requirement appears beyond Telstra's capability in the medium term.I am appalled at the internal document's tone, which I believe treats with contempt the concerns of people like those 400 customers for whom we have acted and undermines the good faith in which more junior local Telstra management and work staff have tried to cope with these issues at a local level. What Telstra executives and the minister label as war stories are not. They are real stories of real people. I refer to Mr Joe Knagge, CEO of KNet Technology and the President of the Dubbo Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He told the inquiry: Without access to Internet, to the latest technology, then business in regional areas is going to fall way behind... As soon as Telstra is privatised I believe we have lost all hope.He said elsewhere: I have to tell you that within six weeks of interruption—like the one they recently had—like that to cash flow, businesses can go broke... it took us six weeks to move about 10 shops down in the street. Also Catherine Fox, who lives near Oberon, said: I write because I have been unable to contact anyone on either my phone or email, it having been out of order for most of the last two weeks, once again. I write because no matter how many times I drive the 10km to the nearest town to inform Telstra ... it takes 3 to 8 days for a technician to arrive and there is no guarantee that his ministrations will fix the problem either in the short or long term ... Please can someone help me to achieve the dependable telephonic service boasted by Telstra? And that is a war story? When I gave evidence to Mr Besley's independent inquiry, I was shocked to hear Mr Besley tell those in attendance: I feel I should just make one point ... A number of you have mentioned privatisation, that's nothing whatsoever to do with us. We won't mention it in our report. What the government does with it is the government's business.How can this inquiry have nothing to do with privatisation? It has everything to do with it. The question is whether the market can deliver a solution or whether a more benign hand of government is needed in the long and permanent term. This internal Telstra memo answers that question. It tells us that, although Mr Besley believes in the market, Telstra does not believe the market can deliver where there is no buck to be made.I must say that I am disappointed but not surprised the National Party are not here—at least not at the moment—to refute the charge raised in this matter of public importance. I urge them to get their ear to the ground and not rely on the carrier pigeon but listen to those war stories out there. The marketplace is not the answer and I suggest they know it.Bills19304The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000Defence Legislation Amendment (Flexible Career Practices) Bill 2000Bills19304R91019304Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 98, page 29 (line 9), before “licensee”, insert “exclusive”.(2) Schedule 1, item 98, page 31 (line 9), before “licensee”, insert “exclusive”.(3) Schedule 1, item 98, page 32 (line 14), before “licensee”, insert “exclusive”.(4) Schedule 1, item 98, page 32 (line 19), before “licensee”, insert “exclusive”.(5) Schedule 1, item 98, page 32 (line 31), before “licensee”, insert “exclusive”.(6) Schedule 1, item 98, page 33 (line 9), before “licensee”, insert “exclusive”.(7) Schedule 1, item 98, page 33 (line 14), before “licensee”, insert “exclusive”.(8) Schedule 1, item 100, page 34 (line 33), before “licensee”, insert “exclusive”.(9) Schedule 1, item 100, page 35 (line 9), before “licensee”, insert “exclusive”.(10) Schedule 1, item 100, page 35 (line 14), before “licensee”, insert “exclusive”.(11) Schedule 1, item 100, page 36 (line 27), before “licensee”, insert “exclusive”.(12) Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 10), at the end of item 101A, add: (10) In the definition of infringing copy in subsection 10(1) as that definition has effect for the purposes of this section, the expression “article” has the meaning given by subsection (9) of this section.(13) Schedule 1, item 111, page 47 (line 13), omit “broadcasts”, substitute “copies”. (14) Schedule 1, item 112, page 47 (line 25), after “such”, insert “a copy of”.(15) Schedule 1, item 112A, page 47 (line 32), after “body, of”, insert “a copy of”.(16) Schedule 1, item 114, page 49 (line 6), omit “broadcasts”, substitute “copies”.(17) Schedule 1, item 114A, page 49 (line 15), omit “broadcasts”, substitute “copies”.(18) Schedule 1, item 114D, page 50 (line 14), omit “broadcasts”, substitute “copies”.(19) Schedule 1, item 115AB, page 51 (line 1), omit “broadcasts”, substitute “copies”.(20) Schedule 1, item 182, page 69 (lines 15 and 16), omit the item.(21) Schedule 2, item 3, page 94 (line 33), omit “appearing in it”.16:48:0019305Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move: That the amendments be agreed to. This is a historic occasion for Australian copyright law. The passage of the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 2000 places Australia among the world leaders in online copyright reform. The bill implements the most significant package of reforms to the Copyright Act since it was first enacted in 1968. The reforms will update Australia's copyright standards to meet the challenges and harness the opportunities presented by rapid developments in communications technology, especially the Internet.The bill will promote the growth of the information economy by providing exceptions for access to online copyright material for research and education institutions which are vital to promoting innovation in the information economy. At the same time, the bill provides copyright owners with tools they need to allow them to commercially exploit their intellectual property in the digital age. Tough new enforcement measures will also help copyright owners to combat online piracy.In developing this legislation, the government has given all relevant interests extensive opportunities to put their view and comment on the proposed reforms. The bill we are considering now represents the culmination of that exhaustive consultation process. While no interest group will be completely happy with every aspect of the bill, I am confident that the government has achieved the best possible outcome in the interests of all Australians. As I said when the bill was first considered in this place, the government will undertake a comprehensive review of the operation of the legislation, particularly the extended statutory licence scheme for educational institutions and the new enforcement measure provisions, within three years of its commencement. In concluding, I take this opportunity to thank the opposition and the Democrats for their constructive approach to the issues raised by the bill which has ensured its expeditious package. I also express again my thanks to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for its thorough report on the bill late last year. This bill brings Australian copyright law into the 21st century. Its passage represents a key milestone in the successful development of our information economy.16:50:0019305McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition will support these amendments. In so doing, we note that a number of amendments moved by the opposition in the Senate were not approved by the Senate. Those amendments that were rejected primarily went to attempting to further strengthen the enforcement measures to prevent the illegal use of circumvention devices. These are devices to get around fee gateways or other restrictions on access to some particular publication or computer software.We believe that those amendments would have strengthened the enforcement regime but, nonetheless, we agree to this bill going forward with the current measures in place. We say that this area in particular requires close examination because if there is evidence that the current measures are not sufficient to protect piracy then they will need to be strengthened.It is particularly important because we agree with the Attorney that the area of electronic commerce, electronic communications and indeed computer software is a very significant potential industry—it is already a significant industry for Australia, but it has great potential for the future. Unless we have the capacity to protect our software and our intellectual property then the profitability of that industry will be at risk. So we say that that, in particular, is a very important matter. We also note that the opposition's amendments in respect of giving recognition to directors having an intellectual property right for their part in creating works were also rejected by the Senate. However, we note that the government, during the course of these negotiations, has given certain commitments about advancing that issue. And while that is not the outcome that the opposition desired in terms of our amendments being defeated, we do agree that the measures foreshadowed are an appropriate way of advancing that issue.Overall, we also agree with the government that this will not satisfy any particular interest group entirely and indeed, if it did, the wrong balance would have been achieved. We think that overall the balance struck between the interests of copyright owners and copyright users is appropriate. We also agree with the government that technology in this area is moving at such a rapid pace that a review is appropriate. Like the government, the Labor Party has also committed itself to a review. If we are elected to office at the next election, we will have the review within the first 12 months of that occurring. But we think that the approach taken in the development of this legislation has been sophisticated and, as I said during the second reading debate, if you have good procedures you are likely to end up with good policy. I think any student of political science wanting to look at how legislation should be advanced could do worse than to study the developments in this particular area. It would show how, over a long period of time, expert advice and consultation with the public and relevant interest groups has been sought, followed by the parliamentary committee procedure and then the negotiation procedure through the two houses of parliament. I think it is a good outcome and an example of how our parliamentary system can work well.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees19306193061930604:55:0019306Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 28 August 2000. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. I ask leave of the House to move that the report be adopted in lieu of the report presented on 15 August 2000.Report—by leave—adopted.193061930616:52:0019306Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the 18th report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.Bills19306R112119306Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.19306Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Committees19306193061930616:57:0019306Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I 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 at Delamere Range and RAAF Base Tindal, Northern Territory.The Department of Defence proposes to undertake development of range support facilities at Delamere Range and RAAF Base Tindal, Northern Territory. To exploit better the potential of the Delamere air weapons range to test personnel and equipment, government approval was given in 1994 to investigate and purchase appropriate air combat training systems equipment. Associated with the equipment acquisition is a requirement for facilities enhancements at Tindal and Delamere, including briefing and administrative accommodation, maintenance and storage facilities, prepared sites for equipment and new domestic accommodation at the range. The proposed scope of works supports this new equipment. The Delamere works include: minor refurbishment to, and a number of general works at, the range control centre; construction of up to five sites on the range for relocatable electronic signal emitters; construction of one site in the buffer zone for relocatable electronic signal emitters; construction of up to four sites located on adjacent properties for relocatable electronic signal emitters; an upgrade of existing roads; an extension of the optic fibre cable network; construction of new domestic facilities; and construction of a maintenance facility for ground support equipment and electronic signal emitters.RAAF Base Tindal works include construction of a briefing and planning building and an adjoining electronic equipment maintenance and storage facility. The briefing, planning and administrative area of approximately 1,000 square metres will include a briefing capability for up to 100 personnel. The maintenance and storage area will cover some 270 square metres. The facility will accommodate 13 permanent staff and cater for operational aircrews. The proposed new facility is to be constructed in an operational support zone at Tindal where it will best support the regular users of the facility. There are no existing facilities available to meet this need. The estimated out-turn costs of the proposal is $18.5 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will start in mid 2001 and be completed by August 2002. I commend the motion to the House.17:01:0019307Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I also want to support the proposition that the development of range support facilities be investigated by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. I want to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the fact that, as outlined in our military justice report, a most unfortunate incident occurred at RAAF Base Tindal. It cost the Commonwealth many dollars. I hope the Joint Committee on Public Works is familiar with that report.I am sure it is a matter of concern to the parliamentary secretary that such a significant report on military justice, in part dealing with what occurred at RAAF Base Tindal, has yet to be responded to by the government. I do not want to score any political points because I think, essentially, when you present a radical report on military justice, involving a lot of recommendations, you do want a considered response from the government.Unfortunately, military justice is a difficult area. I certainly hope that the parliamentary secretary would be concerned if we had an incident like the one in 3RAR occurring at RAAF Base Tindal. Should such an incident occur, unlike with 3RAR, I hope that the government would be most open and frank about any investigations that would occur and that in fact it would inform the committee inquiring into the matter. In this case it would be the Public Works Committee; in 3RAR's case it was of course the defence subcommittee.I think that, when we get unfortunate incidents like this, in some ways the minister is caught on the hop, but you have to come clean and cop a bit of flak. But rest assured that in defence matters, whether it is this particular proposal or another, we can come together in a very bipartisan way—as I think the defence subcommittee has proved over the years—and sit down to try to tackle the problems. Covering up is not a solution; sitting on your hands is not a solution. I just hope that, if the Public Works Committee did uncover anything in its examination of this matter, the facts would not be dribbled out in the way they have been in this unfortunate case of brutality in 3RAR. 17:04:0019308Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—The honourable member for Chifley's contribution bore a very tenuous connection to the motion of referral to the Public Works Committee. I dare say that, if he wanted to take those matters up with that committee, he could. I commend the motion to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.193081930817:05:0019308Mr SLIPPER,MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I 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.The Department of Defence proposes to undertake environmental remediation of the former submarine base at Neutral Bay in Sydney. The 1.8 hectare site was used as a gasworks from 1876 until gas production ceased in 1931. The Commonwealth acquired the site in 1942 for naval operations. In 1967, it was commissioned as HMAS Platypus—the eastern Australia base for the Oberon class submarines. It also accommodated a submarine school and the Royal Australian Navy torpedo maintenance engineering facility. In 1995, in anticipation of the introduction into service of the new Collins class submarines to be based in Western Australia, the site was declared surplus to requirements. Berthing for the Collins class submarines when in Sydney will be provided at Garden Island. HMAS Platypus continued operations until was it was formally decommissioned in May 1999.From 1995 until earlier this year, contamination testing of the site was undertaken in parallel with comprehensive land use planning studies to determine the future use of the property once it became vacant. In October 1998, the New South Wales Land and Environment Court approved the future residential use for the site. However, a condition of the approval is that development of the land be substantially commenced within five years—that is, by 13 October 2003.Contamination investigations have confirmed that the site is highly contaminated primarily from its use as a gas works but remediation should eliminate the possibility of future liability of the Commonwealth for contamination on the site. It will enable a contaminated land auditor to certify that the remediated land is suitable for the future land use and enable the land to be sold. Earlier this year, in conjunction with the Public Works Committee, the Department of Defence engaged a remediation contractor, Thiess Environmental Services, to design the remediation solution for the site. The outcome of this initial process was presented to the committee in June this year and, subsequently, the committee asked that the project be referred to it for consideration and report to parliament. The proposed works have been designed to reflect the highest environmental standards of the Commonwealth and essential components include demolition of all buildings and structures, excavation, backfilling and compaction of clean fill material, treatment and disposal of contaminated material and treatment of contaminated ground water. The estimated out-turn cost of the proposed works is $16.5 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, the first phase of the works will commence later this year with the objective of having remediation complete by December 2002. The intention to complete the works by this date will satisfy the deferred commencement condition imposed by the Land and Environment Court by enabling the site audit statement to be issued and the site to be sold in time for the purchaser to commence development prior to 13 October 2003. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative.193081930810000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Hutchins has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Bills19309R92619309Debate resumed. 17:09:0019309Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—Prior to question time when I commenced speaking on the Family Law Amendment Bill 1999, I had indicated to the House that the Family Law Act was constructed on two fundamental principles: firstly, the centrality or importance of family; and, secondly, the rights and obligations of spouses both during marriage and upon its dissolution. I was going on to point out that the central importance of family is in fact explicitly recognised in section 43 of the act. The section provided in its original form that, in making any adjudication, the court must have regard to the following factors: first, the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; secondly, the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children; thirdly, the need to protect the rights of children and to promote their welfare; and, fourthly, the means available for assisting parties to marriage to consider reconciliation or the improvement of their relationship to each other and to the children of the marriage. I note that these provisions were accorded considerable weight in the parliamentary debates at the time prior to the introduction of the Family Law Act.The other pillar of the Family Law Act is reflected in the replacement of the grounds of divorce based on matrimonial fault with a single ground—namely, the breakdown of marriage, evidenced by a 12-month separation of the parties. Two decades after the introduction of the act the divorce of the parties remains the operational basis of the legislation. It is doubtful, however, that we have entirely removed fault from the resolution of family relations consequent on marriage breakdown. While the proportion of the divorces that are fully litigated is in the minority, conflicts over finances, property, the care and parenting of children, access and child support remain substantial. In particular, I think all members of this House could attest to the ongoing conflicts over access and child support. They remain an area in which former spouses have ongoing, sometimes chronic, disputes in which fault and retribution are common factors. However, family law in Australia has been evolving. In a series of measures, the notion of personal responsibility, as determined by the parties themselves, has been strengthened. First, there has been considerable growth in the use of mediation as an alternative to litigation. Secondly, there has been the encouragement for parents to voluntarily enter into plans for the care of their children. Thirdly, the Attorney-General has introduced this legislation to allow couples both before and during a marriage to make binding financial agreements about property. This has already occurred for couples in de facto unions. In New South Wales, under the De Facto Relationships Act, and in Victoria, under the Property Law Act, couples have been able to enter legally binding agreements for more than 10 years about property settlements. The notion of marriage as a contractual agreement is reflected in the language of the change. Indeed, the Attorney-General's discussion paper on property and family law speaks of marriage as `an economic partnership as well as a social relationship'.These developments are part of a growing trend towards allowing people to be able to make their own agreements about their marriages and the consequences upon their breakdown. Similar developments are occurring in reforms to child support legislation. When implemented, these arrangements in this bill will enable couples to voluntarily determine many of the arrangements for their own marriage, including their respective rights and responsibilities should the terms be breached and the contract broken. This establishes, I believe, a new principle of responsibility. Currently, many parties to a marriage are barely aware of the range of financial, social and emotional commitments, much less have any say as to where ongoing responsibility lies should one or other party decide to divorce. The development of private ordering in family law has been resisted by some on the grounds of the suggested power imbalance between the parties. Hence, Alexander writes: Private ordering merely replicates existing power imbalances between parties and fails to challenge or redress underlying inequities. It provides informal privatised justice whereby women reach agreements from a base of unequal bargaining power and lack of knowledge of financial matters and legal entitlements. The private and closed context of such agreements precludes any meaningful evaluation of the process or of any outcomes and ensures protection away from public debate and legal scrutiny.While opponents of private ordering—such as Alexander in that passage which I quoted—acknowledge that many of the deficiencies they perceive in mediation also exist in litigation, they contend that only litigation has formal safeguards in terms of public and judicial standards, disclosure and scrutiny.I am pleased to note that specific provisions of the bill before the parliament address these concerns. While the bill allows people to make binding financial agreements about the division of property on marriage breakdown, there is no requirement to do so. For these agreements to be binding, each party will be required to obtain independent legal or financial advice or both as to the effect of the agreement before concluding it. Courts will still be able to set aside the agreement in circumstances where, for example, it was obtained by fraud, duress or undue influence or where there has been a significant change in the circumstances that would make it unfair to give effect to the agreement. For example, in the supplementary explanatory memorandum it is clearly set out that the amendments in the bill before the House provide that the advice of a legal practitioner will be mandatory in all cases. It also protects the interests of third parties where a financial agreement has been terminated by giving the court jurisdiction to make orders with respect to that property no longer covered by the financial agreement.The bill expands the grounds for setting aside of binding financial agreements in two ways. Firstly, the reference to fraud is clarified so that the term expressly includes the non-disclosure of property and financial resources and, secondly, the phrase `exceptional circumstances relating to the care, welfare and development of a child of the marriage' is being replaced with the phrase `a material change in circumstances being circumstances relating to the care, welfare and development of a child of the marriage'. This new approach is made on the basis that agreements made prior to marriage may have been made when there were no children. This will require the court to make a finding as to whether having responsibility for children brings about a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant the court to set the agreement aside. There are also provisions in the bill to provide for determination by the court of issues of the validity, enforceability and effect of binding financial agreements. Subsection 87(11) makes provision for proceedings on the validity, enforcement and effect of approved maintenance agreements to be determined according to the principles of law and equity, and there is no reason similar provision should not be made in respect of the new financial agreements. Common law and equitable doctrines of particular relevance to binding financial agreements include: mistake rectification, fraudulent, negligent and innocent misrepresentation, collateral contract, estoppel and damages for breach.These developments reflect, if you like, the evolution of family law in Australia. It is not simply something which has been static, set in stone, in terms of the Family Law Act; there has been the evolution that I have described briefly in this contribution to the debate. These developments reflect, in a sense, developments which also are occurring overseas, particularly in endeavours to encourage stable marriages. In the United States, at least 20 states have introduced bills to change divorce laws, either by extending waiting periods, repealing no-fault divorce, mandating counselling or encouraging pre-marriage education. In Louisiana, the first state to pass such a law, couples can choose between the existing marriage regime based on no-fault divorce and a new form of covenant marriage. The covenant marriage requires couples to swear that they will live together for ever as husband and wife. The partners must disclose to each other everything which would adversely affect their decision to marry. Both must sign a notarised affidavit swearing that they have talked about the nature, purposes and responsibilities of marriage during their premarital counselling, and they are legally required to seek marital counselling if problems arise in their marriage. There are also provisions under which couples may divorce, nonetheless, in the Louisiana legislation. The Florida legislature has passed a Marriage Preparation and Preservation Act which mandates high school courses on marriage and relationship skill based education, encourages pre-marital education through financial incentives and requires parent education and family stabilisation programs upon filing for divorce. There are proposals before many legislatures at a state level in the United States to introduce one or other of these new models or a combination of them. Kathleen Walters concluded in an article on this subject recently the following:It is still too early to tell what the outcomes of these developments will be for the United States. Will the Louisiana legislation be the fore-runner of a national movement, just as the 1969 California law changed divorce laws throughout the country? Louisiana State University Professor Katherine Spaht, who drafted the law, has had inquiries from 12 other states about similar legislation. Alternatively, it may lead to further concentration on strategies to prevent unstable marriages happening in the first place. One thing is certain: the nation is set for a long debate and experimentation about ways to strengthen marriage and family life. As Ira Lurvey, past-president of the American Bar Association Family Law Section says: `Society is dissatisfied with the way things are now.'I note that other nations are also looking beyond divorce. In the United Kingdom, the Blair government announced in its green paper entitled `Supporting Families' a proposed 15-day cooling-off period before marriage and legally binding pre-nuptial agreements in a series of sweeping proposals. The paper also proposed an enhanced role for civil registrars, including new pastoral and counselling functions and a national parenting and family institute. In Ireland, the Commission on the Family has proposed a range of measures to support marriage and family life. It is likely, I believe, that these developments will continue to gather impetus in coming years.I rise this afternoon to support the bill before the House because I believe it is one more step in a process of evolution of family law in Australia; one which I think—going back to my original remarks—seeks to support one of the pillars which undergird family law in Australia; namely, a sense of encouraging responsibility between the parties to a marriage. Yes, the parties do have rights, particularly in terms of ending a marriage and being able to obtain a divorce but, as we know, in the 25 years since the Family Law Act has been in operation, tragically the divorce rate has continued to rise. I do not think anybody favours more divorces than are absolutely necessary in society, particularly given the consequences for children. This has been borne out by a whole series of social science research, particularly over the last decade. Therefore, what we can do to encourage a situation that will bring about more stable marriages and family life must, I believe, be for the good of society as a whole. Debate (on motion by Mr Price) adjourned.Adjournment19311Motion (by Dr Stone) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1931117:23:0019311Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I want to talk tonight about the great tax adventure that is going so well for the government, the great tax adventure that was introduced so smoothly and that the public is so happy about! This fantasy may be in the minds of some opposite, but it does not seem to be the reality for those in my electorate. Over the break I have had the opportunity to hear loud and clear the views of those in my electorate about the GST. The one I liked the best comes from the restaurateur in my electorate whose clientele are refusing to pay the GST component of their bills. While they are happy to pay for the food, they will not pay the GST, and he is asking, `Should I call