2000-08-313917REPS1980102000-08-31—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Personal Explanations1980109:31:0019801Mr REITH, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?WI4Mr REITH, Peter, MPMr REITH—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.WI4Mr REITH, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, I refer to remarks made yesterday by the member for Melbourne Ports in the Main Committee, where he said:I do find it strange that the general manager of AMSA's Marine Environment Protection Services, Mr David Baird, who, I understand, is related to the member for Flinders, was promoted to this general manager's position from the humble position of surveyor for AMSA in Melbourne.This obviously contains two misrepresentations. One is that he was promoted because of his connection to me; furthermore, because of his connection to me, Mr Baird failed to properly prosecute a responsibility of AMSA.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. For the life of me I cannot see where the minister himself has been misrepresented. If he had nothing to do with his relation's appointment, that is nothing to do with him.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip makes a valid point of order, but I had made the presumption that the Leader of the House felt that he had been in some way accused of nepotism or a similar sort of accusation, and it was in that sense that he was responding, so I allowed him to continue.WI4Mr REITH, Peter, MPMr REITH—That is exactly what I was saying. Just to conclude the matter—and I am only being brief—it was a very low act from Mr Danby.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I raise a further point of order. I accept your ruling that he could explain where he thought he may have been accused of nepotism, but to go on and attack another member and accuse him of a low act really has nothing to do with a personal explanation of the minister's position.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat. I am allowing the Leader of the House to conclude his matter of personal misrepresentation.WI4Mr REITH, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Baird is my sister's husband. He was first appointed as an area manager for Victoria and Tasmania for AMSA in 1994. He was promoted to a general manager in 1997. Both his appointment when Labor was in office and his promotion whilst the coalition is in office are an internal matter for AMSA. Obviously those facts completely repudiate the baseless and unreasonable claims being made.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I believe the Leader of the House has had the opportunity to make the point on which he has been misrepresented and will resume his seat.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House and the Chief Opposition Whip will exercise just a little more restraint.Bills19801R113219801Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.1980109:34:0019801Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Health Insurance Amendment (Rural and Remote Area Medical Practitioners) Bill 2000 amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to enable the Commonwealth to restrict payments of Medicare benefits for a specified time to any medical practitioner who breaches a contract with the Commonwealth under which the practitioner has agreed to work in a rural or remote area. The time specified in the bill is twice that which the medical practitioner has agreed to work in a rural and remote area under the relevant contract. Medicare benefits are not payable for this period unless a shorter period is determined or is in accordance with the relevant contract. As the Medicare scheme is established by legislation, it is necessary to stipulate in legislation the period of time for which a medical practitioner cannot attract Medicare benefits if they breach their contract to work in rural and remote Australia. The ban on Medicare benefits will apply to medical practitioners who are in breach, regardless of whether they were medical practitioners at the time of entering the contract or at the time of the breach. The bill underpins the government's Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme, a budget initiative that demonstrates the government's approach to solving the problem of the rural doctor shortage. This initiative is a significant part of a broader package of measures that will deliver on the undertaking to provide more doctors and better services to rural and regional Australia in the short, medium and long term.The amendment to the Health Insurance Act 1973 ensures that the government's long-term strategy of delivering more doctors to rural communities will not be compromised. The Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme will provide 100 extra medical students with $20,000 per annum to study medicine, on the condition that they agree to work in a rural community for six years once they have completed their basic medical training and GP or specialist fellowship. These 100 places are over and above the places that already exist in Australian medical schools, so students will be gaining access to a place in a medical school to which they would not otherwise have obtained entry.Applications will be through the normal university admissions process, and selection of bonded scholars will be according to academic merit. Also, interest in rural health and motivation to work in rural areas will be taken into account where possible. Students will have full information on the conditions and obligations of the Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme, and they will therefore be able to make informed commitment and to sign contracts with the Commonwealth. These contracts will bond them to work for six years in a rural or remote area in Australia.Requirement for students to work in a rural community for six years is absolutely reasonable, considering the Commonwealth will pay between $80,000 and $120,000 during the course of their degree and will have to meet a similar amount again for the cost of the place in medical school. This assistance is additional to that which is funded to the universities, and of course they are places in medical school to which the student may not have otherwise gained selection.There will be another 100 medical students who will be able to choose a career opportunity they would not have otherwise had, and it will deliver these students, once they are qualified, to the areas most in need of their professional services. The conditions of the contract provide that bonded scholars will work in a rural or remote area, once they have attained GP or specialist fellowship, for six years. Should a bonded scholar breach this contract, they will be required to repay the scholarship with interest, and there will be a 12-year ban on their access to Medicare benefits. Without this legislation, there will not be the incentive for bonded scholars to honour their obligation. This ban will not prevent a medical practitioner from practising in a hospital or other area such as medical research where it is not necessary to attract Medicare benefits.There is a need for more doctors in rural and remote Australia. This is a bill for rural Australian communities that enables the Commonwealth to honour its commitment to provide rural and remote Australia with more doctors. It guarantees to deliver 100 qualified GPs and specialists to rural Australia each year in the long term. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Bills19803R113919803Bill presented by Mr McGauran, for Mr Anderson, and read a first time.1980309:40:0019803McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 will amend the Navigation Act 1912 to revise the division of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the states and the Northern Territory for the safety regulation of Australian trading ships and foreign-flagged trading ships visiting Australia. It will also amend the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 to ensure that these acts, as far as practicable, align with the coverage under the amended Navigation Act 1912.The bill gives effect to decisions of Commonwealth, state and territory governments, through the Australian Transport Council and the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, to implement a division of responsibility for safety regulation that more appropriately suits contemporary requirements. It also meets the Commonwealth's commitments in this area as set out in Australia's oceans policy, which was released by the government in 1998.The bill broadly aligns Commonwealth jurisdiction with international convention obligations for vessel safety. The Commonwealth will assume responsibility for safety regulation of trading ships of 500 gross tonnage or more wherever they voyage in Australian waters. This is the size of ship to which the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea applies. The Commonwealth will also continue to regulate vessel safety for all trading ships proceeding on overseas voyages.The change to jurisdictional responsibility is not only sought by the states and territories but also supported by the shipping industry.Australia has always played a leading role in the international arena for the implementation of standards and measures that promote safety of ships and protect the marine environment. This country particularly recognises the intrinsic value of our sensitive marine environments and the risks to safety of life and the marine environment that are posed by large ships and their cargoes.The Navigation Act 1912 forms the basis of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for ship safety as well as the protection of the marine environment. The act currently applies to trading ships engaged in interstate and overseas voyages and authorises the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to apply international convention requirements and to make orders as the agency responsible for the performance of these functions under the act.Presently, the Commonwealth's responsibilities for regulating vessel safety under the Navigation Act 1912 do not apply to trading ships involved in intrastate voyages, domestic fishing vessels, fishing fleet support vessels, pleasure craft or inland waterways vessels and offshore support vessels. These ships are primarily regulated under state and Northern Territory legislation unless their owners have elected to bring their vessel within the purview of the Navigation Act 1912.This division of responsibility between the Commonwealth and the states and the Northern Territory was developed over 20 years ago. Practical experience in the intervening years has revealed a number of complications and duplications which this bill is designed to address. The present division of jurisdiction means that the Commonwealth does not have coverage for maritime safety regulation of all large trading vessels operating in Australian waters. Vessels on intrastate voyages fall within state and Northern Territory jurisdiction irrespective of the size of the vessel. Some large trading ships, such as bulk carriers and tankers—including foreign-flagged vessels—therefore remain the responsibility of a state or the Northern Territory. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority is clearly the expert in the regulation of these types of vessels, with the states and the Northern Territory having greater expertise in managing smaller craft, pleasure boats, fishing vessels and such like. This bill is environmentally sound in that it will ensure that trading ships of 500 gross tonnage and above—arguably those that may have the most profound effect on safety of life or the marine environment in the event of an incident—will be subject to an internationally consistent safety regime administered through the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. The states and Northern Territory governments agree that it is more appropriate for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to regulate large ships on intrastate voyages, such as bulk carriers and tankers. On the other hand, the nature of the domestic shipping trade in Australia is changing significantly. Small trading ships, those under 500 gross tonnage, now more regularly operate on an interstate basis. It is important that businesses should be able to engage in this type of activity free from unnecessary regulation and certainly free from costly duplication.Because the Commonwealth has jurisdiction over all Australian trading ships proceeding on interstate voyages, this inevitably includes some small vessels. This has resulted in undesirable duplication of Commonwealth, state and territory safety regulation applying to these vessels. Many of these ships make only occasional interstate voyages and, when they do so, they are required to comply with two and sometimes three sets of rules and incur the associated compliance costs.By providing for the states and the Northern Territory to regulate vessels under 500 gross tonnage, including those on interstate voyages, the bill removes an unnecessary layer of regulation and cost to small businesses. It enhances economic efficiency and business competitiveness by providing for an owner of a vessel to reduce costs of compliance with multiple sets of regulations. A ship owner can now also have greater certainty of which regime their vessel will be subject to, rather than having to answer to several different authorities depending on the nature of each voyage undertaken. In relation to workers compensation, it will ensure that employers and employees do not find themselves with inappropriate or inadequate insurance cover.The revised jurisdiction arrangements will also assist in reducing instances of non-compliance, and potential prosecution, of small trading ship owners who may inadvertently breach the existing regulations when undertaking an occasional voyage interstate.Flexibility, however, is an important feature of these amendments. The current provisions of the Navigation Act 1912 allow owners of vessels to which the act does not otherwise apply to `opt in' and be covered by the act where it better suits their business purposes. This provision is being retained with appropriate amendments to reflect the proposed new class of trading ships that would not otherwise be subject to the act.Similarly, the Commonwealth, state and Northern Territory governments recognise that there are likely to be some vessels of 500 gross tonnage or greater that would best remain within a state or territory jurisdiction. An example would be harbour ferries operating solely within state waters. The proposed new provision 8AC of the Navigation Act 1912 will allow the owner of a trading ship of 500 gross tonnage or more to apply for a declaration that the act does not apply to the ship. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority may make such a declaration, subject to compliance with established and agreed guidelines, allowing the vessel to revert to a state or Northern Territory safety regulatory regime. Guidelines to be prescribed for this purpose will be developed in consultation with state and Northern Territory governments and the Seacare Authority.The main objective of Schedule 1 of this bill is that no vessel will fall within an inappropriate maritime safety regime and no vessel will avoid appropriate safety management. Complementary legislation on the part of the states and the Northern Territory will support this objective. In the event a state or the Northern Territory has not enacted complementary legislation, transitional arrangements have been included in the bill that preserve existing arrangements until appropriate legislation has been made by each jurisdiction. The amendments to the Navigation Act 1912 are solely concerned with jurisdiction over trading ships. It is not proposed to change the current jurisdictional arrangements for Australian fishing vessels, fishing fleet support vessels, pleasure craft or inland waterway vessels and offshore support vessels. These vessels are most appropriately left with the states and the Northern Territory to administer.This bill also does not seek to change the present arrangements connected with part VI of the Navigation Act 1912, which regulates participation in the coasting trade. The functioning of part VI has been quarantined from the changes described in this bill.Consequential amendmentsBoth the Seafarers' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 currently apply to ships to which part II of the Navigation Act 1912 apply. In addition, both acts apply to ships that are the subject of a declaration under sections 8A and 8AA of the Navigation Act 1912—the `opt in' provisions. This bill will ensure the continuation and consistency of coverage for seafarers in this area.The amendments to the Seafarers' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 are designed to align coverage under these acts, as far as is practicable, with the jurisdictional coverage for vessel safety regulation under the amended Navigation Act 1912.The decision to align coverage of legislation regulating workers compensation and occupational health and safety for seafarers, with the revised coverage proposed by the Australian Transport Council for the Navigation Act 1912, was endorsed by the Workplace Relations Ministers Council in November 1999.The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, has indicated that he favours alignment by way of inclusion of a comprehensive application provision in both these acts rather than the current practice of these acts relying upon a reference to the coverage or application provisions in the Navigation Act 1912. As a consequence, the bill has been developed on this basis, necessitating a considerable number of definitional changes to these acts. These changes will make it easier for all stakeholders, but particularly employers, to use the legislation.Given that the purpose and existing coverage of the Seafarers' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993, when compared to the Navigation Act 1912, are different, it has not been possible to achieve complete alignment between all three acts.The Navigation Act 1912 governs all aspects of vessel safety, which in many respects are determined by international maritime safety conventions and apply to both foreign and Australian ships. However, the Seafarers' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 focus on the occupational safety of the employees on board ships and are domestically determined and applied.Accordingly, the bill does not seek to apply the Seafarers' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 to all foreign trading vessels entering or operating in Australian waters as the provisions of the Navigation Act 1912 do. It would not be sensible to apply Australian occupational health and safety and workers compensation laws to a foreign vessel engaged in ordinary international trade.As a consequence, the draft bill limits coverage of foreign vessels by the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 to ships that may be licensed to engage in the coasting trade or where the majority of the crew are residents of Australia and the ship operator is a resident of Australia or has its principal place of business in Australia or is a company incorporated in Australia.This maintains the status quo for coverage in relation to foreign ships under current Commonwealth occupational health and safety and workers compensation laws. It nevertheless represents a small deviation from complete alignment across all three acts. To conform with the decision of the Workplace Relations Minsters Council to align the three acts, it is necessary to ensure that the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 do not apply to Australian fishing vessels unless they are proceeding on an overseas voyage. The current practice is that these fishing vessels are, by and large, covered by state and territory occupational health and safety and workers compensation laws. The bill will ensure that it is clear that this practical division of responsibility will continue.The retention of an opt-in provision in the Navigation Act 1912 and retention of the current exemption provision in the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 will ensure, subject to agreed guidelines, that operators have an opportunity to identify the appropriate jurisdictional coverage to suit their operations. This flexibility is fair and appropriate in designing a modern maritime safety regime.The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will be asking the Seacare Authority to undertake education and awareness raising activities to ensure stakeholders are aware of the new arrangements and to assist operators through the transition stage. The main objective is to ensure that no employee is without appropriate occupational health and safety or workers compensation cover.SummaryThis bill will bring about a significant improvement to the vessel safety and regulatory regime presently operating in Australia. It will maintain the already high standards of safety and environmental vigilance of which we are proud. For the first time we will have easier identification of applicable regulation; responsibility for vessel safety will rest with either the Commonwealth or the states and Northern Territory according to the nature of the vessel and its size rather than its voyage pattern alone.There will be greater transparency for vessel operators and owners through easier identification of applicable Commonwealth, state or Northern Territory maritime safety jurisdiction, clearly defined by vessel size resulting in less red tape and fewer compliance costs. Greater flexibility to move between Commonwealth and state or Northern Territory maritime safety administrations for businesses on the basis of suitability is a big plus for these operators and lowering their costs. Closer oversight of large vessels, in line with international standards, will provide benefits to the community through better protection of the marine environment.The retention of an opt-in provision in the Navigation Act 1912 and retention of the current exemption provisions in the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 will ensure, subject to agreed guidelines involving consultations with the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, that operators have an opportunity to identify the appropriate jurisdictional coverage to suit their operations. This flexibility is fair and appropriate in designing, maintaining and supervising a modern maritime safety regime. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Committees19806198061980610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating a member to be a member of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration.Motion (by Mr McGauran)—by leave—agreed to:That Ms Plibersek be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration.Bills19807R92619807Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.09:57:0019807Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Further to the comments I made yesterday on the Family Law Amendment Bill 1999, I will now turn to two of the significant issues raised during the debate on the bill. The first is the setting aside of financial agreements. The member for Barton proposed that the grounds for setting aside a financial agreement should be widened to allow a court to set aside an agreement which is harsh, unfair or oppressive. This proposal would, in fact, fundamentally undermine the government's objective of having binding and certain financial agreements. Our policy in allowing people to make binding financial agreements is to provide, to the greatest extent possible, certainty in the way couples settle their personal financial affairs. The objective is to keep people out of court wherever possible. For this reason we have carefully constructed the grounds for setting aside financial agreements to limit the ability of a court to interfere with a couple's genuine agreement. Of course, we recognise that there will be situations, as set out in proposed section 90K, where an agreement will have to be set aside. The government accepted the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee's recommendations for amendments to that section to expand the grounds. In particular, the government will be moving amendments to make it clear that non-disclosure of a material matter in the making of an agreement may be a ground to set aside the agreement. The government has also recognised the concerns about potential hardship to children and the parents they reside with by amending paragraph 90K(1)(d) to allow a court to set aside an agreement where there is a material change in circumstances relating to the care of children. By moving these amendments the government has responded to legitimate concerns and has carefully considered the overall scheme for setting aside. This was not done in a piecemeal fashion. The proposal of the member for Barton would, however, go too far. It would remove any certainty in financial agreements by allowing a court to set aside any agreement simply on an application and not much else. It would mean that parties would be reluctant to enter into a financial agreement because any certainty they sought would not be realised. This is an example of the problems of making policy on the run. The member for Barton has found a provision in the New South Wales Contracts Review Act and seeks to put it in an inappropriate context without appreciating any of the broader implications of this change to the bill. For these reasons the government does not accept the proposal of the member for Barton.The second subject is the resources of the Family Court. Several members suggested that the government had cut the Family Court's budget and that this had resulted in reductions in voluntary counselling services to regional Australia. The reduction in the Family Court's resources reflects funds transferred to the Federal Magistrates Service along with savings from the abolition of wholesale sales tax. Contrary to the claims of the member for Barton, the transfer of funds to the Magistrates Service does not represent, as he said, an unnecessary duplication of resources. Rather it reflects a transfer of judicial work from the Family Court to the Magistrates Service which will be able to perform that work more quickly and efficiently than the Family Court. The parliament has made the Family Court a self-administering agency so that decisions about the management of the court's administrative and financial affairs are solely the responsibility of that court. How the Family Court chooses to reduce its spending, therefore, is a matter for the court. No direction has been given or indeed could be given by the government on how the court should achieve efficiencies. One aspect of the comments of the member for Barton, however, require a response. He suggested that the cuts to voluntary counselling in the Family Court will impact most severely in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia. In fact, the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Justice Alastair Nicholson, has repeatedly made it clear that the court will do everything within its power to maintain services in these areas. Any reductions in services will be made first in metropolitan areas where there is a much more developed network of community service providers that people can turn to for counselling, mediation and other dispute resolution services. I am encouraged by the Chief Justice's determination to maintain services in disadvantaged areas. I welcome the broad support this bill has achieved in debate in this House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 19808Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 10:02:0019808McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 1, item 20, page 26 (line 9), omit “must”, substitute “may”.(2) Schedule 1, item 20, page 26 (line 13), omit “obligation imposed on”, substitute “power given to”.These amendments are in respect of part 13A of the act dealing with sanctions for failure to comply with orders and other obligations that do not affect children and, in particular, to proposed subsections 112AD(1), 1A(2) and 2A. Basically and briefly our amendments are designed to restore a discretion to the court as to what penalty they deem appropriate in the circumstances rather than as currently drafted in subsection (1). There is effectively a mandatory obligation with the use of `must' impose a particular sanction, and also similarly in paragraph 1A there is a reference to the obligation imposed on the court as opposed to what our amendment would do. That would be to confirm that it is a power rather than an obligation imposed on the court.I know that there is a feeling, and indeed the review of this legislation was as a result of expert advice that the court, or at least some members of the court, were not utilising to the fullest extent possible the powers that they had, including the ability to impose sanctions, and that the thrust of the legislation was effectively to tighten the procedures up by compelling the court to impose particular sanctions. That philosophy we believe is an overreaction to the fundamental rationale of the bill and, as I say, that rationale is for the court to be more robust or bold, if you like, in using the full range of its powers. But nonetheless as a matter of principle we say that it is always difficult and indeed undesirable for us sitting or standing here in parliament to prescribe an outcome in judicial proceedings. We say that is what you have judges for. Judges are entrusted with the responsibility of delivering justice literally after hearing evidence relating to the individual circumstances of each particular case. Hence our amendments are designed to take away the mandatory nature of the sanctioning and to give the court a discretion as to whether they impose a sanction and, if so, what the appropriate sanction is.10:06:0019808Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government does not accept the opposition's amendments to item 20. It has long been recognised that there is a need to ensure that sanctions for the failure to observe orders of the Family Court are treated seriously. This provision in the bill before the House will amend the Family Law Act to do just that in relation to money and property orders. The opposition amendments would leave the court with a discretion as to whether a sanction ought or ought not be imposed, which is the situation that exists at the moment. To accept the amendments would undermine the effectiveness of the new enforcement regime the government is seeking to put in place. It is important to note that the court retains a discretion as to the appropriate sanction to impose when an order is contravened. This is not an attempt by the government to dictate to the court what it should do in particular cases. Rather we wish to ensure that the court treats seriously any contravention of its orders by imposing a sanction that is tailored for the circumstances of the case before it. It is for these reasons that the government does not accept the opposition amendments.10:08:0019808Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Might the Attorney-General indulge me by clarifying a few matters concerning the parenting order regime? How would a parent be affected who has an AVO issued against them? Is the Attorney-General concerned about the number of AVOs currently being issued? He may recall that I sought leave to incorporate a table in regard to my own state about the incidence of AVOs being issued. I would be most concerned to hear his reply. In particular, I hope the Attorney would agree with me that there does not appear to be great onus of proof when issuing AVOs, and many are subsequently thrown out. Yet when parties appear before the Family Court the fact that one party has an AVO issued against them tends to stigmatise them, or in my view handicap them, before the court. I certainly welcome stage 1 of the parenting order process, the preventive measures, and I congratulate the Attorney-General on stage 2. But could he outline to the House the number of programs that are currently available, what number of places there would be and what sort of workload he anticipates would occur with the adoption or implementation of this bill? In other words, do we have enough programs? Do we have enough places to accommodate a likely program resulting from these changes? 10:09:0019809Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The member for Chifley raises two issues. It is necessary to understand that an AVO, an apprehended violence order, is not an order made in the Family Court; it is an order made in the magistrates courts, in the criminal jurisdiction in state courts. It is therefore not a matter over which the Commonwealth has any jurisdiction. The conduct of the proceedings before the state magistrates court are, therefore, matters for state or territory governments. One frequently hears suggestions that AVOs are made on very skimpy evidence. I am not able to refer to any basic research that has been done on this subject to identify whether that is or is not the case. I recognise also that the fact that an AVO may have been made may influence the outcome of proceedings in the Family Court. However, I think it would be reasonable to say that Family Court judges, judicial registrars and registrars are well aware of whether an AVO has been made ex parte, that is by the appearance of the applicant only without an appearance by the defendant, and whether the defendant has actually contested the hearing before the magistrate in a confrontational way. It is not really a matter over which the Commonwealth can seek to exercise any jurisdiction. It would be simply a matter of trying to dictate to the Family Court how it would deal with a matter that is the subject of evidence before it. I think that is best left to the court. In respect of the second question—the extent to which programs are available to assist with the second stage in the compliance regime—quite a wide range of programs is available through community organisations such as Centacare, Relationships Australia and the various organisations under the Family Services of Australia banner. These programs are not identical in content and they go under a variety of different names. I am unable at the moment to offer any statistics in response to the member for Chifley's question, but we do anticipate that a significant range of programs will be available through the Family Relationships Program, now basically administered by the Department of Family and Community Services. The Commonwealth does fund quite a number of organisations in quite a number of different locations. We will be closely monitoring to see whether the creation of the stage 2 process does give rise to a demand that cannot be met. I think that is the extent of the assurance I am able to offer at this juncture. 10:13:0019809Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I thank the Attorney for his response. Again, I ask: is a party who has an AVO issued precluded from this process? Are they going to be dealt with separately outside of a stage 2, stage 3 situation? I want to understand whether they contemplate any disadvantage. I certainly accept the Attorney's advice that these are state matters but I am sure he will concede that they impact quite dramatically on the federal jurisdiction in terms of family law. Is he aware of any study that compares the incidence of AVOs being issued by the states to any other countries, and where does Australia rank in that? 10:14:0019810Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—These questions are getting harder. I am not aware of any such study. That is not to say that there is not the possibility that one exists. I will make inquiries for the benefit of the member for Chifley and see if I can find out anything more. I am certainly not aware of any comparison between the Australian situation and any overseas jurisdiction. On the question of the extent to which people subject to AVOs are treated differently, I really do not think that that is a significant issue. It is entirely possible that, in lieu of an AVO made in a state court, there is an injunction issued in the Family Court. A person appearing before the Family Court in a matter relating to contact or residence of children would also have to respond to the fact that an order has previously been made in interlocutory proceedings or even final proceedings by the Family Court. It is a difficult issue but I think the Family Court is quite accustomed to dealing with the situation. In fact, it is such a regular occurrence that I think it is almost an everyday event.10:15:0019810Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I will make this my final contribution. Obviously, parenting orders deal with children. Is it a concern to the Attorney that there is no national care and protection regime for children? Does he see this as a serious omission? Given his remarks about state responsibilities vis-à-vis the Commonwealth, isn't it a fact that there is a bit of jurisdictional hopping between care and protection orders issued in state children's courts and issues pursued by the Family Court? One of the things that troubles me very deeply is the issue of the special representative of the children. Quite clearly, in the state jurisdictions children have legal representation which is quite unambiguously a professional relationship and responsibility to their client—that is, the child—whereas in the Commonwealth the special representative of the child seems to be more a court based officer who, regrettably, often does not even interview the client to access the client's wishes, but only goes over the notes of court counsellors. In no way do I wish to reflect on court counsellors but I believe that, if we have a person identified as the special representative of the child, then in fact they should unambiguously represent the child and interview the child and be quite satisfied that whatever they present to the court is related to what they have heard from their client.10:18:0019810Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I think the member for Chifley's focus is now drifting away from the subject matter of the bill. Except in the Family Court of Western Australia where there is concurrent state and federal jurisdiction, since the cross vesting scheme has been ruled constitutionally invalid, care and protection orders are only made in state courts. I appreciate that there is a fairly well-held and well-argued view that the care and protection orders ought to be made in the same court which is dealing with issues between the parents, particularly in relation to the residence of children and contact by the parents with children. This is the situation that pertains in many state courts in the United States, and the courts seem to operate quite successfully. I know the Chief Justice of the Family Court supports the view that that jurisdiction should be given to the Family Court. In a sense, the states already have that jurisdiction because state courts can exercise jurisdiction under the Family Law Act in the magistrates courts, and of course they have jurisdiction under state legislation in respect of care and protection of children.The difficulty we face is that the state courts tend to regard family law matters as something to be dealt with in the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Service. They do not give it appropriate priority, and that is one of the reasons that actually prompted us to look to a federal magistrates service rather than to seek to rely on state courts to a greater extent than we already do. The issue raised by the member for Chifley is one that is being looked at—although there is no simple solution. We need to perhaps firstly remedy the constitutional invalidity of the current cross vesting scheme—fix that up and then we can have a better look at what alternatives can be implemented.Amendments negatived. 10:20:0019811McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move: (3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 36 (line 32), at the end of subsection 90K(1), add: ; or (e) at the time the agreement was entered into, the agreement is unfair, harsh or unconscionable, or against the public interest; or (f) the agreement subsequently became unfair, harsh or unconscionable, or against the public interest, because of any conduct by the parties to the agreement or for any other reason.The Family Law Amendment Bill 1999 deals with the circumstances in which the court may set aside a financial or termination agreement. This is in the context, of course, of where the bill will formally recognise the concept of prenuptial agreements. I note this to avoid my having to discuss it later. The government intends to move its own amendments to section 90K and section 90KA; nonetheless, we believe it is necessary for the opposition amendments to be adopted for the section to operate appropriately and fairly. In other words, we think the range of circumstances contained in the current drafting, and indeed in the drafting proposed by the government in their amendments, is too inflexible. The court will not have sufficient power to set aside agreements. In the context of entering into an agreement, certainly in the case of my marriage to my wife, Michelle, I would not have been able to have rationality at the time of pre-marriage—romance and other aspirations would have perhaps clouded my judgment significantly.In that context we are saying that a ground for setting aside one of these prenuptial agreements is if, at the time the agreement was entered into, the agreement is unfair, harsh or unconscionable, or against the public interest. The Attorney is right: in responding to the second reading debate we have adopted concepts contained in state unfair contracts legislation or, indeed, in the New South Wales industrial relations act which has been used most notably in recent times in the sporting contracts arena, where Super League came into the fray to try and pull players across from the ARL contracts. There was a whole range of challenges to player contracts and so forth regarding the unfairness of those contracts and also the circumstances in which they were made. But we say that, if in the area of commerce a court or a tribunal can appropriately have and exercise those powers, all the more so where you are dealing with a personal relationship of such intimacy as marriage. Our second amendment follows through on that if, subsequent to the agreement being made, it becomes unfair—that is, events occur after the agreement that result in it becoming `unfair, harsh or unconscionable because of any conduct by the parties to the agreement or for any other reason'. Again, this replicates concepts that come from state unfair contracts jurisdiction—that there can be circumstances that are not contemplated by the parties that occur in the course of marriage that would make it unfair to impose the obligations contained in the contract.In the context of that debate, we note that the government proposes an amendment to refer to a material change of circumstances that has occurred since the contract was made, in the context of a child being born. That would, of course, be a material circumstance but it may not be the only circumstance in which events change such that it would become unfair to enforce the contract. There may be circumstances relating to a rural property, for instance, that were not contemplated by the parties when the contract was made—whether it were sold or an inheritance came in or whatever it might be. We say that the court should have that additional flexibility. If it is good enough in the commercial area or the sporting area, it is all the more necessary in the context of intimate relationships that are necessarily a part of the marital relationship.10:22:0019811Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—As I stated during the second reading debate, the government does not accept this amendment. I noted with some interest that the member for Barton seems to contemplate that legislative provisions that apply in the industrial relations context are appropriate to apply in the marriage relations context. I had not realised that these amendments were in fact a ploy to advance possible increased union membership in support of the Labor Party! I think there would be some activist feminists who might want to think that marriage is not an industrial relationship and ought not to be so viewed. In addition the member for Barton calls in aid the notion of the sporting contract. I suppose that there are some marriages which constitute a sporting contest, but I do not think we ought to see that as the model either. The government's policy in allowing people to make binding financial agreements is to provide, to the greatest extent possible, certainty in the way couples settle their financial affairs. The objective is to keep people out of court wherever possible. For this reason we have carefully constructed the grounds for setting aside financial agreements to limit the ability of a court to interfere with a couple's genuine agreement. As I said earlier, the opposition's amendment would remove any certainty in financial agreements by allowing a court to set aside any agreement simply on an application and not much else. The government's amendments (59) and (60) referred to by the member for Barton will amend the setting aside grounds to broaden the powers of the court. With these amendments the government is confident that the grounds for setting aside are sufficiently broad to take into account the range of circumstances that might justify a court in intervening in a couple's private agreement. For these reasons, the government does not accept the opposition's amendment.The member for Barton referred to his own situation prior to marriage, portraying it as one of `starry eyes'. That is quite common, and I anticipate that financial agreements will not be attractive to young couples entering marriage for the first time. They will be attractive more often in second and subsequent marriages and they may also be attractive to parties to a marriage where one brings in, for example, a substantial interest in a family farm or a family business. They are not likely, I would think, to be entered into by people entering a marriage in what might be described as ordinary circumstances. But when they are entered into, they should not be set aside lightly.Amendment negatived.10:29:0019812Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 3:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 7), omit “subsection (2)”, substitute “subsections (1A) and (2)”.