the police on the matter?' But without doubt the most commonly asked question has been about the aged persons savings bonus and the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus. The complete confusion and misleading nature of these supposed compensation measures has resulted in over 50 queries to my office in the last few weeks and generated much anger amongst those who feel dudded by the government's promises. In my seat of Chisholm I have a significant number of people over the age of 60, with over 7,112 persons in receipt of the age pension and probably as many, if not more, self-funded retirees.The following examples paint their concerns. Mr and Mrs Terella are aged 74 and 65. They rang to ask why they only received bonuses of $432 and $417, respectively. They, like many others, were angry because they were promised $1,000 from the government. Mr Sibly is a 57-year-old self-funded retiree who does some casual work at the AEC which earns him about $3,000 to $4,000 a year, so his income is well under $20,000 a year. Mr Sibly accepted the government's promises he would not be worse off and that he would be compensated for any increases caused by the GST—not so. Mr Sibly is not entitled to any compensation. He will not get a tax cut or any supplementary bonus, but his insurance and gas, et cetera, have gone up. His one indulgence, of doing some flying, is now totally out of the question. How is Mr Sibly being assisted? The ATO told him he could complain to his local member.Mr Hallas is another constituent who has written, not on his own behalf but on behalf of his aged aunt. I have had a lot of people ringing up on behalf of others. He says:As I have Enduring Power of Attorney over her affairs I checked her bank book today to see if she had been paid this bonus. Apart from regular entries of her aged pension there was another entry on 12 July 2000 ... $85.000 deposit.I then rang Centrelink enquires ... to find out what this payment was. I was informed that this was in fact the bonus, so I then asked why it was so small when my aunt had savings in excess of $19,000. I was then informed that this was because she had not regularly updated Centrelink as to what her savings were and that as she had not bothered to inform Centrelink before 30 June 2000 of this amount of savings she would only be paid this amount, though she might have this increased if she appealed to the Taxation Department.I believe that this miserable mean spirited government has deliberately not informed elderly people of this requirement to update their Centrelink records so that they can cheat pensioners out of money that is rightfully theirs. We had the glossy brochures that told us nothing and then the useless television advertisements that also had no meaningful information in them. In fact the only correspondence my aunt received from the government was a form that she had to fill in indicating whether she was required to submit a tax return for the last financial year.So much for this wonderful $1,000. I have had several other constituents who have rung to say the administration of the whole thing is a complete mess. One person has rung the ATO in excess of five times just to get a form sent to him. It has now taken in excess of three weeks for the form to arrive. He told me quite happily the other night, though, that it has finally turned up. Mr Bill Gillespie is another individual who has been constantly contacting my office, and I think he is probably better informed on this whole debate than anybody else I know. He has asked the government:Will the Government take action to compensate those Self Funded Retirees on a Part Pension who have missed out on being able to apply for the $2000 GST Bonus because they were not adequately informedor not informed in sufficient timeon the details relevant to the fact that they possibly had an option to cancel their April/May/June Pension payments, thus allowing them to qualify to participate in the $2000 GST Bonus Scheme.These older Australians rely heavily upon the publication of the “Age Pension News” to receive important information regarding Pension benefits and changes to taxation etc. However, the March/April 2000 issue which contained details on the GST Bonus—was not released until after they should apply. He continued:... Under these circumstances will the Government recognize their poor management in not properly advising Self Funded Retirees on a Part Pension in these matters—and do something to rectify this problem. To back this up, the editor of the Age Pension News has included in the June-July issue an apology for the delay in sending out the March-April edition, and advice to another constituent from Mr Costello's office is that it is possible to cancel your pension for three months and then claim the $2,000 bonus. So the information has been given but certainly not in time. (Time expired)1931317:22:0019313Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Mr Speaker, the matter I wish to raise in the parliament tonight concerns your electorate, as it does all of our electorates, but I want to specifically refer to my electorate of Herbert. I have been very concerned, genuinely concerned, about the ongoing way the reports of electoral fraud have been damaging my city of Townsville and the sister city of Thuringowa. This particular problem of electoral fraud has been going on year after year after year. There are these constant allegations and constant problems. Three members of the Labor Party have been through the courts in Townsville. As recently as last week a member of the Labor Party was sent to jail for electoral fraud.The problem for my city is that these ongoing concerns are taking the good news off the front page of the newspapers. I am certainly very concerned for the sake of my community. Townsville-Thuringowa is a community that should be going forward. It is a community of people that try to work together, but the community is being continually blighted by these fresh allegations and these fresh problems that are coming up all the time. But for all of us in this place there is an easy solution. Proposed changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act to tighten up enrolment procedures are currently being opposed by a number of state governments, notably the Queensland Labor government. The federal government is trying to tighten up the procedures on enrolment with two simple ways to prevent electoral fraud: firstly, to require that enrolment forms be witnessed by a person from a prescribed list of people, comparable to what happens with passport applications, and, secondly, to require that official or original identification be produced and shown to the AEC officer or their agent.The fact is that my local video shop and yours, Mr Speaker, has tougher rules to prevent fraud than does the Commonwealth Electoral Act at this stage. It is ludicrous that I am required to produce identification to hire a video, yet I can enrol to vote and have a direct say in who the government of the day should be without having to produce any identification at all. That has been the source of these particular problems, with the fraud that has been going on with the electoral roll in Townsville. I do not understand why the Labor Party continues to oppose toughening up these enrolment procedures.What does the Queensland government have to say? Yesterday I read in the Courier-Mail that the Attorney-General, Matt Foley, had asked the Queensland electoral commissioner to examine the matter. But why bother? We know the solution: proof of identity. That would solve the problem. What other possible way is there to prove that you are who you are when you enrol? What other possible simpler way is there to prevent enrolling people at false addresses? Of course it is proof of identity. Labor know this and yet it occurs. There are these ongoing, year after year, abuses of the electoral roll—yet they choose not to support the government or the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in putting in place mechanisms that can go a long way to remove this temptation for their own party members to commit electoral fraud.What is the reason that Labor give to avoid tightening enrolment provisions? They stand there with their hands on their hearts and they say it could potentially disenfranchise young voters from enrolling. What a load of rubbish! I bet if I was an 18-year-old and I was asked to prove my identity to the local video shop or the local pub, I would pull out of my wallet or purse an original ID. Where were Labor when pubs and clubs started asking for proof of ID cards to gain entry? They did not oppose it. Did they claim that this measure would disenfranchise thousands of young people from going down the road to the local for a drink or to hire a video? No, they did not. But when it comes to one of the most civic of civic duties—enrolling to vote—what an outrage that we do not have the integrity in the role that we should do. They say how dare the Electoral Commission ask for ID. It is not on—the state Labor government should clear the way for the government to get this roll mess fixed up and to stop these continuing allegations of electoral fraud. 1931417:33:0019314Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I rise in the House this evening on behalf of a group of battlers in my electorate of Fowler. These battlers have sought my representation to express their anger, frustration, despair and confusion about the government's so-called age pension bonus. These people have been battlers all their lives. They have never asked for handouts from governments. They have paid their fair share of taxes over the years and they have contributed to the wealth of our nation, but they have been consistently provided with obstacles to thwart any material progress. And once again the Howard government has placed another obstacle in front of them. What angers me most about the age pension bonus scheme is that in practice it is nothing like the original proposal by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in the months leading up to the 1998 election, travelled around the country promising the aged that, upon the implementation of the GST to compensate them for the increased cost of living, all—I repeat all—age pensioners over the age of 60 would receive a one-off bonus of $1,000.We will never know what impact this promise had on the result of the 1998 election, but it might be fair to say that the government would have received more votes than not for making that promise—a promise which upon return to government they clearly had no intention of keeping. Fiscally it would have been a disaster, especially under the Treasurer's loose fiscal policy. But this government only intend to throw dollars at consultants and misleading advertising campaigns rather than looking after the very people who have made Australia what it is today. It is this cynical political opportunism that provides all politicians with a bad name in the eyes of the electorate. The `Honest John' tag must again rest uneasily on the small shoulders of a Prime Minister who has created a new piece of political jargon with `core' and `non-core' promises. Obviously this was a non-core promise.However, this does not fix the situation whereby over 40 per cent of pensioners over the age of 60 will not receive a cent of the bonus. Why? Because they had the temerity to have no savings and investment income. Can any fair-minded person please explain to me how those who are better off and more capable of dealing with the increased costs of the GST receive a form of compensation while those on the bottom rung of the income scale obtain nothing at all? If this is not one of the most inequitable policies of our time then I am a poor judge. But that is how the Howard government works. If you are poor, you will have to suffer more. This is a Calvinist approach to public policy that was relevant to the unenlightened times of 16th century Europe rather than to the dawn of the 21st century. Forget about the 1950s with this Prime Minister; his philosophy is in the 1500s.I have been asked to forward a letter from one of my constituents to the Prime Minister. Mrs Edwyna Simpson is a typical Aussie battler. She has worked hard as a single mother to bring up eight children. She has never put her hand out. She has struggled hard to provide whatever she could to her children. But Mrs Simpson is one of the battlers who have not received a cent—because she is a battler. I will conclude with some of Mrs Simpson's words:I ... Sir have had to bring up 8 children on my own and without any of the benefits that are given so freely now. I am now 65 in very poor health, and would have liked to put that money away for my funeral. I have no savings or investments. How could I? Are people in my position being punished for not having money, for being poor?I am afraid, Mrs Simpson, that, in the eyes of this Prime Minister, yes, you are.1931417:38:0019314Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I bring to the attention of the House this evening the fact that next week, 20 to 26 August, is annual Deafness Week in Western Australia. It is a national event, although I believe it is named Hearing Awareness Week in states other than Western Australia. I have been honoured with a request to launch Deafness Week this Sunday in my electorate at the Western Australian Institute for Deaf Education in Mosman Park, and there will be a series of events to mark Deafness Week throughout the following days. The very serious purpose of the week is to build awareness within the community of hearing difficulties, deafness and hearing loss or impairment. The theme of this year's Deafness Week is `Beyond the sound barrier', and I am aware of some extraordinary stories of achievement from the past year in Western Australia which demonstrate that the aptly named sound barrier is being broken. These are stories that we will celebrate next week. Silence is not always golden. Dr John Byrne, Treasurer of the Deafness Council, has long been concerned about the inaccessibility of captioned new release films. Thanks to the efforts of Dr Byrne and others, there has recently been a trial of captioned movies in Melbourne and Sydney. Hoyts in Western Australia have agreed to screen a captioned version of The Perfect Storm during Deafness Week, as a practical demonstration of captioning. This is a fine and much appreciated service for the hearing impaired. There is also positive news from the University of Western Australia, where new Masters and PhD courses in clinical audiology have commenced, with the support and assistance of the Deafness Council, Australian Hearing, Western Hearing Services and the Department of Health—and I want to mention the work of Dr Robert Patuzzi.Western Australia is also fortunate to have within its medical community Dr Harvey Coates, a paediatric otorhinolaryngologist. His personal efforts, together with the Lions Club of Western Australia and the Deafness Council, have helped to establish the Garnett Passe and Rodney Williams Foundation Professorship in otolaryngology at the University of Western Australia. The University has brought home to Perth Dr Marcus Atlas from New South Wales to fill this important inaugural position. With audiology and otolaryngology programs co-located at the same university, Western Australia is now at the forefront of Australian hearing research and instruction.Dr Coates has also been a long-time advocate of addressing the issue of ear disease in Aboriginal communities, and I am pleased to inform the House that his work has been assisted by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council as well as from the federal minister for education, the Hon. Dr David Kemp. Dr Coates is a dynamo in this field. He has also been a prime mover in the community effort to establish the Western Australian neonatal hearing screening program, the first of its kind in Australiaindeed, the first of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere. To date, the screeners at the five major birthing hospitals in Perth are testing half of the children born in the metropolitan area, and almost 3,000 children have been tested so far. Dr Coates is a very strong advocate of the importance of neonatal hearing screening, especially in the educational development of young children. Widespread screening has the capacity to not simply lower the age at which hearing difficulties are diagnosed but also increase the range of hearing loss detected.Deafness or hearing impairment affects not only a child who is deaf but also the child's family, friends and teachers. Some children are identified at birth or within the first few months of life as having hearing loss or deafness, but many who have these impairments are not. Each child is unique and there are many ways to provide communication skills and education for deaf and hearing impaired children. The earlier deafness or hearing loss is identified, the better chance a child has to acquire language, whether spoken or signed. In that regard, I mention the very valuable service provided to hearing impaired children and their families at the Speech and Hearing Centre in Wembley and the centre's commitment to early intervention.There are a number of events planned for Deafness Week in Western Australia, including seminars on deafness projects in Indonesia, the Better Hearing Australia `Clear speech' awards, free screenings, and open days at the Western Australian Institute, the Mosman Park School for Deaf Children, the Early Intervention Centre and the Cottesloe School for Deaf and Hearing-impaired Children. This year the Western Australian Foundation for Deaf Children is working together with the Deafness Council to promote Deafness Week. The foundation has been one of the quiet achievers in deafness, providing excellent support to the teacher of the deaf training program at the Western Australian Institute of Deaf Education and to the education department's visiting teacher service. I call upon all members of the House to join in celebrating Deafness Week. (Time expired)1931617:43:0019316McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I would like to share with the House tonight some information about a wonderful club in my electorate, the Trigg Island Surf Lifesaving Club. I think that it is important that the House is always reminded of the wonderful role played by the surf lifesaving movement in Australia, particularly in keeping our beaches safe. The Trigg Island Surf Lifesaving Club is a particularly wonderful and proactive club—it has doubled its membership in five years. The club is led by the President Barry Cheers, the Vice President David Hamilton and the Club Captain Brian Campbell. The list of club participants and office bearers in training and in running the club's activities takes up two pages in its annual report. But I would like to mention the junior activities team, led by Warren Vanalopulos; the Director of Youth Development, Norm Waldeck; the administration team, led by Vicki Motteram; the finance team, led by Drew Fisher and David Somers; the social activities team, led by Vanessa Barby, who had a wonderful, financially active year and kept the club coffers well filled through its activities; the Director of Lifesaving, Glenn Buck, and his team; the education team, led by Russel Fishwick; the coaching and competition team, led by Carolyn Whiting; and the sponsorship team, led by Michael Rae.I am proud to be a vice-patron of the Trigg Island Surf Lifesaving Club, and I would like to read you some wonderful highlights from its annual report. The Club Captain, Brian Boots Campbell, says:What can I say about the 99/00 season! The Trigg Island Surf Lifesaving Club has proven it is the leader in Surf Lifesaving in W.A.To win four back to back State Titles shows the depth and strength the Club has.On the subject of registrations, the junior activities report comments:Enquiries for club membership continue to exceed the number of members we can facilitate and although we continue not to advertise, open enrolment days see a significant number of people arrive very early in the morning hoping they can join their children in the most progressive and best club in Western Australia.This club demonstrates its brilliance in being connected to the community, and it has a very high level of parent as well as junior member participation. The club has also this year gone on the Net. Its Net address is www.surfwa.auscoms. It is a very popular web site, and it averages 40,000 hits weekly of people looking at what the surf is like at Trigg—and the Trigg surf is beautiful. Not only does that highlight the proactiveness of the club; it means that it encourages people to come to the wonderful Trigg Beach because they know they will be safe there. The web site also shows some of the club activities, the teams at work and the juniors practising. People feel safe when they go to Trigg. The director of lifesaving's report up to and including 26 March shows:Rescues—146Preventative Actions—115Assists—55First Aid Cases—333Ambulance Cases—3Searches—2 (both successful)Loss of Life—nilSign on to Patrol—2062Hours Patrolled—7075It is truly a wonderful club. I am very proud of it. During the year, as well as the highlight of doing so well in the state Surf Lifesaving Championships, the club has had some sad moments. I would like to pay respect to John Somers and Archie Black, our friends and fellow members, well respected and fondly remembered, who are no longer with us. This club is wonderful. The surf lifesaving movement is wonderful. I hope the people of Australia take note of this and when they go travelling come and visit Trigg Island. 1931717:47:0019317Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I rise tonight to discuss the lack of mobile phone coverage for my constituents. Since the analog shutdown, there has been a large number of people who do not have any mobile coverage whatsoever and are not likely to have any coverage for at least 12 months. A lot of those people depend on mobile coverage to run their businesses. It is interesting how Telstra runs for cover on some of these issues. The Mayor of Harden Shire, Chris Manchester, is obviously very upset, as are a number of my constituents.In July last year, the mayor was informed that Telstra would be putting up a tower in Harden. Following that, the building site, which was purchased in September last year, was approved by Harden Shire Council, and the Harden Shire Council was led to believe that it was going to be put up in December last year. Now Telstra have abandoned the idea and told council that it is not going ahead at all. I find that reprehensible because Telstra are using the excuse that those people in the Harden Shire area and indeed those between Harden and Boorowa have been getting analog signals accidentally because the signals have been coming to them from outside the designated area for the analog coverage. That may well be so, but I have yet to see any concrete proof.The point that I am making here is that, despite Telstra making that comment, during the last four to five years many of those people have been paying Telstra for the use of that service. In fact, one of my constituents, Mr Ross Flanery, who has a property called Goonawarra at Galong, which is between Harden and Boorowa, used five handpieces to get that analog service and is dependent on mobile phones to run his business. In correspondence to me on 31 July, he made the comment:What is relevant is that a large number of people, including myself, now have no mobile phone coverage whatsoever and according to advice from Telstra ... we are not likely to have any coverage for twelve months or more if at all.I find it unbelievable that Telstra would go to the Harden Shire Council, tell them that they intended to put up a tower, go through the process of purchasing a site at Demondrille—which is within Harden Shire—seek development approval from the Harden Shire Council to put the tower up, have the development approval granted by Harden Shire and then tell them that unfortunately, whilst they may have said the tower was on the short list, they may get a tower but it will not occur until 12 or 18 months down the track.If that is the way that Telstra is treating rural communities in terms of the turning off of the analog system and the switching over to the CDMA network, one can understand why there is considerable angst and anger coming from many of the rural backbenchers about this issue and why there is talk of the backbenchers making amendments to the act to make telecommunications carriers such as Telstra responsible for ensuring that communities that had some means of communication through the old mobile system get a replacement mobile system which allows them to carry on their businesses as they have done over the last four or five years of the analog system.I can assure Telstra that this issue is not going to go away. If they want some adverse publicity, as the member for Hume I will give them plenty of publicity out there in the public arena until such time as they recognise that rural people have a right to expect the telecommunications that many of the urban dwellers in this country take for granted. I thank honourable members for the opportunity to raise this issue in the House tonight. (Time expired)1931717:52:0019317Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—As the Commonwealth of Australia approaches the Centenary of Federation, I rise to recognise the very significant role played in that momentous happening 99 years ago by the residents in regions that went on to be incorporated within the electorate of Kalgoorlie. I recently toured the Kimberley region in the north of my electorate with staff from the Parliamentary Education Office. We visited some 11 schools in a 10-day period and covered something like 3½ thousand kilometres. Amongst the materials that I distributed to the children was a brochure which details the very nature of the campaign by residents of rural Western Australia in general, and of the Goldfields in particular, to participate in federation. With this publication we were able to teach children something of the history of the electorate they are growing up in. The federation referendum in Western Australia would not have been held were it not for the efforts of the widespread secessionist movement which was active in the Goldfields during the latter parts of the 19th century. The petition sent to authorities in London, seeking secession for the Goldfields if federation was rejected in Western Australia, contained more than 27,000 signatures. Its pages had to be glued on to a sheet of calico some two kilometres in length and wound around a drum for the voyage to England. This petition is now on display, of course, here in Parliament House. As a result of this activity, a referendum was organised in Western Australia and held on 31 July 1900, three weeks after Australia's draft Constitution had been ratified by Queen Victoria.It was purely through the votes of country Western Australians that our state joined the federation. In the Goldfields, more than 26,000 supported federation, as opposed to only 1,800 voting against it. In the Kimberley, only one person voted against federation. The inaugural member for Kalgoorlie, Mr John Waters Kirwan of the Free-Trade Movement, which was a non-Labor movement, made reference to this in his maiden speech in the House on 23 May 1901, when he said:... it was entirely owing to the separation movement that Western Australia is now a State of the Union.On 31 July this year, the 100th anniversary of the referendum, the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder celebrated its historic role in Western Australia's participation in the federation. Amongst a whole plethora of events held were a street party; a gala parade, with people all dressed in appropriate period costume; a market day in Burke Street in Boulder, where stalls once again had a heritage and historical flavour to them; the unveiling of a plaque at the Boulder Court House by Kalgoorlie-Boulder Mayor, Mr Paul Robson, to commemorate the role of the Goldfields in securing WA's entry into the federation; and an extremely well-attended event held at the Eastern Goldfields Senior High School, where the topic was Federation and whether or not Western Australia should be part of it.I am happy to say that Western Australia is very much part of the federation today—and very proud to be part, because it is benefiting so greatly. Amongst the issues so extremely topical at this moment is the potential for substantial federal funding for an enormous project referred to as the Kimberley Tidal Power Project. If that project alone were to get up, that would be extremely significant in justifying today Western Australia's participation in the federation we enjoy.1931817:57:0019318Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise tonight in the short time available to talk about the issue of long-term caravan park residents and how they have been duped by this government alleging that its decision of 22 June 2000—to provide $33 million a year in extra rent assistance—would solve the issue of discrimination against these residents. On 22 June, the Leader of the National Party said this in a media release headed `Government provides further help to help long-term caravan park and boarding house residents':These measures announced today, coming on top of the ACCC price monitoring and extensive consultation arrangements announced earlier this week, will particularly help renters in caravan parks and boarding houses ...The National Party itself came out as an organisation and, under the heading `Nationals welcome extra help for caravan park and boarding house residents', said:The Federal President of the National Party, Mrs Helen Dickie, today welcomed the Federal Government's announcement of an additional $33 million rent assistance to low income earners to help those living in caravan parks and boarding houses.She went further:`The Government has produced the goods. The National Party has helped deliver for these residents. Labor has done nothing for them at all,' Mrs Dickie said. Nothing can be further from the truth. Mr Speaker, as you are all too well aware, on 26 June I asked the Parliamentary Library to research some questions and I received an answer on 24 July—an extraordinarily long delay, in my view. What we found was that, of the 161,000 permanent residents of caravan parks, only 3,955 will get one red cent out of this $33 million package—that is, 97 per cent of these residents get nothing at all from the package that was lauded as solving the issue of discrimination because of the failure of the National Party and the government to live up to their promise that there would be no GST on rent.It is not surprising under those circumstances that the minister, as we have seen today, continues to filter questions through his office on these issues. This is a minister who evades, who ducks, who will do anything to hide from the reality that he has misled these residents by saying it would be fixed. First the government said there would be no GST on rent. That was not true. Then they said that somehow they would be better off. That was shown to be not true—which is why they are sitting on the report by Econtech on caravan park residency. This misleading failure to respond to questions is an outrage. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.18:00:0019319House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.2000-08-17—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.54 a.m.Statements by Members193201932009:54:0019320O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I was very concerned to learn some time ago about the death of a young boy in my electorate which resulted from him having access to alcoholic essence which was bought off a supermarket shelf. The whole question was raised about the manufacturers and the supermarkets retailing an alcoholic essence that is not covered by the normal alcohol and excise laws. This is a matter under coronial inquiry in Victoria, so I am limited in what I can say.I raised the matter with the Minister for Health and Aged Care. In answer to a question on notice on 26 June, he gave certain assurances about the process that was under way between the Commonwealth and the states via the ANZFA labelling agreement and also via measures that the Taxation Office was taking to deal with this issue of essences that are available from supermarket shelves.The father of the boy wrote to me yesterday, drawing my attention to an extract which he had just taken off the Internet which is available generally to university students. In general, it is quite a humorous outline written by a university student on how to enjoy university life on a whole range of issues, including things like drinking. When one goes to the section on drinking, one finds that this university student has given the full recipe. Under the heading `How to make cheap piss' it says, `Purchase some Hoyt's alcoholic essences from the grog section of Jewels family supermarket for only AU$5.99.' He goes on to outline the way in which you can make up your own bulk brew of highly alcoholic beverage. You can use coconut—it is called Malibu. You can have vodka—Stolichnaya. You can have coffee, peppermint and aniseed—all of these flavours of essence which can, by a very simple process, be converted into bulk grog.I take this opportunity to express my concern to the parliament that both the minister and the Treasurer and their respective departments have clearly got to move more quickly on this issue. The fact is that we do have a problem with teenage drinking in Australia. It is very clear that, even though this issue is being given attention by the federal and state governments, there is still access to bulk alcohol via the supermarket shelves for young people. I want to draw that to the attention of the parliament.1932009:57:0019320Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I rise today in the Main Committee to pay tribute to the business people of the Sunshine Coast, having regard to the confidence they have shown in creating more jobs for local people. From June 1999 to June 2000, more than 2,000 fewer Sunshine Coast people are receiving unemployment benefits. This is a tremendous result in an area of rapid population growth with a history of high unemployment. In fact, much of our problem on the Sunshine Coast is imported, as people who are unemployed in southern parts of Australia move to what is the most wonderful part of the country in which to live.The most recent Department of Family and Community Services data has built on this result. Over the last month alone, 288 fewer coast people are on the dole. This is a great result for those people who have found work. It is a great result for the Sunshine Coast economy. It is a tremendous reflection of the confidence enjoyed by Sunshine Coast business people and the community at large following the introduction of our new tax system on 1 July. Nationally, we now have the lowest unemployment rate in 10 years, at 6.3 per cent. This is a tribute not only to the success of the government's policies but also to the small business community which is the engine room of the economy and which creates a very large percentage of new jobs. The latest figures also represent another failure on the part of the opposition leader, who predicted on 1 July that the sun would not come up. He has egg on his face. He has a party that is divided and a party which opposes the GST so much that it is going to keep it. The small business community on the Sunshine Coast and in the nation as a whole need to be reminded that the Australian Labor Party and its union backers are not supporting unfair dismissal reforms which would provide more confidence and more jobs.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs Gambaro—Shame!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is a disgrace, as the member for Petrie indicates to the chamber. Labor is holding the country back because of the fact that it is in bondage to the union movement. The Howard government is on the right track. We are doing what needs to be done. It is a pity that the opposition is not prepared to take some firm steps to create job opportunities for unemployed people. We all remember the disastrous dole queues—almost a million people—under Labor. Yet when this government is prepared to be proactive, is prepared to bring in real and meaningful reforms, is prepared to create an environment in which jobs will be created, we continue to be opposed by the troglodytes in the Australian Labor Party. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills19321R112119321Debate resumed from 29 June, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:0019321Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000 gives effect to changes announced as part of the government's 2000-01 budget. I am not sure that some of the measures in this bill will translate into good law and, while not declining to support the bill, we will be reserving our position on these measures and, if necessary, amending them in the Senate.We support the measure which will ensure that Abstudy scheme payments are generally excluded from the income test to achieve equity of treatment for scheme recipients and their partners with that of other income recipients. We also have no problem with the extension of the period for data matching of income details between the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink from two to four years. Labor introduced the concept of data matching and, unlike the punitive measures that make up the government's zero tolerance family policy and its breach first, ask questions later approach to mutual obligation, data matching is a fair way of ensuring that the integrity of the social security system is maintained.There is also a beneficial measure in this bill which seeks, after the social security agreement with the United Kingdom is terminated, to preserve access to entitlements for migrants who became Australian residents on or before 1 March 2000. We support this measure but register our concerns about the impact of the termination of the agreement.Another measure in the bill proposes to allow for 75 per cent, instead of the existing 50 per cent, of the value of a person's interest in farm and business assets to be disregarded under the youth allowance family assets test. This measure is not new to the parliament; it was discussed in a slightly different form during the debate on the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999. I might add that, at that time, the government argued that a more modest version of this measure was too generous and would lead to the children of families with significant assets getting youth allowance. Given the government's opposition to a proposal that would have allowed the discounting of farm assets only during the debate on the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill, it is difficult to understand their rationale for this measure, which discounts not only farm assets but business ones as well. The inclusion of a business assets discount will cost a further $41 million to the budget and, arguably—according to the government's own argument—is not well targeted to those who might be truly asset rich but cash poor, such as farmers. We are therefore reserving our position on this measure. This bill contains a measure that seeks to extend child-care services, for which child-care benefit may be available to include in-home care. While we will be supporting this measure, I would like to make a number of points. The additional funding contained in this measure does not compensate for the funding cuts to child care implemented by the government since 1996. I note that Senator Newman, in all the media last night and today, is perpetrating the lie that there have been no child-care cuts under this government. Peter Costello's budget papers show that child care has been cut by this government to the tune of $850 million, leading to a crisis in the affordability of child care and putting substantial barriers in the way of many welfare recipients attempting to move from welfare to work. So, while the government is desperate to give the impression that it is increasing funding for child care, that is simply not the case. As I said, there have been savage cuts to child care totalling some $850 million, and that has reduced flexibility in the child-care system, as some services have responded to the fall in subsidies by restricting their opening hours and so on. So there are real problems in child care, and this government cannot get away with the fiction that they have no history of savage cuts in this area; they do, and that is well known in the Australian community.The government has not explained why it has introduced in-home care before the completion of its child-care pilots and before the commencement of quality accreditation for family day care. The government is yet to explain how this new care can be affordable if it is to be provided to single or very small groups of children at the same funding level that applies to in-service care with much larger, and therefore cheaper, groups. Of course, Labor supports flexible care subject to quality controls, but we think that a lot more work needs to be done in developing this program, and the government needs to show a great deal more heart—which, to date, has certainly been missing from this government—if it is to make up for the savage cuts it has made to child care generally. While this measure will no doubt be beneficial for some parents, it is simply a drop in the ocean in addressing the lack of affordability of child care in this country.The inclusion of measures in this bill relating to families and to fraud control also provides an opportunity to discuss the government's approach to the administration of family payments. This approach is now completely one of bludgeoning average families, while ignoring tax evaders at the big end of town and other malicious social security fraud. I think it is a signature policy of a government that is certainly weak on the strong, but very strong on the weak. The government's family payments system now forces families to estimate their income to the exact dollar. If they are wrong—that is, if they underestimate their income by just $1—a debt will be raised by this government. That is a zero tolerance family policy. Prior to 1 July, there was a margin of error of 10 per cent. That allowed for the normal fluctuations in family income that come from unplanned overtime or part-time parents being asked to work more hours than usual. But now there is no margin for error. The zero tolerance family policy is a reality. That is why the zero tolerance family policy will be one that, in the coming years, will hurt families on modest incomes who find it very hard to predict their income a year in advance. This is going to cause an enormous amount of pain and distress in the community. A number of these families were on A Current Affair the night before last, explaining their position, because these people are branded as welfare cheats by the government. The figures that it uses in its propaganda about saving money on welfare fraud include the recovery of these overpayments to honest, hardworking families. This measure is one that every member of the government is going to come to regret, because their offices, like my office, will be flooded with complaints from people who are going to be hit by this zero tolerance family policy. While these new zero tolerance rules will have an impact on nearly every family receiving family payments, they do nothing really to pick up genuine cases of fraud. The government's own figures show that only 0.1 per cent of the millions of people receiving payments each year who are audited are convicted of fraud. The last half-yearly report showed that there were 1.1 million reviews undertaken. Of the total reviewed, there were 114,523 payment cancellations or reductions—about 10 per cent. These, as I said before, are mostly due to incorrect payment levels as a result of inaccurate income estimates by recipients or Centrelink errors in the calculation of payments. There are those, however, who deliberately set out to defraud the system. What are the figures when we get to deliberate fraud? From the 1.1 million reviews, there were just 1,347 convictions for welfare fraud, representing 0.1 per cent. In other words, 99.9 per cent of all those reviewed were not rorting the system. I note that a prominent Liberal backbencher, Petro Georgiou, has pointed out that more people win first or second division Tattslotto each year than are caught defrauding the social security system.Who are these debts raised against? Who are the people that are being reviewed and having debts raised against them, that the government brands as welfare cheats and welfare frauds? With respect to the vast majority, it is usually a result of failing to provide an accurate estimate of their earnings. As payments are income dependent, even small variations in incomes result in significant debts. Let us look at the customer groups that Centrelink deals with and the proportion who have debts raised against them. When you come to families, 40 per cent—27,734 families—have debts raised against them. They are the people that are being branded as welfare cheats and frauds. And more of them are going to be caught in the system because of the government's zero tolerance family policy. The average debt raised for a family is $1,057. Many families, even though they have been diligent in advising Centrelink of changes in their circumstances, are still having debts raised against them, and they are branded by this cold-hearted, callous government as welfare frauds. That is what the government thinks of honest, hardworking families. The fact that only 0.1 per cent of all those reviewed are convicted of fraud has not stopped the government implementing a punitive and bureaucratic system that catches hardworking families—and that is what I mean by the zero tolerance family policy. So the savings that the government claims come from cracking down on fraud are really paid off the back of honest families who simply cannot comply with a system that in many ways is designed to deceive them or to catch them. The government is simply using its zero tolerance rules to brand families as welfare rorters.And we are not talking about small change. The average debt raised by the government is about $1,000. That is a lot of money to a family struggling to buy milk. It is a hell of a lot of money for a family struggling to pay for basic school excursions and so on. What is even more absurd is that the repayment of the debt is compulsory in cases where the mistake is Centrelink's—and they can go back three years to demand that the money be returned by the family. This is a cold-hearted measure from a cutthroat government and it is going to cause very much distress across Australian families. This approach is matched by the government's current approach to the breaching of the unemployed. The government's new Preparing for Work Agreement will save $212 million over four years, and this is being achieved not through finding the unemployed jobs but through a punitive system that will likely see one in every two unemployed people breached this year. Basically, this is a US style time limit approach to welfare. We have already got it here. It is already here; the government just does it through its breaching policies. Mr Causley interjecting2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—The member over there says it serves them right.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—Surfing on the North Coast.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—So you think it is fine to breach one in two, do you? You are fully supportive of that? Excellent. Very good. We know that the government believes passionately in this policy and we have had it confirmed by the member for Page.Departmental officials have confirmed that the savings are almost wholly as a result of imposing breaches rather than assisting people to work. Figures provided to the community affairs committee in May revealed 1,500 would be deterred from ongoing benefits, 1,800 would find work sooner and a massive 48,000 would be breached. Like the government's zero tolerance family policy—also supported by the member for Page—this breach first, ask questions later policy with job seekers penalises many honest unemployed people. The government has a trigger-happy minister for employment who shoots first, breaches first, asks questions later. So now it comes in and expects us to think that its intentions might be honourable when it moves to take mutual obligation into disability support pensions and to lone parents when it has this breach first, ask questions later policy for the unemployed. That is the danger in the course that the government may take coming out of the McClure report.What we have is a trigger-happy government that has been more concerned with putting people down than lifting them up. That is why, after four years, there are now 100,000 more children growing up in families where neither parent works. To listen to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business over the media in the last 24 hours, you would think that nothing had occurred in welfare except that things had been reduced, that the number of people on benefits had gone down, that there was some great record of reform. What we have actually had is an explosion in welfare under this government. The benefits of growth are not going down to the bottom because of the government's removal of all the essential capacity building programs—the abolition of the training programs, the cuts to the JET scheme, the cuts to child care. That is why there are now 860,000 children living in families where neither parent works. When you look at the NATSEM report that came out the week before last, using three different measures of poverty in Australia, you find at least another 100,000 children living in poverty in our community and a substantial increase in the number of people living in poverty who are working for very low wages. That is the government's record. The government have not explained why this should be occurring during a time of strong economic growth. Their solution is to get this trigger-happy, breach-first, ask-questions-later type policy rather than to actually go to the core of the problem and make some investments in the programs that will enable people to move from welfare to work.The other thing that is absolutely obscene about the government's approach is that they say that people on high incomes deserve incentives—I think that is probably right: like everybody else, they deserve incentives—so they will drop the top marginal rate of tax to give them incentives. But when it comes to the people on the lowest income, it seems that they do not deserve incentives. They just get punishment; that is what they get. Do people on high incomes respond to incentives and people on low incomes respond only to punishment? After the tax package comes in, there will be the ridiculous situation that, if you are an unemployed person living in Page and you go and work part time, you will be taxed 90 cents in the dollar for every additional dollar earnt. It seems that you do not deserve any incentive. When the government look at the McClure report, they say, `We will consider it all,' but what does the McClure report recommend? It recommends tax credits, incentives for people to move from welfare to work to keep more of the extra dollars they earn.The funny thing is that the minister, after the interim report came out, ruled out tax credits. He came out and said that they were hopeless. Yesterday, in the parliament and in the media, the minister said, `We have an open mind, and we are going to consider implementing all of these measures.' Tax credits were an absolutely essential part of the McClure report, and they have already been ruled out by the minister. I think that gives you some indication of what the government is really up to.The problem we have here is that the government has a trigger-happy, punitive approach when it comes to families and the unemployed. The government expects us to turn around and believe that this approach will not then be transferred to disability support pensioners and lone parents. I certainly hope it is not, because the consequences of its policy in the two areas I have just spoken about have already been very dramatic.Labor has long been on the record for putting forward a positive program of welfare reforms. Tax credits have been essential to that; so has the commitment to training so that we can actually build those bridges from welfare to work. It is very interesting to see that the McClure report also recommended, in addition to tax credits, the work bonus—another policy that we put out that the government rubbished.When you read the McClure report, it is also important to see that it does chronicle the government's responsibility over the last four years for this substantial growth in the number of children living in jobless households and so on. It chronicles the fact that there have been substantial cuts to child care. It talks about the need for investment and capacity building programs, all of which have been taken away—or substantially taken away—in the last few years. They are all important parts of the McClure report, and they do not reflect well on the government. For our part, we will be delighted if the government have some conversion to principles of investment and so on, but unfortunately a leopard does not change its spots. What we want from this government when it comes to welfare reform is an absolute commitment to do the whole package. If they do that, they will have our wholehearted support.10:19:0019325Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—It is a great pleasure to speak on the Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000 this morning. I will go through some of the matters raised by the shadow minister later on, but I now want to talk about the 2000 budget and the raft of measures introduced by the government to assist families. Might I say, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, that this government has been a very family-friendly government.The budget includes an amount of $240 million for the strengthening families and communities strategy; we have introduced tax reform; there is an early intervention, parenting and family relationship support initiative targeting rural and regional areas; and there is $32 million for Vietnam veterans and their families—and I will return to that later on. A particularly important item for my electorate is Ballarat's regional share of the almost $10 million allocated for the establishment of three radiotherapy units in country Victoria. There is also the nationwide $562 million program which will deliver more doctors; a medical specialists outreach program; and the employment of community based allied health professionals where $30 million goes to bush nursing and other non-government hospital services, and nearly $70 million to increase the regional health services program to enable an additional 85 communities to participate. As a result of our wide ranging tax reforms, ordinary families, working Australian families, battling Australian families, are more than $40 to $50 a week better off. There is simplified family assistance—12 payments reduced to three. We have streamlined the process and made it easier. And there is an extra $2.5 billion in family payment benefits, plus $12 billion worth of personal income tax cuts. I am utterly amazed when I hear the shadow minister speak either in this chamber or in the one downstairs. He constantly runs scare campaigns that are designed to affect the most vulnerable in our society. He has not come up with one constructive policy since he took over that position. You cannot articulate policy integrity, as he tries to do, if you have not got any policies. The opposition is absolutely bereft of any policies at all in relation to child care or family assistance—any policy at all—and nor has it any policies in any area. I am sure the honourable member for Page will agree with me that we just sat back and listened in utter amazement to their so-called national convention, conference or talkfest. I do not know what it was called, but I know that it was spectacularly unsuccessful. There was nothing articulated about regional and rural Australia. No policies were articulated at all. Indeed, the opposition candidate in my electorate put out a press release saying that she welcomed the policy renewal of the Labor Party and said, `We now have a comprehensive plan to introduce a comprehensive range of policies.' That was what came out of the national convention.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—A union love-in!XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—That's right, a union love-in, as the member for Page said. Nothing came out of that conference at all. If you notice the way the member for Lilley addresses these matters, he will say, `We do not disagree with any of this,' but then he goes on and starts nibbling away and attacking. He will pull little bits out, but when push comes to shove Labor will not articulate any policy at all. It is very interesting to hear the member for Lilley confirm—and he articulated it again today—that the Australian Labor Party does not believe, as the great bulk of the Australian community does believe, that those who are ripping off the system should be dealt with appropriately. The Labor Party supports welfare fraud, and it does it in two ways. QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPXT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—That is a very constructive interjection! I thought you might have had a bit more substance than that. They support fraud in two ways. One is their past record in relation to welfare fraud, and everything they have said since then quite clearly indicates that they do not believe that welfare fraud should be a matter taken on by this government. They have articulated again today that they certainly will not do it in the unlikely event that they ever get back into power. 84HZahra, Christian, MPXT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—You worry about your seat, my friend, because you have got a lot of problems down there. In relation to the question of funding for child care, we have allocated considerably greater funds than the Labor Party. Indeed, there will be $5.3 billion spent over the four years during the period 2002-03. From July 1996 to December 1999 there was an increase of 189 child-care centres across Australia. In typical fashion, the Labor Party said, `We're not going to oppose this,' but then they ran scare campaign after scare campaign from one end of the country to the other. They originally said that they opposed the removal of operational subsidies for community based long day care centres but they did a little backflip that they did not want to tell people about and they now support it. From June 1996 to December 1999, around 22,000 additional long day care places have been funded by the government. As honourable members will be aware, this bill proposes to broaden the choice of child-care services for which the child-care benefit may be available to include in-home care. The more flexibility and choice in child care initiative will improve families' ability to access and choose child care that meets their needs. It has been a long time coming. It was not delivered under the Labor Party. It is being delivered under this government. For example, shiftworkers, families working non-standard hours and those who have a sick child or live in rural and remote areas without access to care will particularly benefit from this measure. The choice of child-care services will be increased by making in-home care more accessible than it is at present. Indeed, 7,700 new in-home places will become available over the next four years. It is part of the $65.4 million more flexibility and choice in child care initiative under the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy which was recently released by the government.I will go back to the question of welfare rorting. Despite what the member for Lilley said, the great bulk of the Australian people believe in giving people a fair go. But they are also acutely aware that every single dollar that goes out of the system to someone who is not entitled to it is a dollar that is not going to some place where it is deserved. The Labor Party can have a whispering campaign and say, `We actually don't support any crackdown on welfare rorting.' The simple fact is that it is designed to ensure that we have got the funds to do the sorts of things that are in this bill and that were in this year's budget. The Labor Party thinks there is a magic pudding out there. Isn't it a case of history repeating itself—the sort of rubbish that we have heard coming out of the mouths of the opposition leader and shadow ministers in the last week. Then we heard the shadow Treasurer bragging, `We're going to have a bigger surplus than they have.' The Labor Party have got to realise that it is now the year 2000. While they might have been able to pull the wool over people's eyes in the eighties in their approach to government, there is now a very discerning electorate which is not just going to take at face value something that is said. It is amazing the number of people who are now talking about the fact that the only outcome of the last two months of this policy vacuum, apart from some unfunded promises that have no direction, is that taxes will rise. I refer honourable members to an article by Terry McCrann on Monday or Tuesday in the Herald Sun and, I presume, in some of the affiliate papers, about what the promises of the shadow Treasurer are going to mean. They are going to mean an increase in taxation. So the tax cuts that have been delivered by this government are going to be ripped away by the Australian Labor Party.During the 1998-99 financial year, for which the most recent figures are available, Centrelink compliance activities resulted in savings to the Australian taxpayer of around $20.9 million per week. That is not money that is put in a little pot. That is money that actually goes into providing funding for health, roads, schools, hospitals, welfare for those people who genuinely need it, child-care centres, and allowing regional and rural Australia to share in the opportunities that their metropolitan colleagues get. It is about having access to proper medical health services; it is about having access to radiotherapy services; it is about having access to medical specialists.The Australian Labor Party is still citycentric; it still has no understanding of the requirements in regional and rural Australia. That is why, at the national convention or conference farce, there was no mention of regional and rural Australia—no mention at all. Opposition member interjecting—XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—Again, a citycentric interjection from someone who has absolutely no idea how life operates outside Melbourne. Indeed, I am very surprised that the member interjects in relation to health, because under the federal budget—84HZahra, Christian, MPXT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—And I am a bit surprised the member for McMillan is also interjecting. Maybe he does not want radiotherapy services in Gippsland. If you do not want a radiotherapy service in Gippsland, say so now. You don't? You are nodding your head—you do not want it. All right, I will let your constituents know that when you were asked the question you nodded your head; you do not want a radiotherapy service. All right, we will remember that. The difficulty is that when you have people who, for example, have to travel 200 or 300 kilometres to get radiotherapy services, it is not just the person involved, it is their families, it is their workplaces, it is the cost, it is getting out of the car and vomiting five times on the side of the road before you get home after radiotherapy services. The honourable members on the other side laugh about this and interject about it. Well, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the people who have pulled over on the side of the road travelling from Geelong to Ballarat or Geelong to Horsham do not think this is funny.This is about taking money and putting it where it is required. Cracking down on welfare rorting is not about putting money into a little bag; it is about making sure we have got the funds to provide decent services in regional and rural Australia. Indeed, in my own electorate some $253,000 a fortnight is being put back into the public purse where it can be properly utilised. It is not about taking money away from those who do not deserve to get it taken away; it is about those who are taking money out of the pockets of their fellow Australians by abusing a system that is designed to assist people in need.I heard some very interesting comments before about welfare policy. It is very interesting to look back in history and see who has been responsible for major reform in this country. Indeed, as the member for Hinkler will know and greatly supports, it was the government that commissioned the McClure report to see how we were going to take this country forward in terms of the welfare system in the new millennium. Indeed, as you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, what has come out of that, the broad thrust of the recommendations, has been supported by the government. The government will now look at it in great detail and will make announcements in due course.This is not just one isolated instance of the government taking the lead in relation to welfare reform. Indeed, the coalition and its political antecedents have been responsible for most of the major reforms in this country. I can go back to Alfred Deakin in 1908 who was the first to introduce an old age and invalid pension. The years of the Menzies government were a period of concerted, ongoing social reform. The Child Endowment Act was introduced, war pensions were made exempt under the income test, the restrictions on the eligibility of Aboriginal people for special benefits were removed, and a pensioner medical and free medicines program was introduced.The three coalition governments of Holt, Gorton and McMahon produced a number of additional important social reforms. These included: assistance for deserted wives, the introduction of the tapered means test, assistance for Meals on Wheels, the introduction of rent assistance, increases in the rates and scope of allowances, and assistance for people with mental illness. Between 1975 and 1983 the Fraser government was responsible for some of the most important social security reforms seen since Federation. The most notable of these was the replacement of child endowment with a family allowance system. Other reforms included: the automatic indexation of pensions, the abolition of state and gift duties, replacing the means test on pensions with a simpler income test, and the introduction of a new pensioner housing scheme. Indeed, if you look at what has happened under this government in just a short time you will again see that policy reform has taken place—sensible, targeted reform; long-term reform, not dictated to by special interest groups. A comment was made recently and I jotted it down because I thought it was very interesting. I will not mention the member's name—he was not on our side of politics. He said:You guys just get on with it and do it but by the time anything gets around our convoluted system the time has either passed on or we get some half-baked outcome.KV5Neville, Paul, MPXT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—As the member for Hinkler said, `Doesn't that just sum it up beautifully?' Government member—We won't have him garrotted.