(2) Clause 2, page 1 (after line 8), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Items 31A and 117 of Schedule 3 commence on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.(3) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 2), omit “Sanctions for”, substitute “Consequences of”.As I have already indicated, on its introduction this bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The report of the committee was tabled in the Senate on 6 December last year. I thank the committee and in particular the chair, Senator Payne, for the valuable contribution the committee has made towards the advancement of this important legislation. Although the committee received a large number of written and oral submissions critical of the proposals in the bill, its careful analysis led it to conclude that the bill was basically wise legislation. However, the committee made a number of non-controversial recommendations to improve the bill. The government amendments I am moving today respond to these recommendations.The bill will introduce a new three-tier compliance regime to ensure parties observe parenting orders. The government amendments to this measure propose changes which will make the regime a more practical and effective means of ensuring compliance with orders of the court. The amendments will clarify the operation of stage 1 of the parenting compliance regime and, in particular, the court's duty to explain the nature and consequences of parenting orders. Importantly, the amendments will also address the committee's concern about a lack of flexibility and discretion for the court in the imposition of sanctions in stage 3 of the parenting compliance regime. In addition, the government has responded to concerns about the imprisonment of people who contravene orders for the payment of child maintenance. The amendments will clarify that imprisonment is available only in cases of intentional or fraudulent non-payment of court ordered child maintenance and not where an amount is payable under an administrative assessment calculated under the child support legislation. The Senate committee also made a number of recommendations in relation to the financial agreements provisions of the bill. In response, the government amendments to these provisions will require parties to seek legal advice before a financial agreement will be binding on them, clarify that non-disclosure of a material matter will amount to fraud for the purpose of setting aside a financial agreement and clarify that a material change in the circumstances relating to the care of a child, rather than exceptional circumstances, may be a sufficient ground for setting aside an agreement.As I mentioned during the second reading debate, the new Federal Magistrates Service started hearing family law matters in some locations in early July. I have always seen the need for an alternative level of judicial determination in the Commonwealth sphere and this court will provide that alternative. The Federal Magistrates Service will provide a cheaper, faster and simpler method of dealing with less complex civil and family matters. One of the government's amendments to the bill will widen the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service in residence matters to enable the hearing of any residence matter without the consent of the parties. This will ensure that the Federal Magistrates Service cannot be prevented from hearing matters in areas where it is ideally suited. While my remarks relate to all of the government's amendments, they have in fact been grouped to facilitate the consideration of opposition amendments to two of the government amendments. I do not propose therefore to address each group of government amendments individually. I do, however, draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that the government amendments I move today replace those circulated previously. I present the replacement supplementary explanatory memorandum for the government amendments.Amendments agreed to. Amendment (by Mr Williams) proposed: (4) Schedule 1, item 3, pages 3 and 4, omit the item, substitute:3 Section 60C (after table item 13)Insert: 13ADivision 13A—Enforcement of orders affecting children• court may do either or both of the following:(a) require a person who contravenes an order affecting children to attend a nominated post-separation parenting program designed to help in the resolution of conflicts about parenting;(b) make a further parenting order that compensates for contact forgone as a result of the contravention;—stage 2 of parenting compliance regime• court must take other action in respect of a person who contravenes an order affecting children if the court is satisfied:(a) where the contravention is an initial contravention—that the person has behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard for his or her parenting obligations; or;(b) where the contravention is a second or subsequent contravention—that it is not appropriate for the person to be dealt with by requiring his or her attendance at a post-separation parenting program;—stage 3 of parenting compliance regime10:33:0019813McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move opposition amendment (1), as circulated in my name, to government amendment (4): (1) Government amendment 4, proposed item 3, omit the item, substitute:3 Section 60C (after table item 13)Insert: 13ADivision 13A—Enforcement of orders affecting childrencourt may do any or all of the following:(a) require a person who contravenes an order affecting children to attend a nominated post-separation parenting program designed to help in the resolution of conflicts about parenting;(b) make a further parenting order that compensates for conduct forgone as a result of the contravention;(c) vary the order that was contravened;—Stage 2 of parenting compliance regimecourt must take other action in respect of a person who contravenes an order affecting children if the court is satisfied:(a) where the contravention is an initial contravention—that the person has behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard for his or her parenting obligations; or(b) where the contravention is a second or subsequent contravention—that it is not appropriate for the person to be dealt with by requiring his or her attendance at a post-separation parenting program;—Stage 3 of parenting compliance regimeThe purpose of this amendment is to give flexibility to the court. We have previously debated the concept of flexibility in the context of sanctions not affecting orders relating to children, and this is in the context of division 13A—`Enforcement of orders affecting children'. The Attorney-General has described the three-stage process of enforcement of these orders—information essentially, education and, finally, the sanctions actually coming into play. We are proposing adding more flexibility to the regime and, in particular, specifically giving the court the power to vary an order that was contravened. We recognise that it is necessary for the parties to these orders, particularly in the context of the care of children, to comply with orders of the court. These are serious matters. Non-compliance, as every member in this House would have seen, causes significant distress to the parties and all those involved, most particularly the children. So we acknowledge that it is important that everyone knows that, when an order of the court is made, it is a serious thing and cannot be taken lightly.However, at the same time, as I indicated during the second reading debate, there are circumstances, it must be said, where orders may have been made inappropriately as a result of factors, such as one or other of the parties not having access to appropriate advice or as a result of orders being made in the context of an interim application to the court of their nature being heard urgently pending a more detailed consideration in final hearing. I think the court, as a matter of necessity, sets about two hours to hear these matters; there is not the same opportunity for cross-examining experts and to work through the repercussions. There is also the third circumstance where circumstances may come to light after an order was made, such as substantial evidence of inappropriate treatment or care of children or even, in worst case scenarios, abuse of children. Yes, there will be cases, regrettably, when those sorts of allegations will be made as a bargaining tool or as a negotiating point. But, on the other hand, if there were substance to those allegations, and the interests of the child were paramount in the concern of the party not complying with the order, there may be circumstances in which the court would think it appropriate to vary the orders.We note, for instance, that the Family Court has said it would be exceptional that such orders would be varied. In the marriage of L, a 1989 case, the court said specifically that the court should not lightly entertain a request for variation of final orders because to do so would invite endless litigation. We acknowledge that principle and we expect that principle would be applied in the court exercising the power that our amendment would give the court. Nonetheless, we say that without giving the court that flexibility the rigidity of the present framework could result in injustice and, in particular, provide some potential for children being exposed to risk. So, all things being considered and weighed up, we say it is appropriate to give the court that discretion.10:37:0019815Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—This amending amendment and, I foreshadow, the other amendments the member for Barton will shortly move to the government amendments are not acceptable to the government. I appreciate that the opposition's proposal is designed to deal with the problem of unsatisfactory interim residence and contact arrangements often contained in consent orders where one or both of the parties was not represented at the time the order was made. It is recognised that the two-hour interim hearings are not the most satisfactory means of providing interim arrangements, which have the considerable potential to become final arrangements. It is particularly the case where the prospect of abuse of children is a risk. This problem and related issues are being considered in research currently being conducted at the University of Sydney. However, the final research on that report is not yet available. I want to make it plain that the government shares the opposition's concerns about the problems that can arise from interim arrangements. But, where a case has been the subject of a fully contested hearing, it is not appropriate to have a rehearing of the merits of that decision except by way of appeal. Alternatively, if the decision is final and has operated for some time, the act already makes clear provision in subsection 65D(2) for application to be made for a variation of a parenting order. It is the government view that the opposition's amendments are not an appropriate solution to a complex problem. The solution requires a consideration of the interlocking practices and procedures of the court as well as the legislation to achieve an acceptable solution. My department has already started considering these matters and will continue to do so in consultation with the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Service and the legal profession. However, we do not want to make policy on the run in this matter, and for these reasons the government does not accept the amendment.Amendment negatived.Original amendment agreed to.Amendments (by Mr Williams)—by leave—agreed to:(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (lines 6 and 7), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) the availability of programs to help people who experience difficulties in complying with a parenting plan.(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 7), at the end of section 63DA, add: (2) A court may cause to be prepared, and given to persons who are making a parenting plan, a document setting out particulars of the availability of programs to help people who experience difficulties in complying with a parenting plan. (7) Schedule 1, after item 4, page 5 (before line 8), insert:4A Subsection 63F(3) (paragraph (b) of the note)Omit “Parts XIII and XIIIA”, substitute “Division 13A of this Part and Part XIII”.(8) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 19), omit “Punitive”, substitute “Further”.(9) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 20), omit “punished”, substitute “dealt with”.(10) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 25) to page 6 (line 16), omit section 65DA, substitute:65DA Parenting orders: stage 1 of parenting compliance regime (1) This section applies when a court makes a parenting order. (2) It is the duty of the court to include in the order particulars of: (a) the obligations that the order creates; and (b) the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes the order. (3) If any of the persons to whom the order is directed is not represented by a legal practitioner, it is also the duty of the court to explain to the person, or to each of the persons: (a) the availability of programs to help people to understand their responsibilities under parenting orders; and (b) the availability and use of location and recovery orders to ensure that parenting orders are complied with. (4) The court may cause to be prepared, and given to persons to whom a parenting order is directed, a document setting out particulars of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b). (5) If a person to whom the order is directed is represented by a legal practitioner, the court may request the practitioner: (a) to assist in explaining to the person the matters mentioned in paragraphs (2)(a) and (b); and (b) to explain to the person the matters mentioned in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b). (6) If a request is made by the court to a legal practitioner under paragraph (5)(a) or (b), it is the duty of the practitioner to comply with the request. (7) Failure to comply with a requirement of, or with a request made under, this section does not affect the validity of a parenting order. (8) Any matter that is required by this section to be included in a parenting order or any explanation that is required by this section to be given to a person is to be expressed in language that is likely to be readily understood by the person to whom the order is directed or the explanation is given.(11) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 16), after item 6, insert:6A Paragraphs 65Q(1)(c) and (d)Omit “section 112AD”, substitute “Division 13A”.(12) Schedule 1, after proposed item 6A, insert:6B Paragraphs 65U(1)(b) and (c)Omit “section 112AD”, substitute “Division 13A”.(13) Schedule 1, after proposed item 6B, insert:6C Paragraphs 65V(1)(b) and (c)Omit “section 112AD”, substitute “Division 13A”.(14) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (line 19), omit “Sanctions for”, substitute “Consequences of”.(15) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 8), omit section 70NA.(16) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (lines 11 to 15), omit the definition of applicable Rules of Court.(17) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (after line 20), after the definition of applied provisions, insert:appropriate post-separation parenting program or appropriate program, in relation to a person, means a post-separation parenting program that is available within a reasonable distance from the person's place of residence or place of work.(18) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (lines 21 and 22), omit the definition of community service order, substitute:community service order has the meaning given by subsection 70NK(2A).(19) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (lines 14 to 21), omit the definition of participate.(20) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (lines 22 to 33), omit the definition of post-separation parenting program, substitute:post-separation parenting program or program means a program that: (a) is designed (including by providing counselling services or by teaching techniques to resolve disputes) to help people to resolve problems that adversely affect the carrying out of their parenting responsibilities; and (b) is included in a list of programs compiled by the Attorney-General; and (c) consists of lectures, discussions (including group discussions) or other activities.(21) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8, after proposed new definition of post-separation parenting program, insert:primary order has the meaning given by section 70NF or 70NJ.(22) Schedule 1, item 7, page 9 (line 29), after “subsections”, insert “(1A),”.(23) Schedule 1, item 7, page 9 (after line 30), after subsection 70NE(1), insert: (1A) A person (the respondent) is taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening an order under this Act affecting children if: (a) the respondent contravened the order because, or substantially because, he or she did not, at the time of the contravention, understand the obligations imposed by the order on the person who was bound by it; and (b) the court is satisfied that the respondent ought to be excused in respect of the contravention. (1B) If a court decides that a person had a reasonable excuse for contravening an order under this Act for the reason referred to in paragraph (1A)(a), it is the duty of the court to explain to the person, in language likely to be readily understood by the person, the obligations imposed on him or her by the order and the consequences that may follow if he or she again contravenes the order.(24) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (after line 30), at the end of Subdivision A, add:70NEA Standard of proof of reasonable excuse The standard of proof to be applied in determining, in proceedings under this Division, whether a person who contravened an order under this Act affecting children had a reasonable excuse for the contravention is proof on the balance of probabilities.Amendment (by Mr Williams) agreed to. (25) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (line 31) to page 12 (line 18), omit Subdivision B, substitute:Subdivision B—Powers of court where a person contravenes an order under this Act affecting children: stage 2 of parenting compliance regime70NF Application of Subdivision (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subdivision applies if: (a) an order under this Act affecting children (the primary order) has been made, whether before or after the commencement of this Division; and (b) a court having jurisdiction under this Act is satisfied that a person has, whether before or after that commencement, without reasonable excuse, committed a contravention (the current contravention) of the primary order; and (c) either of the following applies: (i) no court having jurisdiction under this Act has previously determined that the person has, without reasonable excuse, contravened the primary order; (ii) a court having jurisdiction under this Act has previously determined that the person has, without reasonable excuse, contravened the primary order but the court dealing with the current contravention is satisfied that it is more appropriate for that contravention to be dealt with under this Subdivision;and, if the primary order is an order for the maintenance of a child, this Subdivision applies irrespective of the period since the current contravention occurred. (2) This Subdivision does not apply if, in circumstances mentioned in subparagraph (1)(c)(i), the court dealing with the current contravention is satisfied that the person who contravened the primary order has behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard for his or her obligations under the primary order.70NG Powers of court (1) If this Subdivision applies, the court may do either or both of the following: (a) make an order in respect of the person who committed the current contravention, or (subject to subsection (2)) in respect of both that person and another specified person, as follows: (i) directing the person or each person to attend before the provider of a specified appropriate post-separation parenting program so that the provider can make an initial assessment as to the suitability of the person concerned to attend such a program; (ii) if a person so attending before a provider is assessed by the provider to be suitable to attend such a program or a part of such a program and the provider nominates a particular appropriate program for the person to attend—directing the person to attend that program or that part of that program; (b) make a further parenting order that compensates for contact forgone as a result of the current contravention. (2) The court must not make an order under paragraph (1)(a) directed to a person other than the person who committed the current contravention unless: (a) the person brought the proceedings before the court in relation to the current contravention or is otherwise a party to those proceedings; and (b) the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to direct the order to the person because of the connection between the current contravention and the carrying out by the person of his or her parental responsibilities in relation to the child or children to whom the primary order relates. (3) If the court makes an order under paragraph (1)(a) that a person is to attend before the provider of a program for assessment, or is to attend a program, the court must cause the provider of the program to be notified, in accordance with the applicable Rules of Court, of the making of the order.70NH Duties of provider of program (1) The provider of a program before whom a person attends under an order made under subparagraph 70NG(1)(a)(i) must inform the court, in accordance with the applicable Rules of Court, if the person is unsuitable to attend any program. (2) If a person is ordered to attend a program or a part of a program, the provider of the program must inform the court, in accordance with the applicable Rules of Court, if: (a) the person fails to attend the program or part of the program; or (b) the provider considers that the person is unsuitable to take any further part in the program or part of the program.70NI Evidence Evidence of anything said, or of any admission made, by a person attending before the provider of a program for assessment, or attending a program, is not admissible: (a) in any court (whether exercising federal jurisdiction or not); or (b) in any proceedings before a person authorised by a law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, or by the consent of the parties, to hear evidence.70NIA Court may make further orders in relation to attendance at program If it appears to the court that a person has not attended a program or a part of a program that the person was ordered to attend, the court may, by order, give further directions to the person with respect to the person's attending the program.70NIB List of programs The Attorney-General: (a) is to compile, for each calendar year, a list of post-separation parenting programs; and (b) is to publish the list in such manner as he or she determines; and (c) if he or she amends the list during the calendar year for which it is compiled—is to publish a revised list in such manner as he or she determines.10:41:0019818McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (2) and (3) to government amendment (25): (2) Government amendment 25, omit proposed subsection 70NG(1), substitute: (1) If this Subdivision applies, the court may do any or all of the following: (a) make an order in respect of the person who committed the current contravention, or (subject to subsection (2)) in respect of both that person and another specified person, as follows: (i) directing the person or each person to attend before the provider of a specified appropriate post-separation parenting program so that the provider can make an initial assessment as to the suitability of the person concerned to attend such a program; (ii) if a person so attending before a provider is assessed by the provider to be suitable to attend such a program or a part of such a program and the provider nominates a particular appropriate program for the person to attend—directing the person to attend that program or that part of that program; (b) make a further parenting order that compensates for contact forgone as a result of the current contravention; (c) vary the order that was contravened.