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—No; that's right. I think the Labor motto is `We have our ways and our means.' If you look at the family and the community services—84HZahra, Christian, MPT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—I think I might take the interjection from the member for McMillan. There has not been one constructive word out of your mouth in the 18 months that you have been here.84HZahra, Christian, MPXT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—You have been Lilleyed, my friend. You ought not to listen to the member for Lilley who runs scare campaign after scare campaign to target the people that he professes to be protecting. 84HZahra, Christian, MPXT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—Every scare campaign run by the member for Lilley is targeted at the most vulnerable in our society. Well isn't he a legend; isn't that something to be proud of—that you go out and target with scare campaigns those who are most vulnerable. Isn't that just delightful. 84HZahra, Christian, MP10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for McMillan will have a chance in a minute.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—In the very short time that is left, I want to speak about the youth allowance changes and the exemption figure which goes from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. This will generally make youth allowance payable to young people from families with farm and business assets of up to $1.658 million net of debt. The youth allowance will now be payable to young people who were previously excluded from the payment. In addition, there is rent assistance and many other advantages. This will mean that some 7,200 young people in regional and rural areas and other business areas should benefit from the measure. It has been a long time coming and a lot of people in my electorate are going to welcome the fact that this exemption has gone from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. (Time expired)10:35:0019330Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I cannot let the opportunity go by without responding, at least in part, to some of the comments made by my colleague the member for Ballarat. The truth is that the people of Ballarat have had a lot of time to get used to what local Liberal parliamentary representation means. That is why at the last state election they voted overwhelmingly Labor. They have had Ronno for so long over there that they know better than any other constituency in Australia just what local Liberal representation means—that is, getting nothing from the government; getting pathetic, fawning, weak representation—and they have decided they are going to do better and that they deserve better. That is why the good people of Ballarat now have six state Labor MPs. This is why the member for Ballarat is so rattled. He knows the Labor Party has preselected an outstanding Labor candidate in Cathy King. He knows that, for the first time, he has a real fight on his hands and he knows it is a fight that he cannot win. When the member for Ballarat said that he had only a small amount of time left, he was not just talking about the 50 seconds or so he had left in the debate; he was talking about the small amount of time he has left in this place. As I have said to him before: Cathy King, Labor candidate for Ballarat, is coming for him and she has his measure already.Having dealt with that, I will now deal with the provisions of the Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000 which we are here to discuss. When it comes to talking about families, we hear a lot of rhetoric from the government. I always find that the actions of the government speak far more eloquently about their real commitment to people in rural and regional Australia and, in the context of this debate, particularly families in rural and regional Australia. In the time that I have this morning, I want to speak in particular about dairy families in my constituency of McMillan.I know there has been a lot of talk about the $1.8 billion dairy restructure package which has been announced by the Howard government. Whilst we in the Labor Party had some concerns about the size of the package, particularly the size of the dairy regional communities program, we did not act to stop this package going through because we did not want to deny those dairying families any money that might be coming to them by way of compensation for the impact of dairy deregulation.I have some concerns about the way that this program has been administered. Recently, I received some correspondence from Warragul Regional Newspapers in the centre of my constituency. Basically, they service the West Gippsland part of my electorate. They sent me a copy of a letter, which they sent to the Dairy Deregulation Authority, for my attention and action. It is addressed to Mr Patrick Musgrave, the Chairman of the Dairy Deregulation Authority. I will read it to the Main Committee because I think it is important that people are aware of the very real concerns we have about the way that the dairy restructure package has been organised. This is what Brian Hopkins, Managing Director, Warrugal Regional Newspapers, writes—and I think it is important for us to reflect on his comments. He says:Dear Mr. Musgrave,To our dismay, we understand there is no specific press advertising targeting major dairying areas such as Warrugal and West Gippsland in Victoria.It appears the Victorian coverage will be the Weekly Times which will carry the main thrust of the communication, supported by press advertising in the Mildura Sunraysia Daily (fruit and sheep area), the Ballarat Courier (urban/industrial/sheep/crops), Bendigo Advertiser (urban/industrial/sheep/crops), Geelong Advertiser (urban/industrial/sheep/grapes), Warrnambool Standard (urban/sheep/beef/ dairying), Shepparton News (urban/fruit/dairying), Albury Border Mail (urban/beef/sheep), Horsham Wimmera Mail Times (urban/sheep/crops), Bairnsdale Advertiser (urban/tourism/beef/sheep/small dairying), and Latrobe Valley Express—which is also in my constituency, but he makes the point in brackets `industrial'. Mr Hopkins goes on: I understand the argument for these centres is based on them being population centres, into which dairy farmers may have retired.Dairy farmers generally tend to retire in the township that serviced their farm. Hence, a West Gippsland dairy farmer would most likely retire to Warrugal ... not Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Mildura, Horsham, Albury et cetera.I think the campaign is a farce and makes a mockery of the government's stated policy of “servicing regional Australia”.I hope the campaign “works” for the sake of dairy farmers, and our newspaper has certainly tried to assist through publishing appropriate editorial. However, I fear it may fail.Yours faithfully,BRIAN HOPKINSMANAGING DIRECTORMr Hopkins has made a very good point. As today is the last day that people can apply for assistance under the dairy adjustment package, it is important for us to note his very sensible criticism of the government's approach to this issue.The West Gippsland district in my constituency is probably one of the richest dairying areas not just in Victoria but in Australia. It really does speak volumes for the competence of those people administering this program that the West Gippsland district has received no specific advertising at all in relation to encouraging people to take up this program which the government has put in place to support people and compensate them for the substantial and significant changes they are going to experience as a result of dairy deregulation.I encourage the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as strongly as I can to consider targeting a special campaign for the farmers in the West Gippsland district to make sure that they are aware of what is available to them in assistance from the dairy adjustment package. He should consider, as part of that campaign, putting at least a small amount of money into advertising in the Warragul Gazette and the West Gippsland Trader, which are well-read local newspapers in that area, to make sure that all of the people who could benefit from this program are, at the very least, aware of the program so that they might apply and have their application considered on its merits. I sincerely hope that the minister takes up this appeal on behalf of the people who are dairy farmers in West Gippsland in my constituency. On dairy deregulation again, I will take a minute or so to deal with another matter which affects families in my constituency.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I remind the member for McMillan that the bill before the House is the Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000 and he should direct his comments to that bill.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I am, Mr Deputy Speaker. The provisions of the bill do not deal with just families who are not dairy families. They deal with all families in Australia, which includes dairy families—those people who draw an income from the dairy industry. That is why my remarks thus far have concerned those who make up a great many thousands of people in my constituency. Another issue that has affected these people has been the closure of the Bonlac dairy processing plant in Drouin in West Gippsland in my constituency. Some comments have been made by Bonlac's chairman, Bill Hill. In the Warragul Gazette on 25 July this year, he said:The closure of Drouin's Bonlac plant is not the result of dairy deregulation ... I have to say this is not consistent with a letter which he sent me on 28 April. In relation to the announcement to close not just the Bonlac plant but also two other plants in Australia he says: Both announcements are significant steps in ensuring that our Company is positioned in the best possible way to meet the challenges ahead as the Australian dairy industry deregulates ...It is probably as clear as that, but I did not want to let it go unremarked. It is pretty much an open-and-shut case. That is exactly why that campaign which the government has initiated to try and draw the attention of dairying communities towards the dairy adjustment package it has announced needs to be targeted to West Gippsland. Not only do they have a very large community dependent on the dairy industry for their main source of income but they have also seen the closure of a dairy processing plant has put some 170 people out of work. Once again, I call on the minister to deal urgently with that issue and respond as quickly as he can to my call for him to make sure that people in West Gippsland are aware of the assistance offered through the dairy adjustment package and to introduce some advertising and a campaign to make sure that the people of West Gippsland do not miss out as a result of the government's incompetence in not putting advertisements in the Warragul Gazette or the West GippslandTrader.Another issue, which is important to families, and to the community more generally, is that of domestic violence and, in particular, assisting men to get help in terms of adjusting violent behaviour they may have demonstrated. There has been a fantastic program in my constituency called the Men's SHED project. SHED stands for self help ending domestics. This has been a fantastic project headed up by Chris Laming who has been the so-called SHED coordinator on behalf of the La Trobe Community Health Service.I wrote to the Minister for Justice and Customs who has carriage of this issue for the federal government and appealed to her to provide assistance to this group which is now experiencing difficulties in getting funding. I wrote to the minister on 2 March this year. I made the point in my correspondence that the Men's SHED project is a great community based program which aims to address the incidence of men's violence in Gippsland. This project uses a holistic approach to prevention of family violence and the promotion of the wellbeing of women and children in the local community. In my view it is an enormously successful program that for the last six years has used a collaborative interagency approach to family violence, an approach that is now being adopted elsewhere, which is something we can be very proud of. It is my view that preventive programs such as these not only generate very good social outcomes in regional communities such as my own but also prove to be extremely cost effective in the long term. It was on that basis that I wrote to the Minister for Justice and Customs and asked her to see if she could find a way for the Commonwealth to fund this important initiative to keep the good work going that the Men's SHED project has been doing in my constituency. Unfortunately, I received a letter back from the Minister for Justice and Customs on 1 June where she advises the following:I note that the Men's SHED Project is a worthwhile group and encourage them to continue with their work. However, the Federal Government is not able to provide general support funding for community groups such as the Men's SHED project.She goes on to say:The Federal Government must give priority to programs that introduce innovation and have a clear relationship to crime prevention outcomes.I could hardly think of a program which gives more priority to innovation and to crime prevention outcomes than the Men's SHED project. This is a great example of the government being strong on rhetoric when it comes to supporting families and women, in particular, who are victims of domestic violence and those men who are trying to get away from domestic violence behaviour. Whilst the government are big on the rhetoric, when it comes to actually investing in programs which are about changing that type of behaviour they are very short on action. This letter demonstrates that. In the time that I have remaining, I want to speak briefly about Labor's approach to family and community services, as has already been articulated very eloquently by my colleague and friend the member for Lilley. It can be best summarised in just a few words: Labor believes there should be a new front end to the social safety net, one that helps families from the start rather than just protecting them when they fall. It was only three or four weeks ago that the member for Lilley was in my constituency and we met with the program managers and staff of several community based organisations which deal with family and community services. We talked about the importance of putting government resources and priorities at the front of family assistance, and this was something which resonated a great deal with those people who are actually at the front line assisting families, in either community groups or who have roles within programs and organisations. People are sick of government money being spent only after a disaster has happened rather than early on when you can actually prevent a lot of the difficulties which families get into from happening—long before any difficult situation arises. That is why I support the Labor Party's commitment to a national early assistance strategy which is a key element of Labor's approach to family and community services. What it is all about is directing resources and effort to families when children are first born. We recognise that, by assisting parents to develop their skills to identify problems earlier rather than later and providing them with upgraded community information and resources, a national early assistance strategy would improve the circumstances of all Australian children.We on our side of politics are sincere when we say that we are about providing support for families to develop stronger resilience in dealing with the problems that they invariably face as they develop. What we are about is providing Australian families, which are the building blocks of the Australian community, with the strength and support that they need to help them get through the difficult times ahead. We are not just about being strong on what, in American political parlance, is called `family values', which is all about pandering to religious rites as opposed to doing something constructive to support Australian families. On our side of politics we are very proud of our commitment to help families, rather than just saying that we are pro family. So let me make that point whilst I am on my feet today.When we were in my constituency, the member for Lilley and I met with people from various institutions, and some of those institutions are definitely worth mentioning and recording in the Hansard today. The good work done by the Cardinia Family Day Care group, which is run by the Cardinia Shire in the western end of my constituency, is a tribute to the hard work done by the program coordinator and all of her staff at Pakenham. Pakenham is a rapidly growing part of my constituency, which is forecast to grow by about 5,000 families over the next five years. That is a massive growth for a town that has around 10,000 people in it at this point. So that service, which is very professionally run and administered, provides an invaluable service to a group of people which is growing at an extremely rapid rate in that part of my constituency.Similarly, Parentzone in Morwell in my constituency provides parenting resource information to people right across the Gippsland region—from West Gippsland through to Mallacoota, to the border between NSW and eastern Victoria. They do a mighty job getting around a very large area of Australia and providing a level of support to parenting organisations and to parents directly. That support is aimed at improving the level of parenting skills in our community and providing support for families as they develop throughout their lives as parents—mothers and fathers. I commend the work which is done by Parentzone. A group that I should not fail to mention because it is made up of truly outstanding people who are leaders in their areas is the WECAN organisation in Warragul. The acronym stands for West Gippsland Early Assistance Program for Children with Additional Needs, and the organisation provides support for children and families with additional needs. The leadership and the committee of WECAN is an excellent model of how other organisations should be structured, and their commitment and hard work should be acknowledged by this chamber and by the people who make up our community in the McMillan electorate.Having said all that, let me conclude my remarks by saying how strongly supportive I am of Labor's approach to family and community services. We offer the only genuine approach to family and community services, and I think that people in my constituency understand that. They certainly understand it more easily now, since they had the opportunity to speak to Wayne Swan, the shadow minister for family and services, during his recent visit to my constituency. I welcome Labor's genuine approach to this policy issue.10:59:0019334Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000 does absolutely nothing to help ordinary Australians or their families. This legislation will definitely make it easier for the children of families that own farms and businesses, who are asset rich, but it will do nothing to make it easier for the children of Australian workers.In this legislation the government is increasing the asset exemption from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. This means that it will be much easier if you have got money: you will get more. And if you do not have it, things stay the same. So while the government is making it easier for the children of asset rich families to receive youth allowance, it has introduced a zero tolerance policy on Centrelink overpayments, has refused to exempt caravan park residents from paying the GST on their site rentals, has failed to deliver a $1,000 bonus to all Australians over 60 and is forcing unemployed Australians to pass the most draconian tests to receive a payment from Centrelink. And if these people make a mistake, they are punished—they are breached, they are given less money to live on—and they still have to pass the same tests with less money to use for the job search that is often required with these tests.What this is about is a government that looks after its own, a government that rewards people if they have money, people that are advantaged, and punishes people that have to struggle, people that do not have money and are disadvantaged in some way. It is a government that will ensure absolutely that those that have money, those that have assets, that have wealth, have knowledge, will get more and those that do not will get less. Nothing demonstrates this more than what happened in the recent savings bonus debacle, where very few people in Australia, very few pensioners, received the money that they thought they would. My office, like the offices of most members of this House, was inundated with calls from people that did not receive the $1,000 bonus. In fact, they received much less than that.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—The average was $670.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Whilst there may have been average of $600-odd, that is not $1,000, and that average does not reflect the amount that was paid to people in my area, which is not a wealthy area. Once again it is rewarding the people that have money at the expense of those that do not.The Prime Minister was not really up front with the Australian people before the election. I have only to refer to an interview he did with Howard Sattler on 22 August 1998. In that interview, the Prime Minister said:You get $1,000 bonus for all people over the age of 60. KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Read the rest of the quote.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—He said you get an additional $2,000 if you are a self-funded retiree. That is misleading. I had people coming into my office saying, `Why haven't I got my $1,000?' What does the Prime Minister say? He says, `Well, we did not really promise you that.' And if you look then at the requirements to receive this $1,000, you will see how this government is rewarding people that have money. The people that got $1,000 were the people that got $1,000 interest. The people that got nothing were the people that had absolutely no money—the people that battle, the people that really fight from week to week to put food on their table, the people that live in caravan parks, that have to pay rent. But I will talk more about that a little later.Like many others on our side of the House—and I am sure it happened on your side too—I received letters from pensioners living in my electorate. A number of them received the $1 and sent it back to the Prime Minister. There were others, like Irene, who took it a little further. Irene wrote to the Prime Minister. She registered her letter and sent it here to Parliament House. She also gave me a copy of her letter. She was one of the lucky ones: she did not get $1; she got $5. I will read a little of her letter. She says:I am sending you this $5 postal note from the Senior Pensions Scheme back to you thinking & hoping that it may be better off in your pocket—than in mine. She goes on to say:I am only an old aged pensioner & have nothing.She has nothing, and Mr Howard's reward to her was $5. Irene made her postal note out in favour of John Howard. In her letter she also says:You will probably have a good laugh at this letter but all I have done is cry to think I could be so insulted ...She then writes `ENJOY'. My question to the Prime Minister is: what is he going to do with this $5—this measly $5 that he gave to Irene? Irene finishes her letter by saying that she hopes Mr Howard is not Prime Minister after the next election. My question is: will the Prime Minister be putting this $5 in his election fund for the next election? The postal note is not made out in favour of the government; it is made out in favour of John Howard. What is he going to do with this $5? Is he going to take this $5, this measly pittance he gave to this poor pensioner, and use it to help himself get back into power? I certainly hope not. It is just not good enough.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—He has put it on the horses!83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—As the member for Werriwa said, he has probably been having a little bet on the side to try to increase his resources. The whole point is that this was a very bad exercise by the government. It really disadvantaged those people who needed help. If the government were going to help people, if the government were going to give money to people, they should have helped those in the greatest need. Instead, this exacerbated their need and made them feel worthless.I was also visited by another lady who received $11. The reason I am referring to Gloria Fitzgerald and Arthur Fitzgerald is that they each received $11. Gloria was sitting with me in my office, and she was near to tears. She said, `This makes me feel like a second-class citizen. I feel dirty. It is as if the government does not even think I am human.' They were her words. I wrote them down as she said them to me.I do not think the government can be proud of this exercise. It has caused great dissension within groups of people. There are friends who are not talking to friends. The fact is that, even when the payments were made, there were major errors. Many people who should have received payments did not, and I am fearful for those people who did receive payments and should not have. Old figures were used, and the government refused to let Centrelink revisit the issue. It took them a month to admit there had been a mistake. During that month, a lot of people suffered hardship and heartache. My office is working with volunteers who come into the office to do easytax, and the way that it had to be addressed was through the tax office. The volunteers working through my office saw a number of these pensioners who had to submit a tax return. We had one 93-year-old woman who had never had a tax file number in her life, and we had to help her apply for a tax file number so that she could access the savings bonus.If a mistake is made, a government should admit it and it should fix it up quickly. It should not allow the angst that came out of this mistake with the savings bonus to continue because it caused real hardship to a number of very vulnerable people. That advice I am giving is given with the best intentions.The other group of people who are affected very badly, and a lot of them fit into this pension category, are the people who live in caravan parks. Mr Deputy Speaker, as the member for Page you must know how much it has impacted on these people. These are people who have been forced to pay the GST on their rental, and the majority of them are either pensioners or self-funded retirees. They have chosen that lifestyle because it offers them security and it offers them a communal lifestyle. They are people who actually own their own homes. I always tend to use the example of the Park at Redhead—that is in fact the name of the park. It is a residential park where everyone is over 55 years of age. They all own their own homes. At the same time the GST was introduced, the residents had a rental increase. So, come 1 July, they had a rental increase of $18 a week. Only a very small percentage of those people could access an increase in their rental allowance. As we all know, only three per cent of 161,000 Australians who live in residential and caravan parks actually got the $1,000 savings bonus. So here we have an extremely disadvantaged group of people, the majority of whom are pensioners and rely on income support from Centrelink, who have not received any savings bonus, who have had an increase in rent and have had the GST placed on their rent. And because the only residents eligible for an increase in rental assistance are those receiving the maximum rent assistance, most of them did not even get the rent assistance. My heart bleeds for these people.We have got a government that just does not listen, that will not listen, to the people who are most disadvantaged in our community. These people need a government to protect them. They do not need a government that is going to attack them. They need a government that understands that they have got needs; that they are people, not pieces of dirt. They need a government that understands that, like somebody that lives in Vaucluse, or maybe in Valentine in my own electorate and has been lucky enough to save some money, these people need to be treated with respect too and given the same opportunity as those people that have money.The final issue that I would like to spend a tiny bit of time on relates to the requirements that are being placed on some job seekers in order to access their Centrelink payments. About a month ago we heard about job seekers being told that they had to apply for jobs on the Olympic sites. For those of you that do not know, the Shortland electorate takes in part of the Central Coast of New South Wales and the southernmost part of Newcastle. Centrelink, in their wisdom, deemed that people who lived in that area should try to access jobs at the Olympics. One of these people, Mr Lyle Lambeth, who lives at Budgewoi, which would be between an hour and a half to two hours—maybe 2½ hours in peak hour—from Sydney by car, was told by Centrelink in July 2000: Between now and October Centrelink requires you to: travel to find work attend a Centrelink labour market information seminartarget at least 50 per cent of your job seeking activities to Olympic jobs or Olympics related industries ...I thought I would touch on this matter because Mr Lambeth wrote me an excellent letter. In that letter he pointed out that he would have to get out of bed at 3.15 a.m., eat, dress and leave by 3.45 a.m. and walk to the bus stop by 3.55 a.m. He would arrive at Wyong station on the bus by 4.50 a.m. and then the train would leave at 5 a.m. He would arrive at the Olympic site at 6.50 a.m. and walk there, which would take 10 minutes. Total travelling time would be three hours and 45 minutes. All up, including the return travel at the end of the day, there would be about 7½ hours travel a day. He said that would give him very little time to do anything but sleep, travel to work and work. He said that his uncle, who was a prisoner of war on the Burma railways, had more time to do this. The cost would be $4 for a bus ticket, $59 for the train ticket, and his total costs were $94 a week. On an average wage of about $450 a week, that does not leave much for him to take home. If he drove his car, it would be a little quicker but it would cost him about $150 a week. The really interesting point is that not only is it going to cost a lot and take him a long time, but this gentleman is a 54-year-old carpenter who spent 20 years of his working life supervising on building sites. He has got 20 per cent disability from a back injury. In 1998, he was diagnosed with bowel cancer and underwent surgery to have it removed. He was back working again after three months. He has an excellent work history. He has even supervised the government's Work for the Dole programs. He said to me that some of the requirements there were very draconian and that the government really did not understand the conditions of those people who are involved in Work for the Dole programs.During the time that he has been working, in January he was again diagnosed with bowel cancer. He has had more surgery and is currently having chemotherapy. He worked for four days a week while he was having chemotherapy, but just recently he has had to stop. What does he get from Centrelink? Here is a man with one of the best work histories that a person could possibly have, working in this industry, who has gone from job to job to job. He has met every requirement and has only used income support from Centrelink when he absolutely needed to. He has been undergoing chemotherapy. He has given his all and has always worked. He even supervised the government's Work for the Dole programs. He has been given a letter telling him that, unless he travels to Sydney on a daily basis, he will not be getting any income support. Luckily for Mr Lambeth, his doctor gave him a doctor's certificate and he does not have to look for work until the 30th of this month. This is a heartless government. Community Services should be used to provide community services and to support people. This government uses it to attack people, and to attack the most vulnerable in our society.11:19:0019337Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I was not going to speak in this debate on the Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000 but I found the presentation by the previous speaker, the member for Shortland, offensive. I do not think she addressed the real facts. It is easy to pick out a handful of victims and try to make them a matrix for the whole scheme being introduced by the government to make things better for average Australians. I would like to examine the savings bonus scheme that the honourable member spoke about. Let us go back to first principles. The savings bonus scheme was never intended to be a gift or a grant. That was made perfectly and totally clear from the outset of the scheme. It was meant to compensate pensioners by way of $1,000 and self-funded retirees by way of up to $3,000 for the loss of savings brought about by the inflationary effect of the introduction of the GST, mainly on their savings and investments. If we look at their incomes, the government promised a four per cent increase in pensions, which it has honoured. It said that if the CPI figures indicated that there was not a two per cent cushion above the real rate of inflation, it would top that up to the two per cent. So on the income side the government has honoured its promise. Right from the outset, from the very first day that this scheme was announced in the government's package, it said that it was based on people's savings and investments. In the case of pensioners, that could be savings in their building society or bank savings accounts. It could be a small annuity, an overseas pension, a superannuation policy—either put together by the pensioner at some earlier stage or from some institution for which they may have worked for some time—and it could be on small investments. It was very clear. It was spelt out in minute detail. It was a savings bonus. It was never, ever said to be a grant or a gift. With respect to the generality of one interview with the Prime Minister, the honourable member did not give the full quote. The Prime Minister was speaking in terms of the actual savings bonus. He was not, in the course of that interview, ranging widely. He was talking about the savings bonus. It could be inferred quite clearly that he was saying, `In the context of what I'm talking about, you'll all get $1,000.' He said that. But the honourable member did not bother to mention the preamble to what he was talking about. Leaving that aside, yes, some people did have that impression. I ask the honourable member whether she informed her constituents, in newsletters or press releases, of their entitlements—quite apart from the politics of it, after the election had been won and this was going to be implemented. When I was in opposition I always adopted the practice of working with the government of the day. You work with their programs. They have won the election; they have implemented their programs; and you try to get the best for your constituents within that program. So I ask whether the honourable member really went out of her way to inform her constituents of their entitlements. In fact, I have had the opposite effect in my office. I have had people come to me and say, `I've only got this small investment which returns $1,200 a year, but I've just received $1,000. Am I entitled to it?' You can pick a group of people who have not understood the program or who are in very difficult financial circumstances, or people—and I am not being pejorative—who have not kept Centrelink up to date about their earnings on a year to year basis. I have found several of these. The government has made a facility, as honourable members will know, for people to declare incomes and become eligible for the savings bonus. But some people clearly have not informed Centrelink of some ancillary income that they had been receiving. Because they have not, their automatic eligibility was not known to Centrelink. When you look at all those things, there has been no attempt to cheat or treat pensioners badly. That is quite wrong. Every person got a booklet in the post. It was very comprehensive and it spelt this out in intimate detail. In all our electorate offices we had information sheets explaining every program in the GST and the new tax package agenda. In the election document, again it was spelt out very clearly. And to say that the government has made some massive breach of faith as a result of the generality of one interview by the Prime Minister when he was talking in terms of the savings bonus is simply ludicrous, and it treats the public of Australia and the pensioners of Australia as dolts. I am not prepared to be part of that. I think they are intelligent, sensible people, and those who read the documentation would have been very clear about that. Members of parliament had a responsibility to make sure in their newsletters and in their offices that people were well informed and were getting their full entitlements. So I reject out of hand that sort of thing. I find offensive the idea that the Prime Minister would use the money in an election campaign or go down to the TAB. Even though it may not have been meant in a pejorative sense against the Prime Minister, the mere fact that you would say a thing like that is puerile. It lessens the standard of debate in this place and, to my way of thinking, it victimises pensioners and makes them a tool for political exploitation. It does that rather than come to grips with the problems they might have in your electorate office to get them their full entitlements.The other thing I would like to talk about is the matter of the GST for long-term residents of caravan parks and trailer home parks. The member made some extraordinarily sweeping statements there. For example, she said their rent had gone up $18 a week. Is she suggesting that that was as a result of the five per cent? If you take five per cent as a reverse fraction, it would mean they are paying rent of $360 a week. That is ludicrous. It may well be that the people in a particular caravan park did put up the rent by $18, but it was certainly not as a result of the five per cent GST. And if they did not put it up with good reason, I would ask the honourable member why she has not brought that to the attention of the ACCC, because clearly that was exploitation. If the case she quoted to us was on a weekly basis and it was purported to be as a result of a five per cent GST, then those people were exploited and I ask her what she did about bringing that to the attention of the ACCC. I certainly would. I would have no compunction about it, no compunction at all. I am not here to defend anyone who wants to exploit pensioners, not for a moment.If you step back and look at the situation of caravan parks, right from the outset of the scheme the government said that with that type of accommodation, with rental accommodation, there would be no GST charged but the proprietor would not be able to retrieve their GST inputs. That was made clear from the outset. No-one was misled about that. However, anyone with a knowledge of economics would know that over a period of time the owner of that particular caravan park, in not charging a GST yet having expenses such as mowing, asphalting, electrical repairs, hot water, plumbing, all those sorts of things that occur in a caravan park or a trailer home park, would, through rent, eventually pass on those costs to the tenants. That is obvious. It happened before the GST and it will happen after the GST.The government said, in allowing caravan park owners to charge a five per cent GST, that the owners could retrieve their inputs, but that in retrieving their inputs the pressure on further increases in rent would be minimised. Anyone who really wants to have a look at the economics of this in an honest way would know that was minimised. It is a pity that some modelling was not done on the caravan parks. There was modelling done on boarding houses which clearly showed that if you accepted the option of no GST and no inputs, although you got your rent a bit cheaper up front, over time you paid more. If you took the five per cent model, certainly you paid a little bit more up front but, over time, it minimised to an almost infinitesimal fraction. They are the sorts of things we should be looking for for these people. I understand people who are in caravan parks and trailer homes, in many instances, have been the deprived people of this society. I do not want to see them exploited, but to use them as some sort of victims in a pious, sanctimonious, obsequious attack on the government does the opposition no credit, nor does it help the pensioners. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I feel intense and angry about this. It does not elevate this debate to where it should be. Sure, there will be criticisms of some aspects of the savings bonus scheme and some aspects of the caravan park and trailer homes GST issue, but they could have been worked through in a constructive way to get a good outcome for people, rather than turned into a political argy-bargy. I am not prepared to do that. I try to keep the people in my electorate well informed and I find that, if you do, they are sensible—they are intelligent. They may not always like the outcome, but they will respond if they are treated properly. Keep them in the dark and treat them badly and you get that response back. I think the opposition can play a better role in this thing. If they are really concerned about those pensioners and getting them the entitlements, not just using them as victims in a political debate, then they should do something about it. 11:30:0019340Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The member for Hinkler is an honourable person and he always speaks with deep conviction, but I think in this case he is being a bit unfair to the member for Shortland. She seemed to be raising legitimate concerns placed in writing from her constituents. The member for Hinkler commenced his remarks by saying that it is not right to pick out a couple of victims and blame the federal government. I would say to the member for Hinkler, particularly when it comes to elderly Australians, a single victim is one too many. I can assure the member for Hinkler there is a substantial amount of confusion and distress among elderly Australians concerning the savings bonus. I too believe elderly Australians are intelligent and aware of their entitlements, but it is also true that they worry about their pensions. They worry about their entitlements during a time of economic change, such as the GST. Some of the information that has been sent out to them, quite frankly, is hard to follow. I have looked at the forms and found that they are complex.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Let us make constructive criticisms.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—This is a constructive criticism and I say to the member for Hinkler, as a government member, that he should have a look at these forms and talk to the people who run the public relations for the government in these campaigns to see if there is a way of simplifying this information, because while elderly Australians have a keen awareness of their entitlements; they do worry when they get official material in the mail. When they see a form that is complex and confusing, of course they get distressed and of course they go to their member of parliament and raise these concerns. I have had them come to my office in the seat of Werriwa and these are genuine people genuinely concerned about their entitlements and their rights under this savings bonus. They find some of the material very confusing. If the member for Shortland has distressed elderly citizens in her electorate, she is entitled to bring their situation before the parliament and raise that as a matter of public interest. I say that a single victim in this case is one too many. If there is one confused and distressed elderly Australian, it is one too many and we should do something about it. The member could go back to the government communications people and have a look at these forms. He might find there could have been a simpler way of explaining this to provide more information simply expressed for elderly Australians. That would have been the right thing to do. It might just be a communication problem. There might be something in the detail that needs to be corrected, but I do not think we should doubt the sincerity of the member for Shortland in bringing these matters before the House of Representatives.With other members in this debate, I want to raise the general issue of welfare reform. The whole question of Australia's welfare system is made topical by the release yesterday of the excellent report by the McClure committee entitled Participation support for a more equitable society. I join with the Leader of the Opposition in saying there are many good things in this report—many good things because they adopt Labor policy. It is a report that combines the best of international practice with some of the quality thinking in the Australian political system. For instance, the report picks up the practice in Great Britain of introducing a common gateway for the assessment of the needs of welfare recipients. It picks up the practice in Britain of social entrepreneurial projects, where skilled people are making new connections, building partnerships and support in disadvantaged communities. They are combining the best of social practice with a capacity to take risks and bring entrepreneurial flair to the needs of disadvantaged communities. We had the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, in the House just two days ago saying, `Isn't this outrageous that in the area of education policy Labor is picking up some of the best initiatives in Britain—the learning gateway program and the adoption of education action zones.' Well, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with bringing some of the best of international thinking to some entrenched problems to try to find new solutions in the Australian context? So if Dr Kemp thought it was bad for the ALP to do that in education, he, for one, will be condemning this document in the cabinet because the McClure report picks up initiatives in Britain—the common gateway for assessing recipient need, and the programs that follow, and also the emphasis on social entrepreneurial projects. The minister, Dr Kemp, stands condemned for having such a narrow view of public policy.The report also picks up Kim Beazley's wonderful proposals for improving the financial attractiveness of the transition from welfare to work. The idea of work bonuses, of trying to address the problem of high effective marginal tax rates are quality Labor ideas that are now reflected in the McClure report to the Howard government. I am strongly supportive of the report's recommendations on mutual obligation. Some 12 months ago I raised the issue of the blow-out in the disability support pension—the fact that some 600,000 Australians have been placed on this passive, underfunded program. I raised my concern that the Howard government was using the disability support pension as a way of artificially lowering the unemployment rate, of moving people onto this program so they do not show up on the jobless figures. This issue seemed to trigger a reaction from the government that has led to this inquiry and now the report. I am pleased that McClure is recommending some serious and sensible policies with regard to mutual obligation.I believe there is a community expectation that single parents with teenage children—that is, children going to high school—would be required to look for work—that is, to set a good role model in the home, to value work and education in the home, to make sure that their children know that their best future in life lies in seeking jobs and skilling up their qualifications. There is a community expectation for that. And there was a survey that showed that single parents themselves believed that mutual obligation in that sense should apply to them. But it is important to understand that it cannot be just an obligation from the recipient. Single parents need improved child-care arrangements and a reversal of this government's cuts. They need transport assistance, particularly in areas like ours in Western Sydney where private car ownership might not necessarily be strong or the public transport system effective. And they need training and skills programs to help them reconnect with the work force. The recommendations for single parents are sound and I believe reflect a sensible approach to the extension of mutual obligation.In the area of disability support pension, again McClure has got it right. He is saying that we should treat mildly disabled Australians seriously. We should back up 30 years of rhetoric that says, `Don't write these people off, don't stick them into passive, underfunded programs. Actually give them a chance to exercise their capacities to gain work, to be useful participants in our society. So don't emphasise disability; emphasise the capacity that mildly disabled people have to work.' McClure is recommending that mutual obligation be extended, through pilot schemes, to this area. I think that is right. For 30 years the rhetoric about helping disabled people has been a bit hollow because government has not backed it up with programs, has not backed it up with rehabilitation and training support. In my electorate of Werriwa there are several fine providers of assistance for the disabled community, but they are only able to cover a drop in the ocean in terms of the resources needed to get all mildly disabled Australians back into the labour force and active work. McClure also broadens the concept of mutual obligation beyond just welfare recipients and government. He is saying there should be a whole-of-community effort. It is almost like a policy of `all shoulders to the wheel'; that governments, welfare recipients, community organisations and corporate Australia need to do much more to provide worthwhile job opportunities for disadvantaged people.I have often raised in the House the fact that corporate Australia receives billions of dollars each year in industry assistance, sometimes called industry welfare. If we are to treat mutual obligation seriously, they have a responsibility to use that public money to provide improved job opportunities for disadvantaged Australians. In the case of disabled Australians, there is an acute need. Some nations have a scheme whereby there is an expectation that business needs to employ disabled people as a certain proportion of its work force. If they do not meet that proportion, they have to pay funds to government that are then channelled into training and support programs for the disabled.If the Howard government is serious about welfare reform, it should match that program; it should introduce those programs in this country. What we should be saying is that government needs to do more, communities need to do more, welfare recipients need to do more, but businesses also need to do more to help Australians to end the curse of long-term poverty and social exclusion. This needs to be a policy of all shoulders to the wheel. We need to impose mutual obligation on corporate Australia to make sure that they are providing worthwhile job opportunities for the most disadvantaged in our society.These are big issues that also have a philosophic underpinning. There is a bigger debate about the meaning of mutual obligation. I heard the former Victorian Premier Joan Kirner join this debate in Melbourne by making a few remarks a fortnight ago. She made comments that made me think very seriously about how these questions can be understood. She said that all women have the right to work and governments should assist this goal. Of course, that is true in its own right. She also said that all welfare recipients, particularly single mums, have the right to stay at home and governments should protect this right. I think this demonstrates that a rights-only agenda, an emphasis on universal rights without social responsibilities, starts to run into itself. How can you say that all women have the right to work and governments should support that, but all single mums have the right to stay at home and governments should support that as well? A rights-only agenda runs into itself, and in the end does not make a lot of sense in the social context. The rights of citizens are only worth while if they are matched by the responsibilities of citizens. To go down the rights-only agenda is actually quite a libertarian agenda. It is saying that people can be regarded as individuals only—individuals without a social context. It is an atomistic way of looking at society. I reject the rights-only agenda. I do not think it is a real Labor Party agenda. What the Labor Party has been about for 100 years is to say that rights are important but they need to be matched by social responsibilities, because it is only by people exercising their responsibilities that we end up with a cohesive society; that we end up with people connecting with each other, feeling morally obliged to do the right thing by other people; that we end up with a society that is strong and cohesive. So I support the agenda of rights plus responsibilities—an agenda of mutual responsibility, and this makes sense. A person can have all the money in the world but they are not free in our society if they cannot walk the streets at night with a sense of safety; if they cannot participate in society knowing that other citizens are going to be responsible for their own actions. A child is not free unless work and education are valued in the home because they will not have the best chance to realise their potential in life. So I reject the view that rights, and rights alone, matter. It must be rights matched by social responsibilities. That is a socially cohesive or communitarian view of society. It is not a sort of left wing, libertarian agenda—libertarianism on steroids. I support the extension of mutual obligation under this report, and I look forward to the government taking its recommendations seriously. But, in the end, it is not so much the size of government spending that matters, it is the quality, and it is the whole-of-community effort to end the curse of long-term poverty. We often have a view in the public debate that government alone is responsible for these problems. Government alone is not responsible for the curse of social exclusion. It is an issue for all Australians, and we are all responsible. Whether it is a business manager, or people working in community organisations, or just plain households, and, of course, the work of government, we have all got to do a lot more. I believe that is the true meaning of mutual obligation. I am delighted that the McClure report at long last is bringing corporate Australia into the net of mutual obligation.This should not be a policy for beating up on the poor. The Minister for Employment Services has been condemned by his own side for some of this excessive rhetoric. The Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, often puts Mr Abbott down for use of language that clearly is trying to single out the poor and beat up on them in a political sense. We have to go beyond that narrow agenda and produce a whole-of-community response to poverty, and the McClure report is an excellent step in the right direction. As I said, it is not so much the size of government spending but the quality of the programs and the whole-of-community effort.I am always reminded of the debate that the British Labour Party used to have with the Thatcher government. They used to say, `You are cutting programs.' In fact, the Thatcher government was doing what the Howard government is doing here: blowing out passive welfare programs. Spending was going up, because they were shoving people on to programs like the disability support pension as a way of driving down the official unemployment rate. The truth is that, under this Howard government, welfare spending is going up. But it is the wrong sort of spending. It is passive spending, putting people onto programs without a chance of getting training and job placement.In a political sense, if you are on the left of politics and you want results, you will condemn this government for putting people into passive areas and disenfranchising a whole group of Australians—for example, 600,000 on disability support pensions. If you are on the right of politics and you want value for money in the welfare dollar, you will condemn this government as well, because they are spending more and yet we know that long-term poverty and long-term unemployment are actually going up.The member for Lilley has produced some disturbing statistics about the number of young Australians who grow up in a household without work. There is no worse start in life than growing up in a household where work is not valued and where work is not the role model. My most distressing moment in public life was to talk to a school principal who said that when students come to him in careers counselling and are asked, `What are you going to do in life?' they will say, `I am going to do what my dad does, I am going to do what my grandad has done, and that is that I will be on the dole.' This is a social tragedy when people take that view and this reality is being played out in Australian homes. We need to do a lot better. This government should be condemned, because it is not getting results and value for money in the spending of the welfare dollar. I am glad that McClure has made these recommendations. I also support his emphasis on community development. In my electorate of Werriwa, in the poorer suburbs, the public housing estates, it is quite a paradox, because 90 per cent of the income comes from government. Ninety per cent of the assets and income in these suburbs comes from the public sector and only 10 per cent comes from the private sector. You often hear people say, `We don't need market forces. We don't need private enterprise.' The big news in the poorest parts of my electorate is that we need 90 per cent of the suburb to function on private income and only 10 per cent from public, because only then will the suburb feel normal, that it is participating in the economy and gaining the same job opportunities and income potential as other Australians. The idea is to reverse the batting order: to go from 90 per cent to 10 per cent of public money and to go from 10 per cent to 90 per cent of private money.In that context, I always worry that maybe some of the recommendations about changing the payment system are really just reshuffling the deck. When 90 per cent of the suburb's income comes from government, if you just reshuffle the way in which that money is paid into the suburb, maybe you are not getting the best result available. The real goal is to lift the proportion of private money and to get people into work. Often in these suburbs, the first task in welfare reform is a social task. It is to make the suburb normal. If you actually visit public housing estates and talk to the tenants, they will say, `My first priority is to make sure that I can