(3) Government amendment 25, after proposed subsection 70NG(1), insert: (1A) In determining whether it should make an order under paragraph 1(c), the court should have regard to the following: (a) whether there has been a history of family violence; (b) whether there are allegations of child abuse; (c) the circumstances surrounding the making of the original order; (d) whether there has been a change in circumstances which make complying with the original order impracticable; (e) any other circumstance that results in the original order no longer being in the best interests of the child or children.These amendments are in the context of the opposition's earlier amendment and again in the context of giving the court flexibility in the orders it makes in this enforcement stage of the matters relating to the care of and access to children. We also have included in the amendments some matters which we believe the court should address in considering at what stage they should apply in respect to circumstances of breach. In particular in considering whether to refer someone to one of the parenting education programs or whether a more stringent penalty or sanction is appropriate, the court should have regard to the factors which we have listed: whether there has been history of family violence, whether there are allegations of child abuse, the circumstances surrounding the making of the original order, whether there has been a change in circumstances which makes complying with the original order impracticable, and any other circumstances that result in the original order no longer being in the best interests of the child or children. For the reasons which I have previously set out with respect to the earlier amendment, we say that the priority here should be the interests of the child, and these factors are very much factors which bear on that. They also would direct the court's mind to considering issues that regrettably can occur in marriages, those incidents of domestic violence and abuse. We say that, while the court should have a discretion, it is appropriate for parliament to lay down markers which appropriately reflect the expectations of the community, and that is the purpose of the opposition amendments.10:44:0019819Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—As I previously said, the government appreciates the problem that the opposition seeks to address. However, we do not think it is an appropriate way of addressing it. On that basis, the opposition amending amendments are not supported.10:44:0019819Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Because I had to go to a meeting yesterday on refugees, I was unfortunately unable to speak on the second reading debate of the Family Law Amendment Bill 1999. I want to indicate that I support the opposition's amendments to this provision and that I am concerned about the issues involved here with respect to the question of contravention of orders and what is to happen in those very difficult circumstances. The government's provision of the three-tiered approach in their amendments is useful, but it requires us to ask the question of what is going to happen when there is a breakdown and a contravention of orders. The proposal from the shadow Attorney-General is a constructive one in trying to deal with an important issue. When we are dealing with family law matters, we are dealing with fundamental and very personal issues. Most members of parliament would have had family law issues come before them and would know that very often the claims and counterclaims that are made in relation to orders and the contravention of orders can be quite horrendous to sort out. Any procedure which can be put in place to give justice and a fair go to both sides ought to be supported. These provisions ought to be supported for their ability to achieve a goal. The Attorney-General says that he does not oppose the achievement of that goal. If that is the case, I do not see why the government is opposing the amendments.Amendments negatived.Original amendment agreed to.Amendments (by Mr Williams)—by leave—agreed to: (26) Schedule 1, item 7, page 12 (line 19), omit “punitive”.(27) Schedule 1, item 7, page 12 (line 22), omit “Punitive”. (28) Schedule 1, item 7, page 12 (line 23) to page 13 (line 28), omit subsections 70NJ(1) and (2), substitute: (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subdivision applies if: (a) an order under this Act affecting children (the primary order) has been made, whether before or after the commencement of this Division; and (b) a court having jurisdiction under this Act is satisfied that a person has, whether before or after that commencement, without reasonable excuse, committed a contravention (the current contravention) of the primary order; and (c) either of the following applies: (i) no court having jurisdiction under this Act has previously determined that the person has, without reasonable excuse, contravened the primary order but the court dealing with the current contravention is satisfied that the person has behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his or her obligations under the primary order; (ii) a court having jurisdiction under this Act has previously determined that the person has, without reasonable excuse, contravened the primary order.Note: For the standard of proof to be applied in determining whether a contravention of the primary order has been committed, see section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995. (2) This Subdivision does not apply if the court dealing with the current contravention is satisfied that it is more appropriate for that contravention to be dealt with under Subdivision B. (2A) If this Subdivision applies, the court must make, in respect of the person who committed the current contravention, the order or orders available to be made under subsection (3) that it considers to be the most appropriate in the circumstances. (2B) This section applies whether the primary order was made, and whether the current contravention occurred, before or after the commencement of this Division.(29) Schedule 1, item 7, page 13 (line 29), omit “sanctions that are available to be imposed”, substitute “orders that are available to be made”.(30) Schedule 1, item 7, page 14 (lines 13 to 23), omit paragraphs (a) to (c), substitute: (a) the person who contravened the parenting order did so after having attended, after having refused or failed to attend, or after having been found to be unsuitable to take any further part in, a post-separation parenting program or a part of such a program; (b) there was no appropriate post-separation parenting program that the person who contravened the parenting order could attend; (c) because of the behaviour of the person who contravened the parenting order, it was not appropriate, in the court's opinion, for the person to attend a post-separation parenting program, or a part of such a program;(31) Schedule 1, item 7, page 14 (lines 28 to 31), omit subsection (6), substitute: (6) The court must not make an order imposing a sentence of imprisonment on a person under this section in respect of a contravention of a child maintenance order made under this Act unless the court is satisfied that the contravention was intentional or fraudulent. (6A) The court must not make an order imposing a sentence of imprisonment on a person under this section in respect of: (a) a contravention of an administrative assessment of child support made under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989; or (b) a breach of a child support agreement made under that Act; or (c) a contravention of an order made by a court under Division 4 of Part VII of that Act for a departure from such an assessment (including such an order that contains matters mentioned in section 141 of that Act).(32) Schedule 1, item 7, page 14 (line 32), omit “subsection (1) or (2)”, substitute “this section”. (33) Schedule 1, item 7, page 14 (line 35), omit “subsection (1) or (2)”, substitute “this section”.(34) Schedule 1, item 7, page 15 (after line 19), after subsection 70NK(2), insert: (2A) A community service order may be an order of any of the following kinds: (a) an order known as: (i) a community service order; or (ii) a work order; or (iii) an attendance centre order; or (iv) an attendance order; or (v) a community based order; (b) an order that is similar to an order referred to in paragraph (a); (c) an order prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.(35) Schedule 1, item 7, page 16 (lines 16 to 21), omit paragraphs 70NL(a) to (c), substitute: (a) if the court that made the order is the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Court—by either of those Courts; or (b) otherwise—by the court that made the order or the Family Court.(36) Schedule 1, item 9, page 22 (after line 26), after paragraph (c), insert: ; or (d) the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989;(37) Schedule 1, item 9, page 23 (line 26), after “1988”, insert “or the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989”.(38) Schedule 1, item 20, page 26 (line 29), omit “wilful”, substitute “intentional”.(39) Schedule 2, item 1, page 30 (lines 7 to 12), omit the definition of financial agreement, substitute:financial agreement means an agreement that is a financial agreement under section 90B, 90C or 90D, but does not include an ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlement to which section 85A applies.(40) Schedule 2, after item 6, page 31 (after line 6), insert:6A At the end of section 85AAdd: (3) A court cannot make an order under this section in respect of matters that are included in a financial agreement.(41) Schedule 2, item 10, page 31 (line 27), omit “90E(2)”, substitute “90F(2)”.(42) Schedule 2, item 10, page 32 (after line 6), after paragraph 90B(1)(a), insert: (aa) at the time of the making of the agreement, no other agreement (whether made under this section or section 90C or 90D) is in force between the parties with respect to any of those matters; and(43) Schedule 2, item 10, page 32 (lines 10 to 14), omit paragraph 90B(2)(a), substitute: (a) how, in the event of the breakdown of the marriage, all or any of the property or financial resources of either or both of them at the time when the agreement is made, or at a later time and before the dissolution of the marriage, is to be dealt with;(44) Schedule 2, item 10, page 32 (line 20), omit “other than”, substitute “incidental or ancillary to”.(45) Schedule 2, item 10, page 32 (line 22), omit “vary or”.(46) Schedule 2, item 10, page 32 (after line 27), after paragraph 90C(1)(a), insert: (aa) at the time of the making of the agreement, no other agreement (whether made under this section or section 90B or 90D) is in force between the parties with respect to any of those matters; and(47) Schedule 2, item 10, page 32 (line 31) to page 33 (line 3), omit paragraph 90C(2)(a), substitute: (a) how, in the event of the breakdown of the marriage, all or any of the property or financial resources of either or both of them at the time when the agreement is made, or at a later time and during the marriage, is to be dealt with;(48) Schedule 2, item 10, page 33 (line 9), omit “other than”, substitute “incidental or ancillary to”.(49) Schedule 2, item 10, page 33 (line 11), omit “vary or”.(50) Schedule 2, item 10, page 33 (after line 18), after paragraph 90D(1)(a), insert: (aa) at the time of the making of the agreement, no other agreement (whether made under this section or section 90B or 90C) is in force between the parties with respect to any of those matters; and (51) Schedule 2, item 10, page 33 (lines 22 to 24), omit paragraph 90D(2)(a), substitute: (a) how all or any of the property or financial resources that either or both of them had or acquired during the former marriage is to be dealt with;(52) Schedule 2, item 10, page 33 (line 27), omit “other than”, substitute “incidental or ancillary to”.(53) Schedule 2, item 10, page 33 (line 29), omit “vary or”.(54) Schedule 2, item 10, page 34 (line 13), after “financial agreement”, insert “(other than a financial agreement made under section 90B or a financial agreement made under section 90C in the event of the breakdown of a marriage)”.(55) Schedule 2, item 10, page 34 (line 22), omit “90B(1),”.(56) Schedule 2, item 10, page 34 (line 31) to page 35 (line 8), omit paragraphs 90G(1)(b) and (c), substitute: (b) the agreement contains, in relation to each party to the agreement, a statement to the effect that the party to whom the statement relates has been provided, before the agreement was signed by him or her, as certified in an annexure to the agreement, with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner as to the following matters: (i) the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party; (ii) whether or not, at the time when the advice was provided, it was to the advantage, financially or otherwise, of that party to make the agreement; (iii) whether or not, at that time, it was prudent for that party to make the agreement; (iv) whether or not, at that time and in the light of such circumstances as were, at that time, reasonably foreseeable, the provisions of the agreement were fair and reasonable; and (c) the annexure to the agreement contains a certificate signed by the person providing the independent legal advice stating that the advice was provided; and(57) Schedule 2, item 10, page 35 (line 33) to page 36 (line 11), omit paragraphs 90J(2)(b) and (c), substitute: (b) the agreement contains, in relation to each party to the agreement, a statement to the effect that the party to whom the statement relates has been provided, before the agreement was signed by him or her, as certified in an annexure to the agreement, with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner as to the following matters: (i) the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party; (ii) whether or not, at the time when the advice was provided, it was to the advantage, financially or otherwise, of that party to make the agreement; (iii) whether or not, at that time, it was prudent for that party to make the agreement; (iv) whether or not, at that time and in the light of such circumstances as were, at that time, reasonably foreseeable, the provisions of the agreement were fair and reasonable; and (c) the annexure to the agreement contains a certificate signed by the person providing the independent legal advice stating that the advice was provided; and(58) Schedule 2, item 10, page 36 (after line 14), at the end of section 90J, add: (3) A court may, on an application by a person who was a party to the financial agreement that has been terminated, or by any other interested person, make such order or orders (including an order for the transfer of property) as it considers just and equitable for the purpose of preserving or adjusting the rights of persons who were parties to that financial agreement and any other interested persons.(59) Schedule 2, item 10, page 36 (line 21), at the end of paragraph 90K(1)(a), add “(including non-disclosure of a material matter)”.(60) Schedule 2, item 10, page 36 (lines 26 to 32), omit paragraph 90K(1)(d), substitute: (d) since the making of the agreement, a material change in circumstances has occurred (being circumstances relating to the care, welfare and development of a child of the marriage) and, as a result of the change, the child or, if the applicant has caring responsibility for the child (as defined in subsection (2)), a party to the agreement will suffer hardship if the court does not set the agreement aside.(61) Schedule 2, item 10, page 37 (after line 4), after section 90K, insert:90KA Validity, enforceability and effect of financial agreements and termination agreements The question whether a financial agreement or a termination agreement is valid, enforceable or effective is to be determined by the court according to the principles of law and equity that are applicable in determining the validity, enforceability and effect of contracts and purported contracts, and, in proceedings relating to such an agreement, the court: (a) subject to paragraph (b), has the same powers, may grant the same remedies and must have the same regard to the rights of third parties as the High Court has, may grant and is required to have in proceedings in connection with contracts or purported contracts, being proceedings in which the High Court has original jurisdiction; and (b) has power to make an order for the payment, by a party to the agreement to another party to the agreement, of interest on an amount payable under the agreement, from the time when the amount became or becomes due and payable, at a rate not exceeding the rate prescribed by the applicable Rules of Court.(62) Schedule 3, page 38 (before line 4), before the heading, insert:A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 19991A Subparagraph 20A(10)(b)(ii) of Schedule 1Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (ii) a maintenance agreement (within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975) that has been registered in, or approved by, a court in Australia or an external Territory; or (iii) a financial agreement within the meaning of that Act; or (iv) any other agreement with respect to the maintenance of a person that has been registered in, or approved by, a court in Australia or an external Territory.(63) Schedule 3, page 38, after proposed item 1A, insert:1B Paragraph 20A(11)(b) of Schedule 1Omit “maintenance” (last occurring).(64) Schedule 3, page 38, after proposed item 1B, insert:1C Subparagraph 24(3)(a)(ii) of Schedule 1Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (ii) a maintenance agreement (within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975) that has been registered in, or approved by, a court in Australia or an external Territory; or (iii) a financial agreement within the meaning of that Act; or (iv) any other agreement with respect to the maintenance of a person that has been registered in, or approved by, a court in Australia or an external Territory; andNote: The heading to subsection 24(3) is altered by adding at the end “or financial agreement”.(65) Schedule 3, page 38, after proposed item 1C, insert:1D Subparagraph 24(6)(a)(i) of Schedule 1Omit “a maintenance agreement”, substitute “an agreement referred to in subparagraph (3)(a)(ii), (iii) or (iv)”.(66) Schedule 3, page 38, after proposed item 1D, insert:Bankruptcy Act 19661E Section 5 (definition of maintenance agreement)Repeal the definition, substitute:maintenance agreement means: (a) a maintenance agreement (within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975) that has been registered in, or approved by, a court in Australia or an external Territory; or (b) a financial agreement within the meaning of that Act; or (c) any other agreement with respect to the maintenance of a person that has been registered in, or approved by, a court in Australia or an external Territory.(67) Schedule 3, item 1, page 38 (lines 5 to 8), omit the item, substitute:1 Paragraph 84(7)(b)After “agreement”, insert “or financial agreement”.(68) Schedule 3, item 4, page 38 (lines 21 to 33), omit the item, substitute:4 At the end of section 102Add: (5) If, in dismissing an appeal under subsection (1) or (2), the Full Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle, it may, in accordance with the standard Rules of Court, give reasons for its decision in short form. (6) A Full Court of the Family Court, or a Judge of the Appeal Division or other Judge if there is no Judge of the Appeal Division available, may: (a) join or remove a party to an appeal under subsection (1) or (2); or (b) make an order by consent disposing of an appeal under subsection (1) or (2) (including an order for costs); or (c) give directions about the conduct of an appeal under subsection (1) or (2), including directions about the use of written submissions and limiting the time for oral argument. (7) The standard Rules of Court may make provision enabling matters of the kind mentioned in subsection (6) to be dealt with, subject to conditions prescribed by the standard Rules of Court, without an oral hearing. (8) Applications: (a) for an extension of time within which to institute an appeal under subsection (1) or (2); or (b) for leave to amend the grounds of an appeal under subsection (1) or (2); or (c) to reinstate an appeal under subsection (1) or (2) that, because of the standard Rules of Court, was taken to have been abandoned; or (d) to stay an order of a Full Court of the Family Court made in connection with an appeal under subsection (1) or (2);may be heard and determined by a Judge of the Appeal Division or other Judge if there is no Judge of the Appeal Division available, or by a Full Court of the Family Court. (9) The standard Rules of Court may make provision enabling applications of a kind mentioned in subsection (8) to be dealt with, subject to conditions prescribed by the standard Rules of Court, without an oral hearing. (10) No appeal lies under this section from an order or decision made under subsection (6) or (8).