walk down to the shops at night feeling safe or to know that the person next door is not the one breaking into my home.' Their first priority is a social one—the social connections, the trust, the social capital between people, to get that right—and then to worry about the financial issues. Only when you live in a normal neighbourhood are you likely to think, `Hang on, I have a chance here to do some training and to get a job.' McClure has put his recommendations about social development down at the back of the report, at item 5. I think they should be up at the front of the report, as item 1. The top priority is to rebuild communities, to rebuild social capital in this country, to make sure that people living in poorer areas feel part of a normal neighbourhood with normal connections and relationships between people. Again, I would reverse the batting order in this report and get the social issues up front. I am glad they are in the report, but they really should be the top priority.I was thrilled, though, to see that a project I have been working on in the public housing estate of Claymore in my electorate is featured at page 47 of the report as a role model for community partnerships and social integration. Claymore has been a great example and, through social entrepreneurial projects and a strategic role for government, this success can be spread throughout the country. McClure has set out a fine blueprint for addressing many issues from the adoption of international and domestic best practice, to the extension of mutual obligation, to the whole question of making communities strong and to making neighbours normal. But, again, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, it takes a government with a good heart to build on quality recommendations and turn them into decent social practice. We hear a lot of talk from the other side—and `Dubya' does it in the US—on compassionate conservatism. Some people think that is a tautology, a direct contradiction in terms. If there is such a thing as compassionate conservatism, we have one guarantee in this country: it does not come from the Minister for Employment Services putting people down as job snobs; putting people down with harsh rhetoric and an intensely political agenda. If that is compassionate conservatism, this government has got a long way to go. What I prefer, of course, is the thing that has worked well on our side of politics for 100 years, and that is social democracy: to treat people fairly, to build community partnerships and to make an effort throughout society to end the curse of poverty. That is what we have always been on about. I know for sure that if it were a Labor government introducing this report, the heart would be there to get it right. The Howard government is yet to be tested.11:51:0019345Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—In discussing the Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000, a number of people have had the opportunity to more broadly discuss welfare policy and issues concerning poverty. I will also try to address those matters.I might say, firstly, that I am following the member for Werriwa, who is always interesting in his general philosophical approach to these matters. Let me say that I also agree that we need to have an approach which goes beyond the individual and deals with communitarian issues. I have had occasion to commend the member for Werriwa for thinking about things along those lines. I do not always come to the same policy conclusions in relation to what needs to be done as he does, but that is something else. I think it is good that we should have some focus on the general goals, vision and philosophy that we have in these areas of policy. In that regard, obviously I, like others, welcome the McClure report as, I hope, stimulating national debate on these questions. I hope that we will have a genuine national debate on these issues and that we will not be subjected to some kind of pseudo debate, as often happens in politics.Having said all that, I want to make a comment about process in relation to this bill. The shadow minister made some very important comments, I thought, in relation to what is happening. I was a bit surprised that there was no second reading amendment, as far as I understand it, in relation to the bill and that the bill did not come up in the main chamber of the House but, rather, came up here in the Main Committee. It is quite clear that this is an issue of enormous importance, and I believe it should have come up in the main chamber.Earlier this week, I had occasion to move a consideration in detail stage amendment to a bill concerning education. I want to make it perfectly clear that, as an Independent, I am going to be moving consideration in detail stage amendments to these bills when I consider that they are inadequate. I have not had the opportunity to do so in relation to this particular bill, because we got the Bills Digest from the Parliamentary Library only a very short time ago. I think that, in providing members with the requisite information in relation to the background of these bills, we can do better than that.Rather than challenging the process in this particular case, I give notice that I intend to move consideration in detail stage amendments, perhaps with the support of Mr Andren, the other Independent, who has also, on occasions, had second reading amendments in relation to legislation of this kind. I notice the Minister for Community Services is in the chamber. Maybe he can answer some questions when he completes the debate. I am a bit confused about the impact on people of some provisions of the bill.Is the minister in a position to tell us what is going to happen to the spouses of Abstudy students? It appears that the bill gets rid of certain provisions that provided them with the dependent spouse allowance. It is not clear what is going to be available for them. I may be mistaken in this; even the Parliamentary Library is having difficulty sorting this out. Perhaps the minister or his advisers could sort it out. If an Abstudy student has a spouse—obviously the Abstudy student is not working—if the spouse is not working will the spouse be eligible for any kind of support from the government? If so, what kind of support? That is one issue. If they have children, I assume that they will be eligible for parenting allowance. How will that compare with the previous dependent spouse allowance in terms of the actual income that they would have received? I would like the answer to that question. If they do not have children, will they get any allowance at all in relation to this matter? I understand the government's desire to make Austudy identical in terms of benefits. I do not agree with that. It assumes that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not in a disadvantaged situation in relation to education, which they are. It is not unfair, going to the principle of fairness, Minister, to give some specific provision, as we do in other areas of Commonwealth provisions for people of indigenous background, to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I do not see why we have got rid of the Abstudy provisions. We might as well say that we do not really need Abstudy because we are going to give them the same as Austudy. What happened to the point that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are severely disadvantaged in terms of educational opportunities? What are we going to do about that in terms of the provisions for them?I am concerned that these provisions may have the unintended consequence of discouraging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from going into study. I believe that they need special support and provisions. In fact, some of them may actually end up more disadvantaged than Austudy people. Let us take an example of an Aboriginal young person who wants to go into a course of study in a remote area. If this were a typical Australian, a non-Aboriginal person, they would not be living in a remote area. Their spouse would be able to get some additional work to support the student. But, as the majority of Aboriginal people are living in these remote areas, it is very unlikely that their spouse will be able to get additional income.I do not think these measures have been thought through. There is a need to consider seriously what is happening in terms of income support for people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background so as to ensure an outcome. The outcome should be more of those people getting into education and being able to support themselves in the period when they are in education. The bill is very unclear about these provisions of support. I do not like the general principle, but I wanted some assurance from the minister in relation to what is happening in this case. I would have liked to have been able to say that, if Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are going to be disadvantaged by these changes, it would have been good for us to have had the opportunity in this parliament to move an amendment at the consideration in detail stage to prevent that happening. That is how I feel about it.The other provisions in the bill relate to youth allowances. Those provisions are primarily designed to have equity between people on youth allowances who are not studying and people on youth allowances who are studying. I do not see any problem with that. However, as far as the child-care issues are concerned, the shadow minister made a number of important points and this whole matter needs to be looked at. We do have serious problems with child care in this country in terms of the amount of child-care positions available, the affordability of child care for many families and a targeted program. It is all very well to say to people, when talking about the concept of mutual obligation, that they should go out and work, but if they have a number of children and they cannot afford child care what are they going to do? The provisions of child care in this country are still not good enough, especially for people living in poorer suburbs.I noticed that the minister's new scheme is going to help boost private providers. That is all right. But, as the member of Werriwa was referring to, what about a scheme to ensure that the distribution of private providers is equitable in relation to the different suburbs? Why have more private providers in rich areas than in poor areas? We need child care in the poorer areas, especially in our cities, such as in my electorate. We need them not just in my electorate but in all of that part of Melbourne and in the part of Sydney that your represent, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio. The government introduced an initiative for greater flexibility in choice in child care. Fair enough; there is nothing wrong with flexibility, Minister. But I am sure you would agree that, when we are seeking greater flexibility, we are seeking greater outcomes—not just flexibility for the sake of flexibility. We are looking at the attempt to get greater outcomes in this area. I would like to hear from the minister what outcomes he thinks he is achieving in relation to child care. Is he monitoring the situation with respect to different socioeconomic categories? How are child-care provisions being maintained or supported for those in poorer areas or income groups as compared to those in the richer income groups? I would not mind having a statement from the minister—even a ministerial statement in parliament. If he considers that he is doing some reasonable work in this area, why not get a statement that can be debated in relation to these issues?In the few minutes that are left to me I want to comment on the matter of the moment, as other speakers have done. I am referring to the McClure report and some of the provisions in relation to extending the principle of mutual obligation and the whole question of what is to be done with mature people who have not yet received the old age pension—mature workers or mature unemployed—and also the very difficult issue of the disabled and people who have mental health problems.I think it was one of the rare positive moments in the House yesterday when both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said, `Let's have a serious discussion about the McClure report,' and I would welcome that. All too often we do not have serious debates. In my newly gained role as an Independent, I have been watching, for example, question time in parliament. I must say there is more hot air and personal attacks than there is anything else and very little attempt to answer questions. Even in the phrasing of questions, I think they are searching for information or at least for policy debates. So it was a rare moment in some respects and I was very happy to see that because I believe that this is what this House needs in this area. We need to have a debate not only about the McClure report but also about the whole general philosophy of welfare and provision for the poor and the disadvantaged. We need to address these issues in Australia. We have not been doing so. We have been sweeping them under the carpet. I think that we need to go to the fundamentals. We need to go to the philosophical issues and the general policy questions, then deal with the various recommendations from McClure to try and work out, if possible, a bipartisan approach but, if not that, at least an approach which deals with the fundamental question of poverty.Poverty in this country has increased in the last few years. The shadow minister was right to talk about how more children are now growing up in homes where both parents have not been employed for very long periods of time. Those parents are then setting a role model for their children. I have this situation in my electorate in some of the housing commission areas. I have seen this phenomenon. We tried to overcome this phenomenon through a concentration on encouraging the children of these families to stay at school and to look for career paths. I was very happy to report that in the last few years, from about 1989 to 1996, there was a dramatic increase in the number of students beginning year 7 and finishing year 12 in the high schools in the working-class areas of my electorate. But, in the last three years, this phenomenon has been reversed. We are now finding that the drop-out rate is higher than it was a few years ago.We had a situation where about 30 per cent or 35 per cent of children beginning high school at year 7 were finishing year 12. We went up to close to 80 per cent, and now we are dropping again. We have dropped in the last three years. This is very serious. It is not merely the lack of opportunities for the individual but, if you actually look at where those children come from, they come from families that are very poor and in which there is a tradition of unemployment for both the mother and father over a number of years. We need to concentrate on this phenomenon and we need action in this area—not merely the announcement of new bureaucratic arrangements but, while flexibility is one thing in programs, outcomes are what we are all interested in. I think that is true across the political parties: we want outcomes in these areas and we want value for money spent. We do not want money wasted in bureaucratic nonsense or in fighting between the federal and state governments or the federal and state bureaucracies, as so often happens. We want concrete outcomes. I would like to see more action in all these areas. (Time expired)12:11:0019348Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I thank the member for Calwell for some of his comments. I hope to be able to cover some of those in my speech today. I also thank members on both sides of the House for their contributions, and particularly the member for Ballarat. It is slightly disappointing that many members opposite saw fit to talk about many other measures in the Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000, but there was certainly a hearty discussion on the McClure report and I think that bodes well for this parliament.However, I would like to return later to some of the comments made by the opposition and to speak now on the bill as it stands. This bill deals with measures announced in the 2000 budget. The measures in this bill are beneficial to Australians. The first of the measures exempts Abstudy payments from the social security income test. The measures remove the potential disadvantage of Abstudy social security couples compared with couples where both partners receive social security income support, because some Abstudy payments are assessed as income to determine the non-Abstudy partner's social security entitlement. This measure will achieve equity in the treatment of Abstudy recipients and their partners with that of income support recipients. This measure will take effect from 1 January 2001. However, prior to this, ex gratia payments will be made available to protect any Abstudy social security couples currently disadvantaged. The estimated cost of this measure is quite small at $0.3 million each year. I reassure the member for Calwell that they certainly will not be disadvantaged. I take on board some of your genuine comments and if you would like one of the government advisers to give you some further information on that I would be happy to facilitate that.The second measure is an important one for families whose child-care needs fall outside the mainstream services. This bill extends the choice of child-care services for which child-care benefits can be claimed to include in-home care. I will also pick up some points that the member for Calwell mentioned as well. It is certainly not designed to provide differences in in-home care between poor areas and rich areas. Indeed, a lot of the evidence we have received on where child-care centres are located shows that there is not a strong correlation between more prosperous areas and less prosperous areas; it is where the demand is.With respect to the child-care benefit, I say to the member for Calwell that there have been quite substantial increases. What we are seeing in child-care centres, in all forms of Commonwealth funded centres, whether it is family day care, centre based care or after hours school care, is that the number of inquiries is increasing quite dramatically. There has been a substantial increase in payments to families, making it more affordable. Certainly over the last four years, from when the previous ALP government was in power, about 110,000 more children have gone into Commonwealth funded child care. I think the current figure is that about 577,000 children are in some type of formal care provided by the Commonwealth.The measures contained in the bill will fund 7,700 new in-home care places over the next four years. The measure is in response to community demand for more flexible child-care arrangements and supports greater participation in work, education and community activities. The whole basis of this is to increase our flexibility, particularly for families in rural and remote locations, parents working shifts or non-standard hours, or families with children who are regularly ill or have a disability. This certainly has not been the case ever since Commonwealth child-care funding has been in place. From memory, there have been about 64 children who have been funded in this way, having regard to the unique characteristics of families. So it gives more flexibility and there is a greater focus on quality. They have to be approved to operate in-home care, and will be required to meet similar requirements to those of the family day care service. The estimated cost is $48.5 million over four years. Another measure included in this bill is one that I know that farming families and families operating small businesses will be particularly interested in. In the 2000-01 budget, the government announced that 75 per cent—an increase from the current 50 per cent—of the value of a person's interest in farm and business assets will be disregarded under the youth allowance family assets test. This measure will further increase the government's support for families—in particular, families from rural areas. More young people will now qualify for youth allowance and fares allowance and the higher level of student financial supplement may be available if the young person is a full-time tertiary student. During the debate in the Senate on the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 the opposition supported a proposed amendment to increase the exemption to 75 per cent for farm assets. This measure goes further than that proposed amendment because it applies to all assets and not just farm assets. This measure will avoid discriminatory treatment between rural and urban businesses and farm and other rural businesses. The estimated cost of this measure is quite considerable—$123.3 million over four years. Of course, the real beneficiaries are families with young children, and particularly young people from rural communities.The bill also provides for the period for data matching of income details between the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink to be extended from two to four years. Presently, the matching of income details under the Data-Matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990 is limited to the two most recently completed financial years. This bill extends this period to the four most recently completed financial years. The Privacy Commissioner's office was consulted during the development of this initiative, and all data matching will be undertaken in strict observance of the Data-Matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990.The people targeted by this initiative are those who have deliberately set out to defraud both the tax and social security systems. This measure will increase our ability to detect those people and protect taxpayers' revenue. I know there are many Centrelink staff in Coffs Harbour, in the electorate of Cowper, the Deputy Speaker's electorate, who do a very fine job. In 1998-99, over 178,000 reviews were completed under the data matching program, with over 70,000 debts being raised and $192 million in direct savings being achieved.The final measure in this bill provides for the protection of people affected by the termination of the social security agreement with the United Kingdom. In July 1999, the Minister for Family and Community Services announced Australia's intention of terminating the social security agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom. Formal notice of the termination was served on the UK government on 1 March 2000, and the agreement will terminate on 1 March 2001. All people being paid under the agreement, in Australia and the UK, will continue to receive their payments after it ends in March 2001. In addition, this bill provides additional protection for those people who migrate to Australia on or before 1 March 2000, allowing those people to continue to have early access to an Australian age pension as if the agreement were still operating. In short, the measures I have listed here are beneficial. I will now address some of the comments made by members of the opposition. I did not have the chance to be in the chamber to hear all of them, but I would like to make some further comments. The opposition, especially the member for Lilley, are certainly fond of suggesting that the government is always punishing families. They are just simply wrong. They completely ignore the extra $2.4 billion assistance that we have provided to over two million families under the government's new tax system. Over 2.1 million families have benefited.The complex and confusing system of payments and rebates that we inherited has been replaced by two simple payments: family tax benefit part A and family tax benefit part B. For eligible families, the new family tax benefit part A means an increase in assistance of at least $140 per year for each dependent child. For single income families where the youngest child is under five there will be an increase in assistance of $350 per year under the family tax benefit part B. Most importantly, we have relaxed the income test so that families can earn up to $28,200 before their payment is affected. That has been raised by in excess of $4,000. We have reduced to taper rates so that for every dollar of income earned over $28,200, families will get to keep 70c of their family tax benefit part A instead of the previous 50c.The new system gives families far more choice about how they claim their assistance: continue to receive fortnightly payments through Centrelink, or through reduced fortnightly tax instalments, or as a lump sum at the end of the year. For the first time, families will be able to receive a top-up of family assistance at the end of the year if they have overstated their income. This was not the case before, and this is something that families have asked for.In the area of debts, again contrary to what the member for Lilley says, this government does not treat Centrelink customers or families as criminals, nor does it have a policy of zero tolerance. In fact, the only zero tolerance policy that I subscribe to is having zero tolerance for anything that comes out of the mouth of the member for Lilley. Once again, the member for Lilley is, unfortunately, trying to put fear into people. I know that you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we certainly should not believe a word he says. He claims that people have no rights of appeal and that they will be chased for debts amounting to $1. That just does not exist.There are waiver provisions. Small debts under $50 are automatically waived. Any debts between $50 and $200 are waived if the customer is no longer in receipt of a benefit. If social security customers incur debts and it is found to be due to an administrative error and received in good faith, the debt may also be waived.The government is committed to ending fraud and overpayment in the social security system. That is what the community expects. Centrelink places a very high emphasis on debt prevention through a number of strategies aimed at preventing incorrect payment. There are 200 debt prevention and monitoring officers employed by Centrelink whose job is to focus on debt prevention activities. The government's commitment to reducing fraud and overpayment is why we announced new measures in the budget to detect and prevent incorrect payment.On the broader issue of child care, we have not cut child-care expenditure. There has been total expenditure of more than $4 billion in the last four years, and that is 30 per cent more than in the last four years that the ALP were in office. Reforms introduced by this government since 1996 provide a wider choice to parents and have ensured that funds are spent to gain the greatest benefit for children. The expansion of in-home care, as I have discussed, is part of a commitment to flexible child-care services to meet the needs of families and to support greater participation in paid work, education and community activities. The results of three pilots currently operating in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania have been used to inform the implementation of the in-home care scheme. It is not necessary to finalise the pilots to expand existing in-home care arrangements. Mutual obligation is not simply about a means of punishing the unemployed, as the opposition would have Australians believe. Mutual obligation is based on the premise that responsibility between the community and the individual flows both ways. Under the mutual obligation initiative, unemployed people aged between 18 and 34 may be required to undertake an activity in addition to looking for work.There is a wide range of activities that unemployed people may undertake to fulfil this obligation. It includes the government's very successful Work for the Dole as well as part-time work, voluntary work, education and training, and, most importantly, literacy and numeracy training if it is required. Despite all the opposition's rhetoric, mutual obligation is supported by the wider community. Indeed, I suspect they even support it themselves even though they have another name for it. In the area of preparing for work, Centrelink already has in place preparing for work agreements which assist unemployed people to focus on finding work immediately when they claim income support by identifying barriers to take up work and develop strategies to combat these barriers. This initiative is not about punitive measures or empty promises, it is about helping job seekers to focus immediately on what they need to do and what help they may need to return to work. It has been totally embraced by Centrelink employees. This is an up-front commitment to job seekers. I am very pleased to say that in the first four weeks of this initiative, from 1 July this year, 50,000 job seekers have signed a preparing for work agreement. The member for Lilley likes to talk about breaches. The fundamental issue here is that Australian taxpayers expect the government to ensure that unemployed payments go only to those who are genuinely unemployed and in need of support. Make no mistake, our system is a fairer system. Under Labor, any breach resulted in a non-payment period straightaway. Now, most breaches result in a rate reduction. A non-payment period is only imposed if a person breaches the activity test three or more times in two years rather than just going straight off benefits, which was the case under the previous government.Finally, I would like to conclude by saying that the measures contained in the bill debated here today are beneficial to all Australians. I would like to thank the member for Werriwa for his comments. I thought they were certainly about the McClure report and how it is being welcomed, not just by the national media but even by many of the more clear thinking members of the opposition. I certainly urge the opposition to support not just the McClure report but also this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Adjournment19351Motion (by Mrs Elson) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.1935212:28:0019352McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—During the recent recess we saw the unfortunate death of Peter Moore, a former CEO of the Canterbury-Bankstown football club. Peter was affectionately known to both those who knew him and to people in the wider Rugby League family as `the bullfrog', His famous greeting to everybody was, `Matey, what did you think about that, matey?' Peter was one of those people who was a legend in the Rugby League world, and he was certainly a legend in the Canterbury-Bankstown district, which is the centre of my electorate. His funeral was held at St Joseph's at Belmore on 11 July and it was attended by over 2,000 people. The church was full and people were out in the street and in the area around the church. There were people from all over the Rugby League area and all over the district. There were politicians, sportsmen, businessmen, all the people that Peter had touched during his life. His funeral was certainly a celebration of a great life. There were eulogies and anecdotes. There were tears and there were laughs. His eldest daughter, Lyn, said that a condition of entry to the wake down at the club after the funeral was that you had to tell a story about Peter Moore that no-one had heard before. There were so many stories that you certainly would have had a great afternoon there.Peter had three loves: his church, his family and Rugby League. He was famous for going to mass before games and praying for the good Lord to support Canterbury. In a lot of instances he was successful, and I think in the years that Peter was the CEO of Canterbury, God was more of a Canterbury supporter than someone else's supporter. Rugby League was his consuming passion. Marie, his wife, and his nine children and 12 grandchildren, shared his love of the game with