(69) Schedule 3, page 38 (after line 33), after item 4, insert:4A Paragraph 152(b)After “maintenance agreement”, insert “, or a financial agreement within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975,”.4B Section 152Omit “or maintenance agreement”, substitute “, maintenance agreement or financial agreement”.(70) Schedule 3, page 39 (after line 1), before item 5, insert:4C Subsection 4(1) (at the end of the definition of maintenance agreement)Add “, and also includes a financial agreement within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975”.(71) Schedule 3, item 5, page 39 (lines 2 to 14), omit the item, substitute:5 At the end of section 107Add: (4) If, in dismissing an appeal under subsection (1) or (1A), the Full Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle, it may, in accordance with the standard Rules of Court, give reasons for its decision in short form. (5) A Full Court of the Family Court, or a Judge of the Appeal Division or other Judge if there is no Judge of the Appeal Division available, may: (a) join or remove a party to an appeal under subsection (1) or (1A); or (b) make an order by consent disposing of an appeal under subsection (1) or (1A) (including an order for costs); or (c) give directions about the conduct of an appeal under subsection (1) or (1A), including directions about the use of written submissions and limiting the time for oral argument. (6) The standard Rules of Court may make provision enabling matters of the kind mentioned in subsection (5) to be dealt with, subject to conditions prescribed by the standard Rules of Court, without an oral hearing. (7) Applications: (a) for an extension of time within which to institute an appeal under subsection (1) or (1A); or (b) for leave to amend the grounds of an appeal under subsection (1) or (1A); or (c) to reinstate an appeal under subsection (1) or (1A) that, because of the standard Rules of Court, was taken to have been abandoned; or (d) to stay an order of a Full Court of the Family Court made in connection with an appeal under subsection (1) or (1A);may be heard and determined by a Judge of the Appeal Division or other Judge if there is no Judge of the Appeal Division available, or by a Full Court of the Family Court. (8) The standard Rules of Court may make provision enabling applications of a kind mentioned in subsection (7) to be dealt with, subject to conditions prescribed by the standard Rules of Court, without an oral hearing. (9) No appeal lies under this section from an order or decision made under subsection (5) or (7).(72) Schedule 3, item 22, page 40 (after line 13), after item 14, insert:14A Subsection 19D(5)Omit “applicable Rules of Court”, substitute “regulations”.14B Subsection 19E(2)Omit “applicable Rules of Court”, substitute “regulations”.(73) Schedule 3, item 22, page 42 (line 25), after “fraud”, insert “(including non-disclosure of a material matter)”.(74) Schedule 3, item 22, page 43 (line 7), after “fraud”, insert “(including non-disclosure of a material matter)”.(75) Schedule 3, page 44 (after line 14), after item 30, insert:30A Subsection 26B(1A)Omit all the words after “other than”, substitute: : (e) a parenting order made under paragraph 70NG(1)(b) or an order made under paragraph 70NJ(3)(c) that has the same effect as such a parenting order; or (f) an order until further order; or (g) an order made in undefended proceedings; or (h) an order made with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings.(76) Schedule 3, page 44 (after line 18), after item 31, insert:31A Subsection 33A(2)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to: (a) proceedings for a decree of dissolution of marriage; or (b) proceedings instituted in the Family Court under Division 13A of Part VII or under Part XIII or XIIIA.(77) Schedule 3, page 45 (after line 16), after item 38, insert:38A After subsection 44(3A)Insert: (3B) Despite subsection (3), if, whether before or after the commencement of Schedule 2 to the Family Law Amendment Act 2000: (a) a decree nisi of dissolution of marriage has become absolute or a decree of nullity of marriage has been made; and (b) a financial agreement between the parties to the marriage has been set aside under section 90K or found to be invalid under section 90KA; proceedings of a kind referred to in paragraph (c) or (ca) of the definition of matrimonial cause in subsection 4(1) (not being proceedings under section 78 or 79A or proceedings seeking the discharge, suspension, revival or variation of an order previously made in proceedings with respect to the maintenance of a party) may be instituted: (c) within the period of 12 months after the later of: (i) the date on which the decree nisi became absolute or the date of the making of the decree of nullity, as the case may be; or (ii) the date on which the financial agreement was set aside, or found to be invalid, as the case may be; or (d) with the leave of the court in which the proceedings are to be instituted;and not otherwise.(78) Schedule 3, page 45 (after line 32), after item 40, insert:40A Subsection 45A(8)Omit “Part XIIIA”, substitute “Part XIII or XIIIA”.(79) Schedule 3, page 49 (after line 22), after item 56, insert:56A Section 66WRepeal the section, substitute:66W Recovery of arrears (1) Nothing in subsection 66L(3), or in this Subdivision (apart from subsection (2) of this section), affects the recovery of arrears due under a child maintenance order in relation to a child when the order ceases to be in force. (2) If arrears are due under such an order when the order ceases to be in force, the court may, by order, retrospectively: (a) discharge the order if there is just cause for doing so; or (b) vary the order so as to increase or decrease the arrears to be paid under the order if the court is satisfied that: (i) the circumstances of the person liable to pay the arrears are such as to justify the variation; or (ii) the circumstances of the person entitled to receive the arrears are such as to justify the variation; or (iii) in the case of an order that operated in favour of, or that was binding on, a legal personal representative—the circumstances of the estate are such as to justify the variation.56B Application of amendmentSection 66W of the Family Law Act 1975, as amended by item 56A, applies to arrears that are outstanding on or after the commencement of that item.(80) Schedule 3, page 50 (after line 24), after item 64, insert:64A Paragraph 67X(3)(a)Omit “$1,000”, substitute “10 penalty units”.64B At the end of subsection 67X(3)Add:Note: For the value of a penalty unit, see subsection 4AA(1) of the Crimes Act 1914.(81) Schedule 3, page 51 (after line 16), after item 68, insert:68A Section 69MARepeal the section.(82) Schedule 3, item 76, page 53 (line 11) to page 54 (line 2), omit the item, substitute:76 After subsection 94(2)Insert: (2A) If, in dismissing an appeal under subsection (1) or (1AA), the Full Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle, it may, in accordance with the standard Rules of Court, give reasons for its decision in short form.Note: Powers to make Rules of Court are also contained in sections 26B, 37A, 109A, 121 and 123. (2B) A Full Court of the Family Court, or a Judge of the Appeal Division or other Judge if there is no Judge of the Appeal Division available, may: (a) join or remove a party to an appeal under subsection (1) or (1AA); or (b) make an order by consent disposing of an appeal under subsection (1) or (1AA) (including an order for costs); or (c) give directions about the conduct of an appeal under subsection (1) or (1AA), including directions about the use of written submissions and limiting the time for oral argument. (2C) The standard Rules of Court may make provision enabling matters of the kind mentioned in subsection (2B) to be dealt with, subject to conditions prescribed by the standard Rules of Court, without an oral hearing. (2D) Applications: (a) for an extension of time within which to institute an appeal under subsection (1) or (1AA); or (b) for leave to amend the grounds of an appeal under subsection (1) or (1AA); or (c) to reinstate an appeal under subsection (1) or (1AA) that, because of the standard Rules of Court, was taken to have been abandoned; or (d) to stay an order of a Full Court of the Family Court made in connection with an appeal under subsection (1) or (1AA);may be heard and determined by a Judge of the Appeal Division or other Judge if there is no Judge of the Appeal Division available, or by a Full Court of the Family Court. (2E) The standard Rules of Court may make provision enabling applications of a kind mentioned in subsection (2D) to be dealt with, subject to conditions prescribed by the standard Rules of Court, without an oral hearing. (2F) No appeal lies under this section from an order or decision made under subsection (2B) or (2D).(83) Schedule 3, page 54 (after line 2), after item 76, insert:76A Subsection 94AA(2A)Omit “decision”, substitute “decree”.(84) Schedule 3, page 54 (after line 18), after item 79, insert:79A After section 100AInsert:100B Children swearing affidavits, being called as witnesses or being present in court (1) A child, other than a child who is or is seeking to become a party to proceedings, must not swear an affidavit for the purposes of proceedings, unless the court makes an order allowing the child to do so. (2) A child must not be called as a witness in, or be present during, proceedings in the Family Court, or in another court when exercising jurisdiction under this Act, unless the court makes an order allowing the child to be called as a witness or to be present (as the case may be). (3) In this section:child means a child under 18 years of age.(85) Schedule 3, item 87, page 58 (lines 5 and 6), omit “to the child's country of habitual residence for the purposes of”, substitute “under”.(86) Schedule 3, item 87, page 58 (line 8), omit “to that country”, substitute “under the Convention”.(87) Schedule 3, item 87, page 58 (line 12), omit “to that country”, substitute “under the Convention”.(88) Schedule 3, item 87, page 58 (lines 14 and 15), omit “to the child's country of habitual residence for the purposes of”, substitute “under”.(89) Schedule 3, page 60 (after line 17), after item 93, insert:93A Paragraph 112AH(8)(a)Omit “$1,000”, substitute “10 penalty units”.93B At the end of subsection 112AH(8)Add:Note: For the value of a penalty unit, see subsection 4AA(1) of the Crimes Act 1914.(90) Schedule 3, item 99, page 62 (line 9), omit “Court”, substitute “court”.(91) Schedule 3, page 65 (after line 8), at the end of the Schedule, add:Federal Magistrates Act 1999117 Subsection 19(2)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to: (a) proceedings for a decree of dissolution of marriage; or (b) proceedings instituted in the Federal Magistrates Court under: (i) Division 13A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975; or (ii) Part XIII or XIIIA of that Act.(92) Schedule 3, page 65, after proposed item 117, insert:118 Subsection 65(3) (note)Omit “Part XIIIA”, substitute “Parts XIII and XIIIA”.(93) Schedule 3, page 65, after proposed item 118, insert:119 Subsection 78(1) (note)Omit “Part XIII”, substitute “Parts XIII and XIIIA”.(94) Schedule 3, page 65, after proposed item 122, insert:Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986123 After subparagraph 51(3)(a)(i)Insert: (ia) a financial agreement under the Family Law Act 1975; orBill, as amended, agreed to.19828Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills19828R110819828Debate resumed from 29 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.10:48:0019828Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The opposition essentially supports the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000 and welcomes a number of positive contributions to the veteran community that are entailed in the legislation. These run the gamut from extending counselling and psychological assessment to the spouses, ex-spouses and children of veterans, and the widening of the veterans' children education service to those offspring of children who are deemed to be in need, to an alteration of the income test treatment of Abstudy resulting from changes made to that payment. Most importantly, it deals with a number of anomalies that have persisted in our benefit scheme in the veterans area, for many decades in some cases. We welcome these benefits, particularly in regard to the Vietnam veterans' situation. We welcome benefits such as the availability of free psychiatric assessment to veterans' partners, access to counselling services for ex-partners, which would be allowed for a further four years after the end of the relationship—obviously in many cases these relationships floundered because of the problems of the veteran and his experience in Vietnam—and an increase from 25 years to 35 years in the age limit of veterans' children on free access to counselling and psychiatric assessment.However, in regard to the broader issue of recognising these anomalies, the government's activity is none too early. On 3 June 1998, I commented in the House on the then minister responsible for veterans' affairs, who left an enormous difficulty for the current minister due to her performance in the portfolio. She indicated on many occasions that these things that are being rectified now were essentially closed doors and were not going to be altered or rectified. I said:Eight months later, we are told that it is a minor priority in the government, that they have not really allocated many resources to it and that it might eventually, one day in the future, have an outcome. I was referring to the question of the FESR and Ubon. On 25 September 1997 in relation to the then minister's performance, I said:It is disturbing to note that the review lacked any community representatives or public consultation. Its report has not been released to the public and its reasoning and the evidence that it relied upon have not been revealed. In this legislation we tackle a number of the issues that persisted and were the subject of lobbying and very real activities by a wide variety of people. In regard to the FESR, there was an anomaly justified by concepts such as allotment, et cetera; it was really an excuse for a budgetary decision. I want to put on the record the efforts by John Carroll, Bob Gibbs, Admiral Mike Hudson, Noel Payne, Keith Brown-John, Joe Charlton, Bill Paterson, Keith Davidson, Ken Staff and Leo O'Donnell. The reality is, in a variety of these veterans' affairs issues, if it is a small group, it is very difficult to mobilise the wider community, even the wider RSL and veterans' community. If you are talking about pensions for everyone or an increase, this type of thing, there is a wider level of interest and broader support because it supports so many people. In this case, this group of people around Australia have had to drive this issue home, despite persistent refusals by governments of both stripes over many decades to rectify the situation. Here at last we do see some rectification of the matter in regard to the FESR where Air Force and Army personnel received benefits far earlier and a very arbitrary distinction was made, a delineation that really had no logic whatsoever. The government's decision is very welcome. With respect to the Ubon, the situation was that it was subject to a Senate resolution at the time. The Senate disagreed with the lack of interest in this question by the then minister in actually rectifying the problem. This was justified because of the figment that the Ubon situation was in no way related to the war in Indochina. However, the situation was that, in June 1965, the rules of engagement were altered for those Air Force personnel and it was said that those new rules of engagement certainly changed the picture. We as an opposition recognise that until that point there was some logic to the government's argument about it basically being support for Thailand and its situation. However, on that date there was a very real change of circumstances. There was extensive evidence of very real danger to the personnel involved and it was really justified by the lack of truthfulness to the Australian public by the government with respect to the situation of Australian forces in Indochina.We welcome the situation with respect to Ubon. We record that the then minister failed to deal adequately with this matter. He delayed it and showed disdain and disinterest. I want to recognise Mal Barnes, Richard Stone and Michael Morrissey in particular for their perseverance in driving the issue home and making sure that the political system in this country gave recognition to a just case. I also indicate that the 1998 election statement of the opposition at that stage did say that these two matters which the government is now tackling should have been tackled then. There is a concrete history of activity by the federal opposition in trying to give justice to these people. I also want to talk about Jeparit and put on the record Doreen Smith and Harold Harrison, two residents of Newcastle, New South Wales, who, to my mind, have been the main people who have kept pushing this issue before the parliamentary system. This resulted from a situation where the Waterside Workers Federation and the Seamens Union, because of their position with respect to the war in Vietnam, decided not to service a number of boats. The civilian personnel were basically discriminated against vis-à-vis people who were serving in the reserves on those boats. There is no real logic to the fact that they have been disregarded all this time and once again they faced very real and concrete danger.There is one matter, which I foreshadowed, on which the opposition is not satisfied with the bill. As I say, the government have been dragged screaming to rectify these matters and people are getting justice at last. The one matter where we will be indicating in the Senate dissatisfaction with the provisions of this bill relates to the question of the Australian civilian surgical teams in Vietnam between 1964 and 1973. I cite a document which they have produced. To our mind it certainly indicates that the experience they had there is such that the government should not rely on technicalities and avoid giving them their just rewards and recognition for their service. For instance, on page 4 of their document, they state:Tuberculosis, infestation with intestinal parasites, leprosy and malaria, had always been major causes of morbidity in Vietnam, but now with the overcrowding and the squalid conditions, plague, of which an outbreak began in 1961, had spread to 24 of the 41 provinces of South Vietnam by 1967.I note further in that document the comments of Dr Bernard Dunn at appendix F, where he says:The Minister's replies make much of the fact that these women were civilian and not military personnel and were not subject to military direction. As far as I know no Australian Army women nurses were used in a combat area in a military sense during the Vietnam war. The civilian nurses were often located far from any protected military encampments with minimal protection and at times, as during the Tet offensive, were exposed to very real danger. The documentation they have produced, with some very moving photographs showing the carnage of the war in regard to the civilian population of Vietnam, appear to be a very substantive argument. On page 15, they indicate the three main points in their submission, which are:1. The work of these teams assisted the Australian Defence Forces in wartime.2. The teams assisted and served with an allied country.3. The teams `incurred danger from hostile forces of the enemy during the time of hostilities.'I could go on and quote at length the various experiences of these people. On page 31, they state:There was a rocket attack and a whole lot of houses across the road from us got bombed. One of the guys and I went across to see if there were any survivors, went (into this house) and there was a woman lying in the bed, she had one child across here (indicating the chest) and a baby in her arms, they were black you know, like third degree charcoal. It took me a while to get over that. I sort of kept having flashbacks and for a while after I'd wake up in a sweat.The inquiry that justifies this legislation, the group of people who went around and examined these issues in their review of service entitlement anomalies in respect of South-East Asian service from 1955 to 1975, came to the conclusion that these people had a case. It is quite surprising to the opposition that the minister has deliberately decided, whilst generally following the conclusion of the inquiry, that these people do not have an entitlement. On page 14 of that report it states:It is recommended that Australian Civilian Surgical and Medical Teams operating in Vietnam during the Vietnam War be deemed as performing qualifying service for repatriation benefits.So the inquiry—the justification for the rest of the changes in this particular legislation and the rest of the alterations to overcome anomalies—that was set up by the minister said that these people had a just case. One really does have to question exactly why that was not the decision. I notice in the budget facts, the minister's document says:Repatriation benefits will not be extended to members of the Australian Civilian Surgical and Medical Teams in Vietnam. The policy on repatriation benefits for civilians has consistently required they be attached to the Australian Defence Force, for example in the case of merchant mariners. These civilians worked under arrangements made by the then Department of External Affairs and the review provided little or no evidence that they served under ADF command.Quite frankly, I think most people in the general Australian population would say that that is not a good enough reason not to recognise the very real dangers and the very disturbing situation that these individuals faced in Vietnam, and that matter will be subject to an amendment attempt by the opposition in the Senate.In conclusion, there is a wide variety of other anomalies that have been recognised. I also understand that there have been a variety of Labor and Liberal governments that previously did not overcome these problems, but I must say that, in the period when there was renewed interest, activity and lobbying on these matters, before Minister Scott's arrival in the portfolio, there was a very studied delay in the government's rectification of these matters. As I said earlier, the then minister reacted to Senate resolutions and she reacted to lobby groups by saying that the doors were closed, the matter was finalised, it was over, end of story, full stop. I want to reiterate my appreciation of the efforts of a small band of people on these issues. They have actually accomplished very overdue and necessary reforms for a group of people in whom the media probably took only sporadic interest; only occasionally did the vast majority of MPs have this matter brought to their attention. The changes are for the better and overdue.11:03:0019830Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am very pleased to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000. All members in this place, and perhaps most Australians, when they stop to think about it, would perhaps realise we do have the very best system as far as repatriation goes and would appreciate some of the effort expended on behalf of all Australians and veterans who have served this country. As somebody from a generation who has benefited directly from those who have put on a uniform and been prepared to stand their ground in other countries in defence of this nation and in defence of the values that we represent—our freedom, our democracy and our human rights record—I am always greatly humbled to be in the presence of those who have served. I must say that I agree with much of what the member for Reid had to say and there are so many anomalies within the Veterans' Entitlement Act that continue to be a great source of frustration to me as a private member in this place. I certainly welcome the measures contained within the two bills before the House this morning which extend certain veterans' entitlements to those who have not had them before, and also guarantee that certain others who may need benefits because of the tragedy of the Black Hawk accident are in fact going to gain them for the children of those who were killed.I also want to use my contribution in this place as someone, as I said, who has benefited directly from that great sacrifice and service that Australians have put forward over many years in this century to bring forward some of the most glaring anomalies that I have seen come across my desk over the last couple of years. I agree with the member for Reid that there are some handfuls of people who run the cause very loud and very strong and a lot of them are very pleased that this government has responded to them. The Far Eastern Strategic Reserve veterans and so forth have positive examples of this government listening, and reacting, to legitimate claims. The extension of the gold card to World War II service personnel—those who served overseas—is another example of this government's commitment to extending benefits to those who have served. They all come at a cost. Sadly, a lot of them are costs that are met only once the pool of people to receive the benefits shrinks because the survivors have died, which creates a great sense of frustration for those who fight for the rights that so many are now enjoying but a lot of whom never live long enough to see them.I do not really want to be overly partisan, but I will make the observation that 13 years of the previous government did not achieve the sorts of results for veterans that this government already has managed to achieve in the last 4½ years. But I genuinely believe that there is so much more that could be done, despite the fact that we do have the most generous veterans' system in the world. I also believe that the Black Hawk families may not have received the sorts of benefits they are getting assured so quickly in legislation if it had not been for the determined effort of people like the member for Herbert, who I know is also going to speak on this bill and who took a direct and personal local member style interest in the matter. I think the tremendous media focus on that horrendous accident has brought about a lot of good things for those who have suffered so many bad things.There are too many examples of non-wartime deaths and accidents having been dealt with in the most cavalier way by the Department of Defence. I cannot help but feel a great distaste about the inconsistencies in the treatment of the survivors of the dreadful accidents and incidents that have occurred. I believe the Department of Defence have a lot to answer for. I welcome the fact that a senior and experienced minister such as John Moore, the member for Ryan, is in charge of the Department of Defence. Most Australians should understand that Minister Moore is taking on the Department of Defence to get them to do not only what this government promised would be done but also those things that are part and parcel of what the people of Australia expect. I welcome Minister Moore's ongoing efforts to try to get the Department of Defence to follow an agenda set not by them and the bureaucrats over in Russell Offices but by the duly elected government of this country.I have looked back through stories of incidents and accidents that have come across my desk over the last couple of years. A young man up in Tin Can Bay was killed when a hand grenade blew up. His family were treated in a cavalier way and were virtually ignored by the system. Jacinta Watson was a cadet who was killed as a result of a training accident at the Greenbank Rifle Range just outside of my electorate. Her family were unable to get the full range of information they expected from an inquiry. As I said in the parliament about 3½ years ago, that family wrote to the Chief of the General Staff, John Sanderson, and it took four months to even get a response. General Sanderson basically wished them well and said goodbye. There was absolutely no support offered to that family. Jacinta's mother, Genia Otuszewski, from Coopers Plains in my electorate, still carries the burden of the death of her daughter in September 1994. It is dreadful in the extreme that the Department of Defence seem to close ranks and drag out the inquiry for three years until some statute of limitations runs out and then they say, `We're sorry; we've run out of time to get the kind of justice and support that you deserve.' It is ironic in the extreme that the government has to legislate in a specific way to get around departmental ideology that leaves those who have been the victims of accidents and incidents high and dry. Clare Stokes, another cadet, was killed in a truck accident in North Queensland while involved in a cadet operation. Her aunt is a constituent of mine. I have written to Minister Scott about this matter on so many occasions. The member for Bowman, a former veterans' affairs minister, has raised this matter in this place as well. The Stokes family are constituents of his. The department has treated her family with cavalier disregard and a lack of compassion. It is a matter of great shame that the family of somebody who was willing to put on a uniform as a cadet and to display their commitment and pride in their country—and be involved in that marvellous organisation—should be so badly treated.I think about the victims of the Westralia. Contrast what is before the parliament today for the Black Hawk survivors and the victims' families and what happened to Mathew Liddell, a constituent of mine who was a serviceman on the Westralia and who was airlifted off straight after that tragedy. He had to face the prospect that his mate Bradley Meek had been killed beside him. He cannot erase the memory of Bradley Meek's skin coming off onto him when he was trying to revive him, not realising that he was already dead. He has a recurring dream: the skin is all over him and he sees Bradley's staring eyes. This is a human being who is crying from his heart every day. He has recently had some trouble with the law. He is a young man whose life has essentially been ruined. His mother, Dulcie, firmly believes her son will never realise his potential. The military compensation scheme has made a $23,000 interim payout but Mathew has had to spend $6,000 on legal fees to get it. It is outrageous in the extreme to think that a serviceperson in this country who was the victim of a non-wartime accident like the Westralia tragedy—something that made national news, as did the Black Hawk disaster—should have to spend roughly a quarter of the compensation given to him by the military compensation scheme on legal fees to try to get some more justice and support. Where is the support for his family? Where is the post-traumatic stress support? It does not exist. They are fighting the defence bureaucracy to get some justice for this young man.This man has been granted a 20 per cent disability pension. He cannot hold a job down. Why do the military compensation scheme and the Department of Defence treat this young man and his family in such a poor way? He cannot hope at this stage to erase the memory of the horror of what happened to him and his mate Bradley that day on the Westralia without some support. We owe that chap and others like him that sort of support. We owe the Stokes family that sort of support. We owe the Hitchcock family, who are from my electorate and whose son was on that same truck that killed Claire Stokes, some support and understanding of what occurred, but all we get from the Department of Defence is constant drag-it-out-and-delay-it tactics. For what benefit? I think most Australians would be horrified to know that these sorts of things occurred.The Liddell family from my electorate are no strangers to Defence life. Mrs Liddell's husband had 20 years service with the Royal Australian Navy. Her oldest son had six years service in the Royal Australian Navy and currently serves as a fire officer in the Queensland Fire Brigade. The Liddells have two sons-in-law in the Army—one served 21 years and was discharged as staff sergeant, and one is currently serving as a warrant officer 2nd class. He went to Timor last year and has 18 years of service. This is a service family. A representative of that family, despite the fact that he has this long service tradition in his family, is being slapped down and discarded on the side of the road of life by the Department of Defence. I welcome what is in this legislation today. I welcome the government's attempts to assist the families of the Black Hawk tragedy to try to repatriate some of the benefits that should have gone to them years ago but that we now can perhaps finally afford. But I am gravely concerned about the approach of the Department of Defence and their total disregard for those who may have been victims of accidents and incidents in non-wartime. If those people are being treated so badly, you cannot help but understand why so many who have served this country in years past feel so let down by the system that takes so long to respond to the genuine needs and genuine calls for assistance. I do not think there would be one taxpayer who would hesitate in the slightest to say, `This is a fair dinkum claim; let's just get on with this.' Why isn't the system saying to Mathew Liddell, `Mate, your family has a tradition of service in the defence of this country. Generations have put on uniforms, and you have been the victim of a horrible accident. We understand that things like post-traumatic stress syndrome exist.' Back in the early part of this century they did not understand it when my great-grandfather, Charlie McKinnon, was blown up on the Western Front after serving his country for six months. He came back an absolute basket case and his life was ruined. They did not understand it back in those days. They called it `trench fever' and all sorts of wacky names like that. 83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—And some of them were shot for it.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—And some of them were shot for it. The member for Cowan knows all too well what I am talking about. But the astonishing part about it is that today we do know what post-traumatic stress syndrome is all about. Why aren't we fair dinkum and why aren't we getting on with it?An issue related to all this—as I mentioned, a couple of cadets have been hurt—is the extraordinary circumstance where the Department of Defence do not want to know about cadets. The Department of Defence do not want to know about the cadet service in Australia. They are holding out an absolute line that they do not want to recognise cadets. This government, when it was elected in 1996, had an excellent policy promising to extend the cadet system and has fought a battle for 4½ years against the Department of Defence over providing services to cadets. We now have the extraordinary circumstance where the parliamentary secretary, Senator Abetz, who is doing an excellent job in taking on the Department of Defence bureaucracy, wants to get the cadets recognised as a line item in the budget each year—a move that I totally support, because it is getting around the Defence bureaucracy. But I have had RSL clubs come to me who have represented a very strong view, and a view that I totally support, that the support of the Department of Defence for cadets is parlous in the extreme. I am told, for instance, that cadets get whatever is left over, that the quartermasters at various little Defence bases around Brisbane will dole them out whatever they might not need themselves. Quartermasters, being quartermasters, never seem to really find things that they do not need themselves, I suspect. So therein lies part of the problem. The air cadets who meet at Macgregor High School cannot even get proper uniforms, or the stripes or badges that go on the uniforms—so they do not get a sense of service and involvement with the defence forces—and the RAAF Base at Amberley will not let them have even a box trailer, let alone the troop carrier. They used to have a troop carrier to drive them around when they went on camps and so forth. The cadets who meet at Nyanda High School get no support out of the Department of Defence when a neighbour complains that they make a bit of noise as they parade each night on the tarmac of the school property, at the beginning and the end of their cadet activities. The Department of Defence does not do anything to support them in the fight against the Queensland Education Department, who have told them to leave, but the Department of Defence tears strips off one of the officers involved in the cadet unit for daring to break the chain of command by talking to his local federal member about the problem. There is something seriously wrong in the Department of Defence. That is a very simple point. I welcome the submission that has come from those associated with the Clare Stokes tragedy. Clare's family—including her aunt, Julie Goeldner, from my electorate—have put in a submission to the `Cadets: the future' review, which Senator Abetz has called. It sets out a number of things that need to be talked about: that there need to be rights and responsibilities set out, that the Australian cadet units need to be recognised as part of the Australian Defence Force, that the Australian cadets need to be allocated sufficient funds directly from the budget each year, and that the Department of Defence need to actually take some responsibility for the care, nurture and safety of cadets. They need to take some responsibility.Whilst the Department of Defence has presided over a magnificent set of service circumstances in East Timor—and I really think it is the sharp end that should feel pleased about that; the troops on the ground, not the people running around with the big gold badges over in Russell Offices, where I reckon just about everybody, even the office boy, has to be a major—I do not think it can rest on the laurels of East Timor and ignore these sorts of issues that I have raised in my contribution today. The Department of Defence has to take responsibility for those who have offered themselves as cadets. So many cadets go on to become service personnel. If there is one true thing about the cadet system it is that those who actually stick with it, survive it, and go on to serve, stay in the service and tend to become very good service personnel. But the Department of Defence does not seem to be interested in cadets, and it should be made to be. The Department of Defence does not seem to be all that interested in really looking after any of the victims of tragedy. That the Veterans' Entitlements Act is being changed by this Minister for Veterans' Affairs to look after more people and to make sure that those who wish we did not need this assistance are being assisted by the measures contained in these bills before the House today is a good thing, but there is so much more to be done and so much of it is so contemporary. Heaven help those who are trying to fight something from the Vietnam days if we cannot even get something that happened in the last five or 10 years right.I support this legislation. I commend Minister Scott for his ongoing commitment to try to drive this agenda the right way. I strongly support Minister Moore in his ongoing fight against the Department of Defence—they are my words, not his. I applaud Parliamentary Secretary Abetz in his efforts on behalf of cadets. I lament that so many of the constituents in my own electorate—and as you know there are 148 of us in this House—have had so many problems in getting reasonable justice as a result of the failure of the Department of Defence. I commend the bill to the House.11:23:0019834Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I, like my colleagues, support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000. I think there are some positives in it—some positives that people have waited a very long time for—and I compliment the government and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on those positives.The previous speaker said that, in his view, we have the best system of repatriation in the world. I think that was roughly what he said—just to paraphrase him. I agree: we do have a very good system. But, when we talk about the best system, we should remember that the people whom the Department of Veterans' Affairs was set up to serve also gave their best—some of them, of course, gave their all. So the system ought to be the best. As I said, there are some positives in this legislation, but in many respects the legislation does not go far enough. I think that is a bit of a reflection on the government and on our system as a whole. The previous speaker also spoke about the need for the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to do more, to look after people better. I agree, but, ultimately, it is not the responsibility of the Department of Defence to do things when it is not resourced to do them. It is the responsibility of the government of the day and the minister of the day. You cannot sheet that home to anyone else. Ministers must take responsibility in a way that they do not seem to want to these days. The previous speaker also had a bit of a crack at the Labor Party for not doing enough during its 13 years in government. To a large degree, I would accept that criticism, but it is also important to point out that, for about 22 years of the past 40 years, we have had the Liberal Party in government, and for many of those years there was an immense amount of need that just went begging. Whatever we are putting into place now is being put in place very late and, in many respects, much of it is just too little too late. In talking about this legislation, I want to pick up on some of the gaps because I do not want members of parliament thinking that this legislation is addressing all the problems—it is falling short in many areas. One of those areas relates to Queensland. I have had a whole swag of letters from people living in regional Queensland who have written to me about the cessation of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service country outreach program. I want to draw this to the attention of the parliament because this is an excellent service and I cannot understand why it is being defunded. I want to read a letter from Len and Karen Fox from Black Mountain in Queensland, and it is similar to the many letters I have received on this issue. They say:It is proposed that this service will cease in December 2000. The program has enabled many thousands of veterans in non-metropolitan areas to be seen by `Volunteer Area Representatives', primarily ex-service themselves, to be assessed, and then guided through the process of seeking assistance from the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service (VVCS). This valuable service further supports not only the veteran, but his or her spouse and children who also may suffer as a result of the veteran's war service related conditions.This valuable service commenced in 1990 here on the Sunshine Coast and since then many thousands of veterans and their families, myself included, have benefited greatly from work carried out by our local representative. Without the dedicated work of—I do not want to name him—veterans and their families would not have been made aware of the entitlements that their service to our country now makes them eligible for. This work is far from finished with the children of Vietnam veterans in particular but not forgetting, The Gulf War, Somalia, Rwanda, Cambodia and East Timor veterans now in ever increasing need of assistance and guidance. You would also no doubt be aware of the hugely greater incidence of youth suicide and spina bifida cases amongst these Australian children.Accordingly, we strongly urge you to look further into this matter and support in any and every way possible the retention of this outstanding service to our veteran community. Whilst this service is currently run under the title of `Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service', this is somewhat of a misnomer in that these services are offered and received by all veterans alike, irrespective of the service.I really want to draw this letter to the attention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs because I just cannot believe, like these people who are writing to me, that this service is being defunded, wound up. There are a couple of points I would like to make in relation to this service. One point is the tremendous amount of work that veterans do for other veterans in a voluntary capacity. Many of them, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, as you would well know—because I know you take a strong interest in these matters—are themselves TPI pensioners and many of them put in an immense amount of time, work and effort looking after their fellow veterans. I think this sort of service ought to be supported and encouraged, not defunded. The other issue I want to raise relates to the children of veterans. I want to draw to the attention of the House the plight of, in this instance, a veteran family where the father is a TPI pensioner and his child has suffered a physical disability directly related to the service of the father. This bill in part deals with extending services to the children of veterans. I want to quote from an article in the Courier Mail of Friday 18 August under the heading `TPI veteran in battle for wheelchair': An Agent Orange victim and Vietnam War hero whose son was born with spina bifida is now fighting another battle—with bureaucracy, for a motorised wheelchair.Clarrie Upton of Townsville said yesterday the Federal Government had already acknowledged that his son Darcy's disability was a direct result of his own exposure to deadly chemicals during his six-month tour of duty in 1967.But when he and his wife, Lona, applied five weeks ago to the Department of Veterans' Affairs for $5000 to buy Darcy, 31, a motorised wheelchair they were refused.