him. Indeed, the Canterbury club became an extension of Peter's life. In 1970, he and a group of players and officials, including Kevin Ryan, formed a reform group to take over the Canterbury football club. They were successful and Peter became the first secretary and then CEO of the club, a position he held from 1970 to 1995.He turned Canterbury into a professional club, and they were very successful in winning five premierships and playing in five grand finals. In the years that he was the CEO they were always in the semifinals or the finals. He was a great scout of talent and he brought many players from the country and from New Zealand to play for Canterbury. He took an interest in the young players and he was a great guide and mentor to them. He instituted a scholarship program for the club. One of the most famous people who came out of that program was Dr George Peponis, who was the captain of the club. He did his medical training at the expense of the club and became the captain of Australia. Peter Moore was so successful in making the club his life and an extension of his family that players for the club eventually married members of his family. Anderson and Folkes, for instance, married his daughters Lyn and Karen. He was a person who thought that the most important thing you could do in your life was to support your family and to support those who had supported you.Peter was a great player of the game. He was a utility back when he first started and a goal kicker. His career in Rugby League was only cut down by a woman running him down at a pedestrian crossing. He had to have a knee replacement because of that, and it put an end to his active playing. He was a very long-term official in Rugby League. He was the manager of the Australian team that went to Britain on a number of occasions. Even though he was on a different side from Ken Arthurson in the Super League war, the friendship that he and Ken Arthurson had on the Rugby League executive never broke down during what were difficult times for people who were Rugby League supporters and administrators. Indeed, at his funeral, Ken Arthurson said that he had never had a better friend in the world than Peter Moore, even though on the odd occasion in recent times they had had some difficulties. In the death of Peter Moore, we have lost a great Australian, a person who was dearly loved by everybody who knew him, and who had a great effect on the district he grew up in. (Time expired)1935312:33:0019353May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Last week, I was privileged to launch Employment National's innovative new scheme, Job Challenge 10,000. As the name suggests, the national goal is to raise 10,000 job vacancies in two weeks—a tall order by any standard. On the Gold Coast we need to raise 250 vacancies from the four offices in our region: at Southport, Nerang, Palm Beach and Tweed Heads. In addition to boasting very worthy goals, the Job Challenge 10,000 initiative is also a great promotional tool to let employers and the Australian people know that there are organisations out there making inroads.Job Challenge 10,000 is a very clever initiative. Its aim is to remind employers of the range of services available to assist them to fill their vacancies. It has been said by more astute business people than I that good personnel are the key to a good business. Equally as important, it is also of enormous benefit to the unemployed. Hopefully, the challenge will give them an impetus to register with Employment National and take the first step on the difficult road to finding a fulfilling job.I think everyone knows how demanding and, at times, frustrating it can be to find a job. It is one of those periods in life when you face the prospect of rejection—often numerous times. So it takes a certain amount of motivation to get into the market and, hopefully, Job Challenge will provide that motivation 10,000 times over—a tough ask.Every industry needs a pioneer and I am pleased to say that Employment National has filled that niche in the recruitment service industry. With more than 160 sites across Australia, Employment National has come up with an ever-expanding range of services—many of which are tailored to the particular needs of certain communities. For example, the harvest program is of tremendous benefit to agricultural regions which previously had no real program to coordinate the labour supply on which they depend. So it is good to see that at Employment National both businesses and jobseekers do not have to fit into the existing programs. Instead, it is a case of tailoring their program to fit your needs. This sort of approach has achieved results and reaped the rewards. When the government handed down two contracts to Job Network, Employment National was awarded a huge 22 per cent of the total job matching contracts. It had proven itself to be effective the first time around.The federal government is determined to oversee a continued fall in the unemployment rate. National unemployment has hit a 10-year low of 6.3 per cent and the news on the horizon also looks positive, with this year's budget predicting the lowest jobless rate in a generation by this time next year. It is clear that at the moment we are getting the formula right in this country. No government can achieve this sort of result alone. It is the Job Network providers such as Employment National that are out there at the local coalface finding people work.In Australia, we no longer have a one size fits all situation. Job Network providers recognise that the demands of both business and the jobless do vary based on geographical location and the type of industry supported in the region. On the Gold Coast, our labour market has its own unique qualities and Employment National has adapted to meet those needs. Being a premier tourism destination, our economy depends heavily on the hospitality and retail sectors, and the nature of those industries means that our labour market is more casualised. However, as a city, the Gold Coast is progressing and we are experiencing a diversification of the industry base. This is challenging and changing the nature of the local work force by creating more full-time and part-time positions.The latest research from the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business shows that the rate has dropped in every single one of the 31 statistical local areas where unemployment is measured on the Gold Coast. In many areas the jobless rate dropped by two to three per cent in the last quarter alone. At the moment I believe the unemployment rate on the Gold Coast is around seven per cent. As is to be expected, this is still higher than the Brisbane metropolitan area, but it is significantly better than the 10 to 12 per cent unemployment we experienced just a couple of years ago. Of course, the reasons for the drop are many and varied, but a good proportion of it comes down to the government working to assist private enterprise and knowing when to butt out. We are at a strong point, both locally and nationally, a good climate in which to meet the goal of Job Challenge 10,000. I know the Gold Coast community will get behind the Job Challenge 10,000 and together we will rise to the task. Congratulations to Tony Frangou and Employment National on the initiative. Good luck in the next two weeks.1935412:35:0019354Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—With our troops still in East Timor, prior to Anzac Day I distributed a reminder to my constituents that some 2,000 of our Australian service people were still there. We received a wonderful response from the constituents of Melbourne Ports and their response was greatly appreciated by the commander of the Australian contingent in East Timor, Colonel Baker. I subsequently received a wonderful letter from the company sergeant major in charge of morale in East Timor from 6 RAR, one of their companies—in particular the Alpha Company. He had many of the soldiers in those units over there writing to constituents all over Melbourne Ports.I had some of the cards that I distributed to my constituents spare, so I gave them to the schools in my electorate. I want to pay tribute to the young people from St Kilda, Elwood, Albert Park and all over my electorate who have written thousands and thousands of postcards to the soldiers in East Timor. The schools include St Kilda Primary School; Wesley College; Caulfield Junior College, where my daughter goes; St Kilda Park Primary School, which is opposite my office; Graeme Street Primary School; Middle Park Primary School; Elwood Primary School, where I was a student; St Aloysius Primary School; St Kilda St Michael's Grammar School; Yavneh College; and Albert Park College.In the remaining time, I want to read some of the extraordinary letters that some of these children, mainly from primary schools, sent to our troops in East Timor. There were three girls from one school—Tamara, Rebecca and Sarah—who wrote:We are 13, 11, 11 years old. We would like to know what it is like over there. Has anything bad happened? We think it is amazing how you sacrifice your life for other people. Please write back.Stuart Inglis from Wesley College wrote:A couple of days ago David Scott came to our school to collect a $5,000 cheque for the East Timor Relief fund. We got all the money by doing a Walk-athon.Shannon Jackway of Elwood Primary School wrote:You have great courage and guts. I don't have the guts and courage like you. Keep up the great work.Some of the letters were very personal, telling our troops of things that the students thought the troops were missing back here in Australia. Rosa Roberts wrote to the troops in East Timor:The other day I went to a pop concert (the Vengaboys) and had a great time. The only problem was that my mum kept doing all this `oldies' disco-dancing, which was sooo embarrassing! (in the end I ignored it) The concert finished at 11:00 pm, by which time we were all quite relaxed.Marhsall Bunting from Elwood Primary School wrote:Thank you so much for helping East Timor children. You made a big difference. You are not only helping East Timor you are helping the hole country. Marhsall, `whole' is not spelt `hole'. You will have to go back to your teacher about that. Marshall's letter continues: Keep up the good work. Thank you for such a dangerous job. Sorry about missing your family. But you are worth Billions of dollars.Hu Yan Shen from St Kilda Primary School also wrote to the troops. He said:Everyone in Australia is very proud of the Australian troops, who went to East Timor, and help people to find peace and Independence.Freya Mellor-Prior from West St Kilda wrote:I understand that most of you won't be home for while but you should know that everyone is thinking of you.One of the other people who wrote was Emma Wang. She said:Keep up your good work. I believe you are very courageous and though your name is unknown you're just like a national hero, keeping our country's good reputation.Sarah Griffin of North Caulfield wrote:Hi, my name is Sarah Griffin, I am 12 years old, I live in Melbourne and I go to Wesley College.I would like to congratulate you (and the other peacekeepers) on your efforts and success in East Timor.It is both fantastic and relieving to see East Timor getting somewhere in restoring their country and lives.Here in Australia, we have now realized just how lucky we are to live in such a safe environment and go to good schools. We see pictures of poor East Timorese children wandering the streets, with no where to go and no one to care for them. Please continue the good work and look after them for us.The troops in East Timor in the last few days have encountered some rough duty, but the people of Australia are still thinking about them. I am very proud of the young people in my electorate who have written to them.1935512:43:0019355Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—It is with great pride that I report the success of the `Sustainable Future of the Bluegum Industry in Australia' workshop, which was held over two days earlier in August at the CSIRO Plantation Forest Research Centre in Mount Gambier. Forestry is one of the most important and lucrative industries in the south-east of South Australia, worth approximately $1.9 billion a year with the pine forests alone. The opportunities for the burgeoning blue gum industry are quite boundless. In fact, it could at some stage overtake the softwood industry in the south-east—but not at the expense of that industry, I might add.This workshop was a landmark event for the industry. The workshop was the first of its kind to be held, and it brought together industry leaders from such companies as Timbercorp, Norgard Clohessy Equity Ltd, Forestry Enterprise Tasmania, Australian Plantation Timber, Great Southern Plantations, Woakwine, ITC Project Management and Australian Forest Growers, scientists from the CSIRO and members of the Forestry and Forest Products Division of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.These industry leaders represented blue gum interests in every state of Australia except Queensland which, through this government's good policies, have been enabled to flourish. It came to my attention nearly a year ago that it would be necessary to convene a meeting of industry leaders to discuss matters of common interest and future directions for the blue gum industry. As with any new and rapidly growing industry, there is a threat that the industry might become a giant before issues of importance and concern to the local community, local government and industry participants could be addressed. My proposal to convene a meeting of multilateral scope with the CSIRO, government and industry leaders was met very well indeed. Both the CSIRO and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry worked hard in a short time to prepare discussion papers for the meeting. I thank the Minister for Forestry and Conservation,Wilson Tuckey, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Warren Truss, for their full support in helping to bring this group together. I also thank in particular Dr Sadanadain Nambiar from the CSIRO and Phillip Townsend from the department for their terrific efforts in putting it all together. I believe all the participants left this workshop with a positive outlook on the future of their industry and a commitment to fund the research that is necessary for a profitable future. As it turns out, the workshop could not have been convened at a more opportune time. Issues surrounding the industry had received considerable local media attention in the weeks leading up to the workshop and the news that industry leaders, government and scientists were to meet to discuss direction, focus and regional issues allayed some of the concerns held by the local community. The core objective of this meeting was to explore the opportunities for collaborative research and development into a sustainable future for the blue gum industry. Value adding to the industry was accorded high priority as was the identification of, and agreement on, priorities for research, and the identification of suitable themes for consortium, bilateral and precompetitive research. The development of strategies for joint funding by industry in seeking government support and developing an action plan for project development and implementation were also considered high priority issues. The value adding possibilities included a pulp mill, LVL, charcoal production and sawn timber of a hardwood variety. The sustainable and efficient use of water is of primary importance to plantation companies and the local community alike. It was agreed that a holistic approach to water issues should be developed and salinity credits were raised as a possible means of encouraging responsible and efficient management of water resources. Fire management is also a concern particularly considering the damage done during the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983. Many members of the workshop felt that the coordination of effective fire management strategies should be given priority over any research on fire fuel dynamics. The group also discussed issues surrounding pest and disease management, molecular breeding and paper, fibre and pulp evaluation. I believe that everybody gained a lot from this event and both the CSIRO and I have received much positive feedback. (Time expired)1935612:48:0019356Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—I would like today to draw attention to a situation facing many of the small charities that provide emergency assistance to needy Australians. I have been contacted by a number of charities operating in my electorate which were deeply concerned about the effects that the new tax system is having on their ability to provide services. Australians are generous people. They have shown time and time again their willingness to put their hands in their pockets to help others who are facing tough times. They have shown their willingness to help people they have never met in other parts of the world as well as people facing difficulties in their own communities. Australians are to be praised for that generosity that they show on these occasions and we need to be careful that we do not discourage this generosity.A good example of the difficulties facing small charities has been brought to my attention by the Hills Home Help Centre, which operates in Armadale, in my electorate, to provide emergency assistance to needy local families. Small charities like the Hills Home Help Centre are in big trouble across Australia. They are faced with increasing demands for their services at the same time as they have to meet more and more bureaucratic and administrative requirements. The Hills Home Help Centre was started in 1992 by Louise Noble and her husband, Dennis, who run the centre with the help of a team of volunteers. Like thousands of other people working for small charities around the country, they are discouraged and fed up with the obstacles and hindrances that this government is putting in their way as they try to do their work. It is about time that they received some encouragement and help from the government, before they, like hundreds of other charity workers, decide that it is all just too hard. Australians expect that the money they donate to charities will go to help the needy, but there is evidence that the Australian public is becoming more wary of requests from charities for funding. Most Australians are aware of the research that shows that in many instances a large proportion of donations does not get to the intended recipients. Donors want to see their money being put into programs to help the targeted groups, not into the pockets of media consultants or professional fundraisers. How are they going to react when they find out that charities are lending their donations—intended for the help of needy Australians—to this government?The Hills Home Help Centre prepare up to 150 hampers a week for needy families in my electorate. The hampers contain food and essential personal items, like soap, toilet paper and nappies. The GST on these personal items is adding an average of $5.50 to the cost of every hamper. This means that this small, struggling charity is lending over $800 per week to the government. Of course, charities can claim back the GST, but Hills Home Help have been told that they will have to wait months for repayment.Another way of looking at this situation is to work out how much extra food could be provided for families with this money. The centre is able to obtain food for 50c a kilo from another charity. Therefore, the money lent to the government prevents the centre from providing up to 1,650 kilograms of food every week to needy families living in my region. Why is this government putting extra burdens on those members of the community that can least afford to bear them? Why is it implementing a tax system which takes a much higher proportion of the income of our neediest community members and a lower proportion of the income of the wealthiest?Increasing numbers of our citizens are having to turn to charities for help because they can no longer afford essential items. The new tax system means that—for the first time—there is a tax on second-hand goods, including second-hand children's clothing. And we all know who buys second-hand children's clothing. This is a clever tax gathering system: as children grow out of their clothes before they wear them out, the parents take them back, resell them and buy more second-hand clothes. This means that one item of clothing for a small child can be sold again and again, and every time it is sold the government gets its tax.The new tax system is causing misery and real financial hardship for thousands of Australians. This is resulting in greater and greater strain being put on small local charities like Hills Home Help, and more and more of the people that work for these charities are asking themselves whether their effort is worth it. The people that run these charities are some of the very best of Australians. They work selflessly and tirelessly for little or no money to help others. They are shining examples of what it really means to be members of an Australian community and citizens of a nation. The government should be encouraging and honouring these people, but instead it is forcing them to work even harder and for longer hours so that it can grab its tax and hang on to it for a few months before paying it back. The government should be ashamed.193581935812:53:0019358Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I would like to talk about a very special constituent of mine, Mrs Ruth Mahoney, of Beenleigh. With 300 of her friends and family, I had the pleasure of attending her 100th birthday last Saturday. What an amazing woman. On that day she shared with us her secret for her long life: keeping busy. She stated that she had been a busy woman all her life and that many years ago, when she felt she was getting old, she made up her mind not to sit in a chair for the rest of her life and look at four walls but to do something different. She said it was the best decision she had made, and that she now feels she can go on for some time before old age catches up with her. What a wonderful attitude for a 100-year-old person.Ruth has been involved in the Beenleigh Senior Citizens for over 40 years. She has made a very valuable contribution to that centre and they showed their appreciation last Saturday. Linda Rowan and her staff and members put on one of the biggest birthday parties we have ever seen in Beenleigh—Ruth had every civic leader there, all of the community leaders and all of her friends and family—and it was the best afternoon I have ever been involved in in this job.Ruth is sprightly and sharp as a tack. She has been a member of the senior citizens concert group for many years; she goes to practice twice a week and she is up on the stage entertaining people sometimes half her age. But also she goes around and entertains at nursing homes and aged people's homes. Then—in her spare time, as she says—she knits, crochets and cooks to raise funds for the Senior Citizens Centre. I cannot dance or sing, but looking at this lady I know how I am going to spend my older years: probably causing a bit of misery among some people if I ever try to sing, but getting up on that stage and trying to keep myself active.At the other end of the spectrum, I would like to talk about another group in my area and that is a group of young people. Seven of the eight people come from Beaudesert High School and they were the recipients of the Caps leadership awards. Another very impressionable young man came from the rural Darlington State School.When I saw these young people on the night and gave them their awards, it went through my mind how lucky I was to be seeing our future in such good hands. These fine young Australians accepted the responsibility and they met many of the challenges that this leadership role involved. They had to extend their very involved time to reach the level set by Caps. They have my admiration and that of the community for this very impressive achievement.I would also like to thank John Gleeson, the coach of the Beaudesert Gymnast Club, for hosting this successful night. I would like to mention, while I have the time, these young people's names. I am quite sure we are going to hear them on many occasions in the future. I would like to congratulate Sally Powel, Amanda Trace, Amy Rowlands, April Rowlands, Courtney Robertson, Laura Sergeant, Emily Walsh and that young and impressionable man, Reubern Franklin. I know he will go a long way in life. I wish them all the best for the future.In the remaining couple of minutes, I would also like to congratulate the Canungra Lighthorse Brigade. I had the pleasure of opening their education unit. I would like to thank our Minister for Veterans' Affairs for the support that he has shown this group with grants over the years. They have set up a trailer with a horse and the Lighthorse Brigade have an information unit, a caravan, that they take around to all of our local schools to show the young people the many sacrifices that our Lighthorse Brigade made over many years. It is not to glorify war but it is to bring to the young people's attention to the sacrifices that men and women made to this country so that they could live in the freedom that we see today. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sergeant Peter Hilder and Corporal Ken Reese for the many hours that they give to this project and to the many delighted young people in my community. I see the look on their faces when the Lighthorse Brigade visits their schools. I would like to thank them on behalf of the Commonwealth government for the wonderful work they do.Main Committee adjourned at 12.55 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing19360The following answers to questions were circulated:19360(Question No. 1543)154319360O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 11 May 2000: (1) Does the Minister's Department administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individuals can apply for funding in Tasmania; if so, what are the programs. (2) Does the Minister's Department advertise these funding opportunities; if so, (a) what print media outlets have been used for the advertising of each of these programs and (b) were these paid advertisements.19360Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following Commonwealth funded programs, administered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, are available to community organisations, businesses or individuals in Tasmania: . The Food and Fibre Chains Program provides grants to eligible businesses to optimise supply chain performance. It is a national, demonstration program which has been outsourced to be managed by a private company, Agri Chain Solutions Ltd, a subsidiary of Supermarket to Asia Ltd, which services the Prime Minister's Supermarket to Asia Council. . The New Industries Development Program provides grants to sole traders, individuals, or groups of rural producers, partnerships and companies incorporated in Australia carrying on a business in Australia. The program is designed to support the development of new agribusiness products and services through a range of initiatives including funding for pilot commercialisation projects. . The Financial Counselling Services component of the Rural Communities Program provides financial counselling to communities in rural and remote areas. The Rural Communities Program is a national program with rural communities in all States and the Northern Territory being able to access grants according to program guidelines. Grants are provided to contribute to the cost of employing a financial counsellor, and the associated administrative costs. The Commonwealth will meet up to 50% of the cost of any financial counselling service. The community group employs the Financial Counsellor. Financial Counsellors can help primary producers, small rural businesses and individuals in rural areas who are experiencing financial difficulty. . The Farm Business Improvement Program (FarmBis) aims to help individual farm businesses benefit from change by building on their business management skills. The State and Territory Component provides demand driven training to farm managers and workers to enhance the capacity of farm businesses. Funding for the State Component of the Farm Business Improvement Program contributed equally by the Commonwealth and State/Territory. Members of the farm management team are able to access the program in Tasmania just as in every State and Territory. . The Farm Family Restart Scheme provides income support, professional counselling and re-establishment grants and is available to all eligible farmers on a national basis. This program is administered by Centrelink. The new Farm Help program was announced in the 2000-01 Budget and is designed to enhance the Farm Family Restart Scheme. . In addition, the following programs are available to eligible farmers in the Exceptional Circumstances declared areas within the Central Highlands of Tasmania and Flinders Island: - The Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment assists farm families in Exceptional Circumstances areas who are experiencing difficulties meeting personal living expenses, and is equivalent to the Newstart Allowance. Centrelink administers the Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment. - Exceptional Circumstances Interest Rate Subsidies are also currently available. The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment administer interest rate subsidies in accordance with a Commonwealth/State Agreement. . The Farm Management Deposit Scheme is available to all eligible farmers in Australia and provides a tax-linked saving mechanism that allows farmers to set aside pre-tax income from years of good cash flow for use in years of low cash flow. The Scheme is operating out of private financial institutions. . The Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme provides a three-year opportunity for farmers to gift their farms to a younger generation and gain immediate access to the age pension. The Scheme is available to all eligible farmers on a national basis. While the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has an interest in the operation of the Scheme, the Department of Family and Community Services and Department of Veteran Affairs jointly administer it. . The Department offers grants to national non-government women's organisations to assist in their operational expenses. . The Tasmanian Wheat Freight - Shipping program offers Commonwealth funding to offset the costs of shipping wheat from the mainland to Tasmania. It is provided to the Tasmanian Government through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. . The Lamb Industry Development Program is to assist the Australian lamb industry enhance its competitive position through leveraged funding by building demand for lamb, improving product quality and integrity, encouraging on-farm productivity and innovation, enhancing industry performance and infrastructure development. . The National Pork Industry Development Program is available to assist eligible industry participants improve their competitive advantage and the overall competitiveness of the industry, identify market opportunities and market development, and/or enhance skills and industry infrastructure. . The Pigmeat Processing Grants Program is available to improve the international competitiveness of the pork slaughterhouse/boning room and processing sector by providing funding assistance for eligible new capital investments. . The Pork Producer Exit Program is available to assist pork producers who are unable to access commercial finance and who have made the decision to exit the pork industry, to do so without exhausting all their family assets. . A number of Natural Heritage Trust programs provide funding opportunities in Tasmania. A range of non-government groups, including incorporated community groups, individuals proposing activities that have a very high public benefit, incorporated non-government organisations, regional organisations working in partnership with local and/or State governments, incorporated Indigenous communities or organisations and educational institutions, are eligible to apply for funding under these programs. - The National Landcare Program supports on-ground action which will result in integrated and sustainable natural resource management at the farm, catchment and regional level and which contribute to an integrated program of sustainable management of land, water, vegetation and biological diversity. - The National Rivercare Program is aimed at ensuring progress towards the sustainable management, rehabilitation and conservation of rivers outside the Murray-Darling Basin and to improve the health of these rivers. The National Rivercare Program seeks to encourage the development of strategic and integrated responses to address identified river issues. Its focus is on inland rivers. - The Farm Forestry Program aims to encourage the incorporation of commercial tree growing and management into farming systems for the purpose of wood and non-wood production, increasing agricultural productivity and sustainable natural resource management. - The Fisheries Action Program aims to rebuild Australia's fisheries to more productive and sustainable levels through fish habitat restoration and protection; encouraging community participation in activities to improve fisheries ecosystems; aquatic pest control; ensuring that fishing by commercial and recreational fishers is sustainable and responsible; raising community awareness; and promoting related research encouraging integrated approaches to fisheries resources management and habitat conservation. - The National Feral Animal Control Program - Agricultural Component is available to develop effective, economic and humane pest animal control techniques; `best practice' pest animal management strategies demonstrated at a regional management scale; monitoring techniques to provide more reliable information on pest animal numbers and damage; and extension materials and activities to facilitate the adoption of `best practice' pest management. Support is not provided for routine pest animal management activities where benefits are likely to be limited to particular regions. (2) Advertising details for these funding opportunities are as follows: . Food and Fibre Chains Program Yes. (a) Hobart Mercury, Tasmanian Country, the Australian Financial Review (export feature in April 2000) and the Australian Institute of Export Handbook. (b) Yes. . New Industries Development Program Yes. (a) Australian Financial Review and The Australian. (b) Yes. . Financial Counselling Services component of the Rural Communities Program No. The Department of Transport and Regional Services, which jointly administers the Rural Communities Program with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, has responsibility for advertising calls for applications to access the Rural Communities Program. . Farm Business Improvement Program (FarmBis)No. The States are responsible for advertising the programs that they deliver to farm businesses and farming communities under agreements with the Commonwealth. . Farm Family Restart Scheme and Farm Help ProgramNo. Centrelink has responsibility for advertising the availability of this program through its offices and Centrelink publications. . Exceptional Circumstances - Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment - Exceptional Circumstances Interest Rate Subsidies - Yes. Centrelink has responsibility for advertising the availability of the Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment through its offices and Centrelink publications. The availability of interest rate subsidies is advertised by State authorities administering that support. In addition, information on all rural programs can be found on the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry internet site. (a) Nil. (b) No. . Farm Management Deposit SchemeNo. Financial institutions have the responsibility for advertising the program. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry provide general advertising of the Agriculture - Advancing Australia package, including Farm Management Deposits. . Retirement Assistance for Farmers SchemeNo. The scheme is advertised by the Department of Family and Community Services and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. . Grants program for women's national non-government organisations Yes. It is advertised through paid advertisements and through rural women's networks. (a) Weekend Australian, Employment Bulletin and University and Higher Education. (b) Yes. . Tasmanian Wheat Freight - Shipping programNo. The day-to-day administration of the Tasmanian Wheat Freight - Shipping including advising people of the availability of these funds is a matter for the Tasmanian Government. . The Lamb Industry Development ProgramYes. (a) Financial Review, The Australian, The Land, Weekly Times, Stock and Land, Farm Weekly and Stock Journal. (b) Yes. . National Pork Industry Development Yes. (a) Stock Journal, Countryman, Herald Weekly Times, The Land, and Australian Pork Newspapers. (b) Yes. . Pigmeat Processing Grants ProgramYes. (a) The Weekend Australian Newspaper and The Land Newspaper. (b) Yes. . Pork Producer Exit ProgramYes. The Pork Producer Exit Program advertising has included Ministerial press releases, a Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website, faxstream to pork producers and interviews on national broadcast media. (a) Nil. (b) No. .Natural Heritage Trust Programs - National Landcare ProgramNo. Environment Australia placed paid advertisements in the Hobart Mercury for this and other relevant Trust programs administered by Environment Australia. - National Rivercare ProgramNo. Environment Australia placed paid advertisements in the Hobart Mercury for this and other relevant Trust programs administered by Environment Australia. - Farm Forestry ProgramNo. Environment Australia placed paid advertisements in the Hobart Mercury for this and other relevant Trust programs administered by Environment Australia. - Fisheries Action ProgramNo. Environment Australia placed paid advertisements in the Hobart Mercury for this and other relevant Trust programs administered by Environment Australia. - National Feral Animal Control Program - Agricultural ComponentYes. The availability of funding is promoted using free listing in `LAWNADs' - an e-mail service with over 4000 subscribers (consultants, community groups and government agencies) in the natural resource management field; National Feral Animal Control Program mailing list - consisting of pest animal managers and researchers throughout Australia; and. paid national advertisements. (a) Weekend Australian and Early General News. (b) Yes.19363(Question No. 1624)162419363Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 June 2000: (1) What, if any, timetable has been set for the relocation of all or part of the RAAF College located at RAAF Base Williams at Point Cook to an alternative defence property. (2) Has a decision been made to relocate the RAAF College in whole or in part to (a) RAAF Base East Sale, (b) RAAF Base Laverton or (c) another Defence property; if so, (i) when was that decision made, (ii) by whom was the decision made and (iii) does the decision relate to the whole of the RAAF College at Point Cook or to only part of the RAAF College; if so, to which part. (3) If a decision has been made to relocate the RAAF College to (a) RAAF Base East Sale, (b) RAAF Base Laverton or (c) another Defence property, what is the cost of (i) the relocation, (ii) any capital expenditure required to build or renovate facilities at the Defence property, (c) expenditure required for equipment or fit out of the facilities at the Defence property, (d) moving items from the RAAF College at Point Cook to the facilities at the Defence property and (e) transferring both civilian and non-civilian personnel from the RAAF college at Point Cook to the Defence property, including, but not limited to, details of the numbers of such staff, the relocation costs of such staff, the changes in salary and benefits required and the costs of any redundancies or other employment costs relating to staff not being relocated. 19364Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) All of the RAAF College at Point Cook is planned to be relocated in the next three or four years. Future location options for the RAAF College are presently being assessed within the Department. The RAAF College at Point Cook will be located on another Air Force base although RAAF Laverton is not an option. The RAAF College project is scheduled to be submitted to Government for consideration in the context of the Budget 2001-02.19364(Question No. 1632)163219364Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 June 2000: (1) Does his Department plan to close the explosives facility at Graytown, Vic. (2) Will the closure result in the loss of about 50 civilian jobs and a substantial reduction in goods and services provided by local businesses. (3) How does the closure sit with the Prime Minister's commitment to country regions given in Nyngan in January 2000.19364Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) The proof and experimental functions of Defence at Port Wakefield, South Australia, and Graytown, Victoria, are being market tested as part of the efficiency measures envisaged in the Defence Reform Program. The evaluation of the tenders is approaching completion but until the decision is finalised it is not possible to comment on how or where the services will be delivered.19364(Question No. 1638)163819364Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 June 2000: (1) Have staff of his Department located in the Australia Taxation Office (ATO) building in Northbridge, WA, been advised that they are to vacate the premises by May 2002. (2) What impact will this have on the operation of his Department in Perth. (3) How many staff members are currently located in the Northbridge office. (4) What functions do they perform. (5) Is his Department moving staff from its premises in the ATO building in Northbridge. (6) To where will staff be moving. (7) What will be the cost of the move. (8) What will be the cost of any new furnishings and ancillaries.19364Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Nil. (3) There are currently 67 personnel located in the ATO building. (4) The functions performed are assessment and enlistment, medical testing and psychological evaluations of prospective ADF enlistees, and administrative support. (5) Not at this time. (6) No decision made to date. (7) See 6. (8) See 6. 19365(Question No. 1652)165219365Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 2000: (1) How many people are being held in detention at the Villawood detention centre in Sydney and how many of these persons are of (a) Chinese background, (b) Arabic background, (c) African background and (d) other backgrounds. (2) Have a number of the people held in detention been released on conditional bonds or assurances; if so, how many have been released and from what ethnic background are those who have been released. (3) Has the level of bonds and assurances required in the last two years increased from $3000 to more than $30 000; if so, (a) what is the justification for the increase in bond costs and (b) is the Government trying to make profits from the process of releasing refugee claimants in the community. 19365Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There were 326 people detained at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre on 30 June 2000. The Department's records indicate that of the people detained at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre on 30 June 2000: (a) 58 detainees were from the PRC or Hong Kong SAR. (b) The data does not indicate the number of detainees who are of Arabic background, however the table below does provide details of the nationality of people in the Villawood detention centre on 30 June 2000. (c) The data does not indicate the number of detainees who are of African background, however the table below does provide details of the nationality of people in the Villawood detention centre on 30 June 2000. (d) The following table provides the stated nationality of people in detention at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre on 30 June 2000. NationalityNumber NationalityNumber Chinese56Nepalese3Iraqi29British2Algerian21Egyptian2Indonesian19Stateless2Afghan16Hong Kong2Somali15Pakistani2Fijian14Eritrea1Vietnamese12Congo1Kuwaiti11Canadian1Indian10Bulgarian1Iranian10Angolan1Malaysian9Croatian1Korean9Ghana1Sri Lankan7Irish1Turkish7Liberian1Albanian6Macedonian1Libyan5Palestinian1Kurdish4Papua New Guinean1Lebanese4Peruvian1Nigerian4Russian Federation1Filipino4Russian1Thai4South Africa1Bangladeshi4Sudanese1Zaire3Tongan1Yugoslavia3USA1Samoan3Yemen1Sierra Leone3Latvian1 (2) The Department's reporting system prior to 1 July 2000, provides the number of securities attached to Bridging E Visas, irrespective of whether the applicant was in an immigration detention centre. Hence, the following figures refer to securities that could have been requested as a consequence of compliance field activity or from people detained at an immigration detention centre. During the 1998/99 year, securities were attached to 832 Bridging E Visas. In the 1999/2000 year, 800 securities were attached to Bridging E Visas.The top 5 nationalities granted Bridging E Visas with securities attached during 1998/99: (1) China - 152 (2) Philippines - 83 (3) India - 71 (4) Indonesia - 71 (5) Vietnam - 63 The top 5 nationalities granted Bridging E Visas with securities attached during 1999/00: (1) China - 175 (2) India - 86 (3) Philippines - 59 (4) Indonesia - 41 (5) Malaysia - 39 (3) The average security attached to a Bridging E Visa has increased from $4,822 (1998/1999) to $6,810 (1999/2000). (a) The department does not set guidelines regarding the amount of the security required; it is an individual decision based on the circumstances of each applicant. Securities can be requested as part of the Bridging E Visa decision making process. In considering the application, decision-makers should consider (in addition to whether the applicant satisfies the primary criteria for the grant of the visa): . what conditions, if any, the decision-maker considers should be imposed on the grant of the visa: . whether the applicant is likely to abide by those conditions; and . whether the prospects of the applicant abiding by those conditions would be significantly enhanced if they were to lodge a financial security. (b) Securities are forfeited when an authorised decision-maker considers that the visa holder's failure to abide with a condition(s) attached to the visa is sufficiently serious to warrant forfeiture. 19366(Question No. 1653)165319366Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 2000: (1) What were the specific grievances and requests of the refugee claimants who escaped from the Woomera detention centre in the recent mass breakout. (2) Have any of these grievances or requests been met. (3) Will the Government make changes to its existing detention regime; if so, what; if not, why not. (4) Why is the processing period for so many of these refugee claimants so long. (5) Is the large majority of these claimants granted refugee status; if so, will the Government introduce a provisional mechanism to allow these refugee claimants to be released into the care of community organisations much more quickly, thereby allowing a more thorough examination of their refugee claims to be made and also reducing the suffering of these people.19367Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The detainees who broke out of the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre were aggrieved by the length of time they had spent in detention. The unauthorised arrivals were misinformed by people smugglers about the length of time they would spend in detention. (2) When people arrive illegally, the Department needs to: find out who they are; where they have come from; why they cannot return to their country of origin; and carry out character and health checks. Many unauthorised arrivals dispose of documentation before their arrival in Australia. This practice only adds to the delays in processing times as we establish an individual's bona fides. Members of my Department meet with detainees regularly to inform them of the legal processes in Australia and how their cases will be progressed. Significant resources have been assigned to manage unauthorised arrivals and the processing of applications as quickly as possible. However, detainees are only released when they have satisfied all relevant criteria for the grant of a visa. (3) The Joint Standing Committee on Migration (JSCM) undertook a review of detention arrangements in 1994. The Committee considered a number of alternatives to mandatory detention including the release of detainees into the care of community groups. The Committee raised a number of doubts about the feasibility of release into the community which included: . the ability of care and welfare groups to adequately tend released detainees in an environment where the government could not be responsible for them; . rejected the notion that the costs associated with release would be cheaper than the costs of maintaining detention facilities, particularly when indirect and direct costs, such as accommodation, clothing, food and other living, medical and health costs, were considered; . the significant possibility that unauthorised arrivals released into the community pending finalisation of their cases would breach the conditions of release and abscond.These concerns remain as valid today as they were in 1994. Mandatory detention was introduced in 1992 and continues to have bipartisan support. (4) The vast majority of unauthorised arrivals by boat have intentionally disposed of their identity documents en route. Many unauthorised arrivals have spent significant periods in third countries prior to arrival in Australia. Establishing the identity of these people can take considerable time, but is essential in order to determine whether Australia owes protection obligations to them and to ensure that people are not granted visas and released where they represent a real danger to our community because of security or criminal concerns. The Government has significantly increased its capacity to process boat arrivals. The number of trained refugee decision-makers more than doubled in the course of 1999-2000. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has also been continually reviewing all its arrangements to ensure that boat arrivals are processed quickly, without compromising the rigour and integrity of our inquiries. Nonetheless, these boat arrivals can expect to remain in detention until we have satisfied ourselves that we know who they are and that they do not represent a danger to the community. (5) All unauthorised arrivals, whether protection visa applicants or not, are required by law to be detained until they are either removed from Australia, or granted a visa. On current nationality compositions, a large number of unauthorised arrivals are found to require Australia's protection. However, a significant number are found not to require it. Australia's detention regime ensures that persons to whom Australia does not owe protection can be quickly removed. Importantly, detention also ensures that a protection visa applicant is readily available to assist in a thorough examination of their protection claims and resolution of issues surrounding their identity. Every effort is made to ensure that protection claims are examined and decisions made as quickly as possible, while maintaining the integrity of the system. Protection visa applicants in detention are provided with publicly funded migration agent assistance to ensure that their claims are presented quickly and comprehensively. 19368(Question No. 1667)166719368Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 22 June 2000: (1) What information has been made available to the Australian Government, either directly or through its diplomatic posts, about the living conditions and general circumstances of Kosovar refugees who were in Australia and were required to return. (2) Did Kosovar refugees defy the Government's edict and remain in Australia; if so, (a) how many, (b) where are they being held in detention and (c) what progress has been made on processing their refugee claims. (3) Given that these refugee claimants were invited to Australia by the Government, why will the Government not heed Albanian Community Organisations and others and release this small number of people into the care or those community organisations until such time as their refugee claims are finalised.19368Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since the commencement of Operation Safe Haven in May 1999 the Australian Government has been receiving regular and detailed reports regarding conditions in Kosovo from many sources including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and various non-government organisations. The topic and level of detail in these reports has varied, however, they have covered issues such as the availability of food, shelter, utilities, health care and education in specific localities both within and around Kosovo as well as providing information regarding ongoing relief efforts. In addition, where appropriate, security, protection and human rights issues have also been raised. These reports have not, however, examined the individual circumstances or living conditions of the more than 3600 Kosovars who returned after being given temporary safe haven in Australia, to join the 900,000 persons from other countries, in the enormous task of rebuilding their lives and homeland. (2) Only those Kosovars that I found to have no demonstrated need for ongoing medical or trauma treatment and no prospect of success in meeting the requirements for a protection visa, were asked to return to Kosovo on special charter flights in April 2000. (a) While most of this group returned co-operatively, 45 refused to do so. These people became unlawful non-citizens when their visas ceased to be in effect. (b) Of the Kosovars who chose to become unlawful, most have been detained. Currently 23 are being held in immigration detention at Port Hedland, six at Villawood in Sydney and one at Maribyrnong in Melbourne. (c) None of the Kosovars in immigration detention have applications for protection before my Department. (3) Under section 91K of the Migration Act 1958 the holder of a temporary safe haven visa is not allowed to apply for any other type of visa while still in Australia. However, under section 91L it is possible for me to allow such an application to be made where I think it is in the public interest to do so. In April 2000, I considered some 500 claims from Kosovars in this context. As a result, everyone who had any prospect for success with a protection visa application was allowed to apply and 126 have done so. In addition, many others were granted further stay in Australia due to medical or trauma conditions. Officers of my Department are currently assessing applications submitted for protection visas and, while their claims are being considered, the applicants are living in the Australian community and receiving appropriate Government assistance.19368(Question No. 1677)167719368Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 June 2000: (1) How many individual transactions with individual members of the public were conducted by each agency in the Minister's portfolio in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000, and if available, what are the forecast figures for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04. (2) What definition of transaction is used to determine these figures. (3) What proportion of these transactions were or are expected to be conducted online. (4) What was the total cost of administering these transactions for each agency in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04. (5) What was the total cost of administering the online transactions in (a) 1998- 99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.19369Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) The very detailed information sought by the honourable member's question is not readily available in consolidated form and it would be a major task to collect and assemble it. I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of time and money to do so.19369(Question No. 1669)166919369Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 22 June 2000: (1) Is he able to say whether the US Government recently applied backdated anti-dumping duties on apple juice concentrate imports from China under current WTO guidelines; if so, (a) why have the duties been applied and (b) why have they been backdated. (2) Has the amount of Chinese apple juice concentrate imported into Australia increased from 5,560,251 litres in 1993 to 14,277,851 in 1999; if not, by what amount have these imports increased over that period. (3) Has the dumping of Chinese apple juice concentrate led to the closure of processing plants in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales; if not, what impact have Chinese apple imports had on the Australian apple industry. (4) In light of the US's decision, why is Chinese apple juice concentrate being allowed onto the Australian market without similar protection for the Australian apple industry. (5) Is the Government taking steps to consult the Australian apple industry about the impact of these imports; if so, what; if not why not.19369Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 5 June 2000 the US Department of Commerce determined that anti-dumping duties would be applied on all unliquidated entries of certain non-frozen apple juice concentrate (NFAJC) from the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC). (a) The anti-dumping duties have been applied because the Department of Commerce determined that NFAJC from the PRC is being or is likely to be sold in the US at less than fair value (causing material injury to a US industry). (b) The anti-dumping duties have been applied to imports since the date of the Department of Commerce's preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value, which was made on 23 November 1999. Cash deposits on affected imports of NFAJC from the PRC have been collected by US Customs since the date of the preliminary determination, in conformity with WTO guidelines, pending a final determination. (2) Available ABS data shows that the amount of Chinese apple juice concentrate imported into Australia increased from 922,400 litres in 1995 to 9,048,461 litres in 1999. (3) The Australian Apple and Pear Growers' Association (AAPGA) advise that no processing plants have closed down as yet. However, it is the smaller processors who will have difficulty in maintaining competitiveness of their product against the cheap imported concentrate. Moreover, the use of cheaper Chinese juice concentrates by processors forces second grade Australian apples, which would otherwise be destined for processing, on to the domestic fresh apple market. This reduces buyer's confidence and damages consumer perception of Australian product. (4) The AAPGA is taking a promotional approach to combating this problem. It is supporting the development of a Code of Practice to promote the use of Australian apple juice through labelling along the lines of “100% Australian apple juice”. The Australian Customs Service has confirmed that it has not received any approach from the apple juice industry in the past 12 months. (5) The Australian Customs Service maintains a Dumping Liaison Unit within the Trade Measures Branch. This unit provides assistance to local industry concerning the requirements needed to lodge a dumping complaint. If the apple juice industry wishes assistance in understanding the process and information requirements associated with a dumping complaint, this unit would be pleased to provide assistance. 19370(Question No. 1718)171819370Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 29 June 2000: (1) Did he announce that approximately 1,700 people, who have been held in detention centres, will be released as genuine refugees into the community in the next two months. (2) Has the Government prohibited Migrant Resource Centres and other bodies, directly or indirectly funded by his department, from assisting these genuine refugees; if so why. (3) Has he called on State Governments not to provide welfare assistance to these genuine refugees; if so, why. (4) What forms of assistance will be available to these refugees, especially if they cannot access English language courses and other settlement services.19370Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I did indicate recently that approximately 1,700 persons currently in detention in Immigration Reception and Processing Centres may be released as Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) holders over the next six to eight weeks. (2) My Department has written to organisations funded through various settlement related programs, including Migrant Resource Centres, to explain the Government's approach to the TPVs. These organisations were informed that funding for programs they provi `de was directed at refugees and others who have been permanently resettled in Australia. Government funding for these programs was not to be directed away from assisting permanent residents to those who have been given temporary protection. (3) I wrote to all State Premiers and Territory Chief Ministers on 7 January 2000 informing them of the introduction of the new visa category for unauthorised arrivals found to have engaged Australia's protection obligation. I suggested that while it would not be appropriate for these refugees to be denied any basic rights, it would be consistent with the Commonwealth's intentions if State or Territory assistance was restricted to essential or basic services. (4) TPV holders can claim special benefit, have the right to work and are able to access job matching and Medicare. They are also able to access the early health assessment and intervention services funded directly by my department. English language programs have been available within the immigration reception and processing centres before release. The government considers it inappropriate to provide TPV holders with the more generous range of settlement services available to refugees and others resettled permanently in Australia under the humanitarian program. TPV holders are expected to take responsibility for their own living arrangements. They are being advised to seek further assistance from friends and relatives in Australia, or from relevant organisations within their own community.19370(Question No. 1726)172619370Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 June 2000:What progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into the loss of HMAS Sydney.19370Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government responded to the report on 29 June 2000, as is set out in pages 14929-14932 of the Senate Hansard.19371(Question No. 1727)172719371Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 June 2000: What progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign. Affairs., Defence and Trade into the loss of HMAS Sydney.19371Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government Response to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Inquiry, conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, was tabled on 29 June 2000. The Royal Australian Navy is now in a position, and has commenced preliminary planning, to implement the recommendations for which it is responsible.