“We were told he could have five psychiatric assessments, but no wheelchair,” said Clarrie.Darcy is lying in bed in Townsville General Hospital after an 11-month wait for surgery. He has already endured a lifetime of operations relating to his disability, including regular trips to a Brisbane hospital for shunts to relieve fluid on his brain.Clarrie said he and Lona were physically and financially unable to move Darcy about in his worn-out old wheelchair.“I'm 62 and a TPI (totally and permanently incapacitated) pensioner myself ... we just can't do it,” he said.A Warrant Officer who earned a Bronze Star for his courage in ... training forces in Vietnam, Clarrie said he had been sprayed not just with Agent Orange but with a mixture of chemicals during the war.“But nobody told us. I didn't find out anything about it until 20 years later when I read Jean Williams's first book (Cry In the Wilderness—Guinea Pigs of Vietnam).”Clarrie's tour of duty ended when he was evacuated with a heart virus in late 1967. Darcy was born in February 1969.Mrs Williams said the Government had earmarked $700,000 in its May Budget for the children of Vietnam veterans who had been affected by spina bifida, cleft palate and suicidal conditions.“This man (Darcy) is 31 and he's never walked, but they won't give him $5000 of this money for a motorised wheelchair because they say the money's only for hospital fees and psychiatric assessments,” she said.Minister for Veterans' Affairs Bruce Scott was not available for comment yesterday.As I said at the start of my speech, this legislation in my view does not go far enough. What is the point of five psychiatric visits for the child of a veteran in this situation when there is no ongoing service provided for him? What is the point of five psychiatric visits when this child of a Vietnam veteran's greatest need—not just for himself but for his parents—is an electric wheelchair? Why doesn't the department buy him one? Why does this man have to go out and fight for something for his child when he has spent the best part of his post-Vietnam years fighting for something for himself? I am not sure that many people in this place will agree with me, but I have a very strong view that if the physical problem that a child suffers can be directly traced to the war service of his or her father then the Veterans Entitlements Act ought to be extended to fully cover the child of a veteran in that circumstance. I hope one day we might see that happen. If these children are suffering, and particularly when we have a health study that validates their condition and validates the situation and shows that the condition is as a direct result of their father's service, then that Veterans' Entitlements Act ought to be, as I have said, extended to cover that child.The story I have just read said that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Bruce Scott, was unavailable for comment. I must say that this minister has done some good things, but I think there is a heck of a lot that remains to be done. One of the problems that the veteran community has with this minister is that he is very remote, that he is very difficult to get in contact with, and that often he does not respond to much of the mail that is sent to him. I have experienced this myself in this place. Since I have been here I have put a number of questions on the Notice Paper and in many of those instances I have been forced to wait in excess of three months for an answer. I think that is outrageous when we have a minister with an immense resource—an office full of staff—and he cannot respond within a reasonable amount of time, particularly when we are dealing with issues that are not of a political nature but that go to the wellbeing of some of our veterans. Three months ago in this House I raised the situation of a Vietnam veteran who died in Perth, a fellow by the name of Ken Freeman. I read a letter to the House. I know the minister is aware of it because he was sitting at the table when I read it. Three months ago I put these questions to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on the Notice Paper: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the recent death of an SAS Vietnam veteran two days after being admitted to the Hollywood Clinic in Western Australia, and the difficult circumstances confronted by the veteran when being admitted to the Clinic.(2) Was the veteran initially refused admittance to the clinic pending proof that he was a veteran.(3) Was access to the clinic only achieved after intervention by the veteran's voluntary advocate.(4) Will he initiate an immediate inquiry into admittance procedures for veterans at this and similar clinics; if not, why not.I think that is a pretty reasonable issue to raise. I believe I raised it in a very reasonable manner. I did not endeavour to politicise the issue; I simply wanted some answers—not just for myself but for and on behalf of veterans, and not just in Western Australia but right around Australia. Three months have elapsed and I have not had an answer. I have no idea whether the minister has addressed this issue, whether these procedures which were lacking in Western Australia—and I assume in other parts of Australia—have been addressed. Surely, given all the resources this minister has, he could have cared enough to answer me and other veterans who have concerns about these procedures. In talking about that issue, I want to pay a compliment to the Department of Veterans' Affairs in Perth—they are generally a good department. There was a delay in trying to ascertain the cause of death of this veteran and there was a fairly long wait for the coroner's findings but as soon as the department did get those findings they acted very quickly to make sure that Mr Freeman's widow was granted a widow's pension. Her advocate, Rick Giblett, who is one of those TPI pensioners who puts an immense amount of work back into the veteran community, tells me he is very happy and very pleased with the way the department has responded to this widow's needs. I wish I could say the same thing about the minister in this instance. I want to touch on the issue of TPI pensioners. There is, unfortunately, a very strong blue going on within the TPI community within Australia. I say `unfortunately' because it appears to me that nationally the TPI association has lost sight of the needs of many younger TPI pensioners to the extent that a number of younger TPI pensioners have come together and launched a campaign to have the rate of the TPI pension improved. I can understand that and I support many, but not all, of the things that they want. Some of these veterans do not have a service pension; they survive on a TPI pension. Many of them have young children. Many of these pensioners simply cannot provide the sort of lifestyle and quality of life that they want to provide for their kids simply because the TPI pension is not sufficient to live on. In trying to bring this situation to the attention of the hierarchy of their association and of the government they have found that they have had to raise a pretty loud voice to get their attention. It is unfortunate when you see a split in an association like the TPI association, an association which over the years has done much in support of its members across Australia. There is a very strong wake-up call to the hierarchy of the TPI association. That wake-up call sends a very loud message to the hierarchy and to the government. It says that many TPI veterans, many of the members of that association, are not being properly looked after. Their issues are not being properly put forward in Canberra. I suspect that either that rift will be healed or the TPI association will suffer damage from which it will not recover. So I congratulate Blue Ryan from Perth and others who, like him, have put in an immense amount of time and given much of themselves in an endeavour to win something for those many TPI pensioners who need greater support. I know that many TPI pensioners are not financially strapped and many of them, because of other incomes, are doing okay, but that is not true about all of them. The association ought to wake up to this and start advocating properly on behalf of veterans all over Australia. In conclusion, I want to say how much I appreciate some of the work that the cadets in this nation are doing. I spent some time with the Girrawheen Senior High School cadet unit a couple of weekends ago. They had their parents with them out in the bush. They were given very strong support by the reserve unit in Perth. I compliment the 11-28 Battalion for the great support they are giving to the cadets there. I also compliment the parents who were involved with this unit for the great work they are doing. Those parents learned a lot when they went out bush with their children, male and female. There are some positives in this legislation, but there is still a heck of a long way to go. We ought to get behind it and get on with it. I support the legislation. 11:43:0019838Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—On the evening of 12 March 1996 I was at my home in Townsville. My family and friends were there. We were celebrating my son's 21st birthday. We were not prepared for what was to happen later that evening. At about 7 o'clock in the evening a report came through on the local radio station that there had been a serious accident at the Army's high range training area to the north-west of Townsville involving Black Hawks from 5 Aviation Regiment. Within half an hour I was at the Townsville General Hospital with Brigadier Mike Smith, the then commander of the 3rd Brigade. The awful reality of what happened that evening began to become clear. I called the Prime Minister to let him know what was what. Overnight the Minister for Defence and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence arranged to come to Townsville. Early the next morning I met the two ministers and we went to 5 Aviation. I will never forget the ashen looks on the faces of the members of 5 Aviation Regiment when it became painfully clear that 18 soldiers had lost their lives in that accident.The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000, which we are debating today, in part helps relieve some of the tragedy of that accident and underlines the government's determination to assist in these awful circumstances. Amendments being made to this legislation will assist Australian Defence Force members who have been severely injured as a result of their service and the families of members who have been killed as a result of their service. The incident that I referred to is covered by the amendments to the bill. These amendments will ensure that any additional payments for the severe injury or the death made by a determination under the Defence Act 1903 will not affect any compensation payments that may be payable under the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986. These additional payments are part of an assistance package that this government introduced after an inquiry into military compensation arrangements undertaken in 1997, in the aftermath of the Black Hawk accident. I know that the then Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, Bronwyn Bishop, moved heaven and earth to make sure that the right thing was done for those families who lost a loved one and for those who were severely injured in that incident.I, like the member for Cowan, also believe that there is a lot more to be done in the area of assisting our veterans. I would like to take this opportunity to articulate some of that, because last week I was privileged to have a meeting with representatives of the veteran community in Townsville and to listen to their concerns. It was a very good and productive meeting. The first point they made was the need for a PTSD clinic in the north. Currently, any veteran who suffers this awful affliction has to travel to Brisbane for treatment. They are away from their families for a long time and they are in a state of stress caused by this affliction. It is entirely unsatisfactory that this should happen. The result is that a number of people just do not go. The veterans put the proposition to me that, instead of sending people suffering from PTSD to Brisbane, there should be an opportunity to have a clinic in Townsville—which would pay for itself because there would not be the living away from home and travel allowances and so on. They could stay at the Vietnam veterans house. It would be a good result if we could do that in the local area in North Queensland. It could be done through the Mater or the Park Haven hospitals. I think the veterans made a good point in that regard. Something that is worrying me—which I do not think you will be aware of, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley; I am more likely to be aware of it because of the defence component in my electorate—is that we are finding that there are cases of PTSD now coming out of Timor. We have only been in Timor for 12 months. The local vets tell me that of the 41 current cases of PTSD they have on their books seven are Timor veterans, who are still serving members of the ADF, incidentally. The government not only needs to take that into account but it also needs to be very responsive. The other matter related to Timor which will impact on veterans ultimately is that soldiers are coming back from Timor with viruses that are not yet known. Because these viruses have not been identified, they cannot get compensation. The local vets indicated to me that they believe the people at James Cook University could help in the identification of these viruses. If that can proceed and be funded then the veterans will be able to make proper claims. At the moment the reality is that if you do not have the name of the virus you cannot claim for it. I think that they have made a valid point in that regard.Funding is also needed for emergency accommodation for veterans. We have a very good property in Townsville called Zachs Place. Unfortunately, professional help is needed to run the place. It is not satisfactory to do it on a volunteer basis. It needs the employment of a professional house manager, some dollars to cover transportation, and between $40,000 and $60,000 per annum to cover costs. The next point that was raised was the proper funding of veterans' organisations. The member for Cowan quite correctly said in this debate that a lot of the help that goes on in the Vietnam veterans community is being done on a voluntary basis. The TNPI people give their time unstintingly to help their fellow veterans. But it is coming to the time where we cannot fund veterans support services by raffles; it is coming to the time where these organisations need help with secretarial services. If we can provide a small amount of money—say, $20,000 a year per organisation—to help with phone costs and the services they provide and to make sure that they do not have to charge big membership fees, it will save the Department of Veterans' Affairs a lot of money. The people who provide their services free of charge to the community—and it is very welcome—in particular the people who deal with welfare issues, need more training from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We know that that is a very important component of the services that are provided by the veterans groups. That is something that the government could well take on board and it would be something that the department would also strongly support.Carrying on from that, I come from a regional area as you do, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley. I think that there should be a lot more use of telemedicine type facilities and technology. We have isolated people in the north of Australia, in my patch. The city of Mount Isa is serviced by Townsville, but it is some 500 kilometres to the west and there is a large area in between. Where welfare officers can get onto the telemedicine technology they can get to isolated people very easily and provide much needed services to those who are in very isolated areas.I also warm to a matter that the member for Cowan raised today. He referred to the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service and the need to change its name. This is a tough issue and something that I believe the minister is going to have to bite the bullet on, because no longer is the name Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service appropriate. It is now servicing Korean veterans. In fact, it is open to all veterans. So it really should be renamed, I believe, to something like the `Veterans Health and Support Service'. In that way, its true role as it exists today would be recognised. It would encourage more people to use the service who are currently concerned with the name Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. I think that we can give strong support to that. I was very pleased to have that feedback from the veterans' groups in Townsville. I will continue that process and I will continue to relay that feedback to the government. The Howard government strongly believes that the Australian veterans' community deserves generous support, care and compensation through a simple, fair and responsive system that is unique to their needs. This bill gives effect to a range of measures outlined in the budget as part of the Howard government's commitment to veterans. I am pleased to support this bill, for a wide range of reasons. There are a number of initiatives in the bill. Other speakers have covered the detail of that. As my time has now expired, I can only say to the parliament that I welcome the opposition support for the bill and I give it my strong support.11:56:0019840Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise this morning to support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000. There are a number of important elements to this bill. I want to deal principally with the bill's extension of benefits under the Veterans' Children's Education Scheme for those children who are deemed to be in need—and I will say something about that later—the bill's provision for dependents of veterans to receive psychological assessment and counselling services and its provision of repatriation benefits to veterans who served in South-East Asia.The government said in its budget statement that these benefits under the Veterans' Children's Education Scheme should be given to in-need children, but it is not clear in the statements from the government what `in need' means. I do not know what the criteria are but, having worked in the Department of Veterans' Affairs as a delegate of the Repatriation Commission and officer of the department, I dare say that an officer of the department will make some recommendation or decision. But obviously there should be some guidelines to determine what is `in need'. The Bills Digest indicates that there will be an avenue open to appeal to the Repatriation Commission and the AAT in terms of definitions dealing with someone who is in need. How do you classify someone who is in need? Obviously the department should be putting out guidelines so that potential applicants would have some indication of what the criteria are so that they might qualify for these benefits. Is the assessment going to be relevant purely to whether a person is on the poverty line? Will it have any relevance to whether the person has some sort of mental or physical disablement? Will it have something to do with the fact that there might be a marital breakdown? I do not know. Also, is it good to categorise or label children with an `in need' category? Possibly they would not feel too encouraged to be designated as `in need'. When I was working for Veterans' Affairs many years ago, the department used to provide `immediate assistance', and possibly it still does today. If my memory serves me correctly, ex-servicemen who were in indigent circumstances could come to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and get £5, or subsequently $10—I do not know if there was any variation on that amount—if they had fallen on hard times. The point I am making is that guidelines need to be prepared by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and that should be provided to ex-service organisations, particularly the RSL and all the other associations representing ex-servicemen and their dependants, to give people an indication of what the category is and the criteria for determining `in need'.The other element of the bill that I want to talk about is the extension of psychological assessment and counselling services to be provided to the spouses and dependants of Vietnam veterans. The government should be commended for that because we know from history that war—this applies to any ex-serviceman who has experienced the horrors of war, particularly the Vietnam War—has a tremendous impact on one's life and that its impact starts with the family. The interesting thing here is that the analysis of the morbidity of Vietnam veterans report, which is a very good report, provides some pretty horrifying statistics in the comparisons to be drawn with children of ex-servicemen and the ratio of these children to the total Australian suicide rate. There are some quite alarming statistics. They date from 1988. The youth suicide rate of veterans' children is more than three times higher in 1988, twice as high in 1989, three times in 1990, 2.6 times in 1991, four times in 1992 and, alarmingly, nearly six times in 1993. Sadly, the figures continue up until 1997, indicating that there is a significant increase in the level of youth suicide for children of Vietnam veterans. I commend the government for the provision in the bill for appropriate psychiatric assessment and counselling services for those children and the dependants of ex-servicemen. I know that in the time I worked for the Department of Veterans' Affairs many Vietnam veterans suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, and they still do. We all know the origins of that, because when the ex-servicemen returned from Vietnam they were outcasts; they were not welcomed. The contribution that they made to their country and the sacrifices they made were ignored by everyone. It was not until later in their lives, when we saw the many manifestations and the symptoms of the impact of that service on their lives, that people started to realise the full impact and horror of the Vietnam War. So when this bill provides that service let us hope that these statistics, which are a sad indictment of our society, are significantly reduced. Unfortunately, here in Australia we have a high level of youth suicide. Quite plainly, although the Vietnam veteran population is small, there has been an increase in those statistics purely by virtue of the fact that the children, through no fault of their own, were children of Vietnam veterans.The figures in this study are a salient reminder of the government's obligations in war management. We know that successive governments, comprising people on both sides of this chamber, have supported the ex-service community. It is accepted here and internationally that the repatriation system in Australia is the most generous compensation system in the world—and so it should be. I know first-hand of this. My uncle served in the Owen Stanley Ranges in World War II. I remember my mother telling me that he returned in 1945 from the south-west Pacific area and was never the same after his service. It was not long after he returned from that war that he started to drink. He then became an alcoholic. His marriage collapsed and ultimately he ended up sleeping in parks and as a trust case in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That is a terrible thing to happen to anyone, but I know that hurt my mother very deeply because my mother said that when my uncle went to war in the early 1940s he was a very fit, intelligent, handsome young man; she was very close to him. Within a matter of years of doing what all countrymen did after they answered the call in the 1939-45 conflict, he suffered greatly, and that had a devastating impact on his family. In those days, of course, there were not the services that are provided today to ex-servicemen, as this legislation will do. I am, effectively, saying is that the psychological impact of war is paramount in the consideration of veterans' entitlements legislation. The casualties of war can include permanent disabilities, including the broad effects of those on families, as has been clearly evidenced by this debate here this morning. Obviously, the figures in this morbidity of Vietnam veterans study are empirical proof of the effect of that war on ex-servicemen's families.The member for Herbert, who spoke just before me, has alluded to the fact that all of us in this House should be looking out for the veterans who have recently served in East Timor and, of course, those who are currently serving in Bougainville and doing a great job for their country. No doubt when they return to civilian life in Australia they are going to experience difficulties similar to those of many of the Vietnam veterans. More than that, there are Australian soldiers located in many other parts of the world and in areas which could potentially be war zones or are classified as war zones constituting, obviously, a real threat to their lives. Therefore there is going to be an ongoing need, for many years to come, to provide these services. The government deserves a tick for the benefits in this legislation. I would like to make it quite clear that, like all the other speakers, I support it. I particularly want to acknowledge the fact that the government has put in this budget in the order of $32.3 million to provide these services. The bill also has a provision to acknowledge qualifying service in certain areas of South-East Asia. I will not go through all of those areas, which are listed in the Bills Digest. Suffice to say that it includes areas like the Thai-Malay border at a certain period of time and also those who served in the RAAF in Ubon in Thailand. It is all listed in the Bills Digest. Obviously it is a very worthwhile thing. Many ex-servicemen volunteered their services and went overseas, although they may not have served in what we used to call, when I was in Veterans' Affairs, a theatre of war, which is where most but not all servicemen served when they went outside Australia. It gave them what is now called qualifying service and automatically entitled them, subject to the assets test and the income test, to a service pension. That was provided to compensate them for the indefinable and intangible effects of war service. I was an old ministerial writer in the mid-1970s in the Department of Veterans' Affairs—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—A young ministerial writer.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—The member for Dobell, as a member with a very high proportion of veterans and widows and dependants, knows all about this.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Did you draft replies to my queries?83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I have drafted some replies in my day to Labor members. We used to receive complaints and reply to them. Unfortunately, in those days governments were not quite as generous as the legislation is today, and we had to say to the prospective pensioner, `Unfortunately, although you may have offered yourself, because you did not serve outside Australia in an area classified as a theatre of war, or north of 14.5 degrees south latitude between February 1942 and November 1943 in the Northern Territory because of the threat that was going on from the assault from the north, particularly in Darwin, you do not qualify for the service pension. This is a good extension of a benefit to give these particular ex-servicemen who served in those areas, for example, during the Malayan Emergency, the qualifying service provision. They should be given that provision because, notwithstanding that they might not have had the same experience in combat as others in the front line and those who served in the artillery, quite plainly, if you were prepared to put your life on the line for your country the least your country can do for you is to give you qualifying service, because that extends benefits to the ex-serviceman and dependants. That is the least that the government should do.All in all, this is a very worthy bill and one that I know we all support. I was making a speech in the Main Committee when the member for Cowan spoke. He more than anyone here has experienced the horrors and the consequences of the Vietnam War. Truly he is a great Australian for the price he had to pay for serving his country. I have not said anything about the member for Cowan before, but I think he happens to be one of the most special members in the parliament. He is clearly a person who has let go of the past. This morning I caught the tail end of his speech as he was saying something about the TPI association, the association for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen, needing to lift its game to advocate on behalf of ex-servicemen. I remember that when I was in Veterans' Affairs in the mid to late 1970s there was an enormous power struggle going on between the Victorian and New South Wales branches of the TPI association, and a lot of that was visited on various heads of the department in the states. I was working at that time for the Deputy Commissioner of Veterans' Affairs, Jim Greenwood, who himself was a prisoner of war of the Japanese in Changi. He was also a very distinguished serviceman. He was very troubled in those days that many of the members of the TPI association were not looking after their members; they were there for themselves. If I have understood the message from listening to the last minutes of the member for Cowan's speech, if those people who purport to be representing totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen—and that really means that they are incapacitated for life to such an extent that they cannot work more than eight hours and they cannot earn an income, solely due to war service—are not doing well, obviously they should do something about getting out of it and letting other people who are a bit more enthusiastic look after the TPI association. I would like to observe that the Australian civilian surgical aid and medical team do not qualify for compensation. I remember that the member for Mackellar, who is now the Minister for Aged Care, had responsibility for that portfolio and she did not do anything about it—and she is not doing a particularly good job at the moment anyhow in respect of aged care. Last December, at a nursing home in my electorate where there are ex-servicemen there was the opening of a refurbishment. She was invited to that. Because I had other commitments in the electorate, I could not go, but I did send a representative, as I always do when I have more than one function to attend. The member for Mackellar, the Minister for Aged Care, three months before the kerosene baths incident, just bagged the Labor Party, and it was an absolutely inappropriate occasion to do so—AK6Gash, Joanna, MPMrs Gash—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is not relevant to this bill.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I think the member for Lowe was tying it to veterans' affairs.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—This is relevant; there is no point of order. This is relevant to veterans because there are veterans and widows of veterans in the nursing home I was referring to. The minister was taking the opportunity of an opening to bag the Labor Party and its policy. We know, from the 30 questions that were asked of the minister here earlier this year of her failings and of her masterful projection of her inadequacies onto the accreditation agency with her taking absolutely no responsibility herself. Quite properly she should have resigned, because things are not getting any better in nursing homes. There are a lot of ex-service men and women and their dependants in nursing homes at the moment. There is an established community in Lowe in which there is a high proportion of people 65 and over, and there are a lot of ex-service men and women in nursing homes. I wanted to make that point. I conclude by saying that civilian surgical and medical teams should qualify for compensation. (Time expired)12:15:0019843Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—Can I firstly thank members who made an invaluable contribution to the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000. At this point, I should also point out that it is Legacy Week, a most appropriate week to discuss this bill. I ask all members of the House to encourage people in their communities to get behind Legacy in their fundraising during Legacy Week.Honourable members—Hear, hear!YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—This bill delivers a number of budget measures which will provide significant benefits to veterans and their families. The bill addresses the anomalies in the service entitlements of those who served in South-East Asia between 1955 and 1975. I know that it has been of longstanding concern to many of those who served in those theatres that they had not been recognised by previous governments. As a result of this bill, an estimated 2,600 veterans will become eligible for an extended range of repatriation benefits with the reclassification of their service into qualifying service under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. In addition, an estimated 1,500 veterans will gain access to repatriation benefits by the inclusion of their South-East Asia service as operational service. The bill will also provide significant assistance to Vietnam veterans and their families. This government commissioned the Vietnam Veterans Health Study to identify and address the concerns of the Vietnam veteran community. The government recognises that veterans' families, as well as veterans themselves, need support, and this bill will facilitate that support. It will enable a range of preventative health initiatives, with support and care services for veterans and their families, including the ex-partners and, importantly, the children of Vietnam veterans. A number of questions were raised as a result of speeches to this bill, and I want to make some comment on them. I note that the member for Reid is with us in the House. He raised the issue of nurses in Vietnam. For the benefit of the member for Reid, can I say that this is not an issue of whether or not nurses were covered by compensation—they were covered under the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act. It is not denied that the nurses endured very difficult conditions. I have said repeatedly that if anyone can show that nurses at any time came under the command of the ADF the nurses would receive the same benefits. We have said that in the past, and I understand from advice from my department that some nurses have been able to show that connection, to show that they were under the command of the ADF, and have received a veterans' entitlement.The member for Moreton referred to the shortcomings of the Department of Defence in the treatment of a number of service people and service families. I will be talking with the member for Moreton, and I will certainly undertake to look at the cases he has reported on to see that they receive the benefits and the service that they are entitled to. I also recognise the validity of his concern about the treatment of PTSD. However, I would like to remind the House that Australian Defence Force members now have access to the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service as a result of this budget bill. I would also like to recognise the comments of the member for Moreton on the status of cadets. I will certainly make sure that his comments are passed on to the parliamentary secretary, because this government is in the final stages of a review of the cadet scheme in Australia.The member for Cowan raised some interesting issues in relation to TNPIs, and I note his concerns about the current issues within the TNPI federation. Can I advise the House that I have met with the federation a number of times. I have had discussions with them, and those discussions are continuing. Only yesterday I addressed the national congress of the RSL of Western Australia, along with the shadow minister for veterans' affairs. We both noted the concerns of the TNPI federation. I also note the concerns that were raised within the resolutions of the RSL, and I certainly look forward to receiving a positive proposal from them in the near future.The member for Cowan also raised the issue of the defunding—I think that is how he described it—of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service in western Queensland. Coming from western Queensland, I would be alarmed to hear that this was happening. My understanding is that that really is a furphy. If there is any concern about this, I would hope that it would be raised with my electorate office in western Queensland. I want to assure western Queensland and the member for Cowan that funds will continue to be available in western Queensland—or anywhere, for that matter—on a needs basis. However, it is true that some arrangements for delivery of those services in some areas may have changed. But I certainly will be making sure that veterans, including those in my constituency in western Queensland, are not denied access to the service. I am sure they have not been denied access, and this matter has certainly not been raised with my electorate office. I reiterate that the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service outreach service in western Queensland will continue.The member for Cowan also raised the issue of a wheelchair for Clarrie Upton. When I was made aware of that issue on 18 August I asked my department about the situation and spoke to Clarrie Upton's mother. I said to her that a wheelchair would be made available by my department if his doctor recommended it. I am sure members of the House are aware that under the repatriation system a local medical officer is a terribly important link between the veterans and those entitlements to make sure that they are delivered. I have assured Clarrie Upton's mother that a wheelchair will be provided should it be recommended by his doctor.I acknowledge the concern raised by the member for Herbert on assistance needed for Black Hawk victims and their families. I share his concern, hence the provisions in this bill which will I think help those victims and their families. I also note he has some health concerns for Timor victims. The Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs are now closely linked through the Defence DVA links program. We are closely monitoring the health concerns of Timor personnel. We want to ensure that treatment is provided and that compensation is fairly provided. Since our involvement in East Timor through INTERFET, and now UNTAET, there are now some 9,000 Australians who have served in the ADF in East Timor and have a full veteran entitlement as a result of that service. I also acknowledge the concerns re the title of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. I accept that it provides a service more broadly than just to the veterans of the Vietnam campaign. The initiative where the ADF will now receive access to the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service may mean that the Vietnam veterans and the committee that look at this may consider a change of name at some time in the future. I acknowledge that the Vietnam veterans themselves have built their own recognition in the community of the need that they had in relation to those who served in Vietnam by getting the broader community and government to focus on those needs through the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. In many ways, it became a badge of recognition of the need for government to look very closely and provide support for Vietnam veterans and their families. I know it is a name they have always guarded, but I think that, from some of the Vietnam veterans I have spoken to, they see it now working in a broader context as well as for Vietnam veterans. One day they may look at a name change so that it becomes more broadly recognised in the community that it helps not only Vietnam veterans but also members of the ADF. I recall that in the case of the Port Arthur shootings the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service of Tasmania was brought in and gave tremendous support to those families who were traumatised as a result of the shootings.In conclusion, the government continues our commitment to our veterans and their families, and the matters in this bill certainly support that commitment. There is no more deserving group that require our admiration and gratitude than those men and women who have served Australia in war and in conflict. I thank all of those members who have made a contribution to the passage of this bill. 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.19845Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott) read a third time.Bills19845R110919845Debate resumed from 29 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.12:28:0019845Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—I will not detain the House unnecessarily on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 for which, I have been advised, the opposition has no suggested amendments. The provisions are not controversial. There is the provision that entitlements deriving from the Black Hawk tragedy should be included so that Veterans' Entitlements Act payments are not reduced because of those figures, which are $200,000 for death or severe injury, $50,000 in respect of each dependent child, et cetera. The other changes are that there will be an extension of counselling within the provisions of the Veterans' Children Education Scheme and the possibility of altering what essentially are typographical errors in Veterans' Review Board decisions, where they have some minor differences from the evidence given. Also, in regard to the Repatriation Medical Authority, it will not be obliged to conduct investigations where the request does not state the grounds for review. These matters are not controversial.The member for Moreton spoke at length about the compensation scheme. The government has brought down a review of the military compensation scheme and I am pleased to say there have been constructive discussions between the government and the opposition in an area where I think all of us appreciate that a variety of circumstances have led to problems—essentially, the chain of command, the situation of a very distinct culture separate from the rest of the Australian work force, the ready fitness program and its impact in essentially suppressing accidents, and people who do not come forward and reveal their injuries. I think a figure has been cited that the average person in Australia reports an industrial accident after a year. In the case of the armed forces the average is 10 years. That indicates a very real problem, and it has been exacerbated by ready fitness. People fear termination and the loss of their employment. Turning to the lack of representation aspect, I do not want to go into the whole question of union representation but one of the realities is that people do not feel they have a representative body that can take up these issues. The member for Moreton cited a number of problems. Obviously there is a significant incidence of cases involving people in his electorate, such as those involved in the Westralia matter and the cadets' injuries, and he has obviously followed these in a very substantial manner. We would hope that these discussions lead to a system that avoids the current practice of interaction between two different schemes—the various requirements as to when you started, the type of injury and the type of operation you are involved. That comes into line with other realities of Australia's workers compensation system while recognising that there are distinct differences that do relate to military service. There is an opportunity in these discussions to bring in a scheme for which we can have bipartisan support and which tackles these difficulties.In conclusion, the opposition is in accord with the government's legislation. It essentially is a mopping-up operation with regard to changes on Black Hawk that might relate to other similar tragedies and changes in the Repatriation Medical Authority and Veterans' Children Education Scheme.12:32:0019846Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Today I will speak briefly on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, not just as the member for Gilmore but also in my capacity as chair of the government defence and veterans' affairs committee. This bill contains 11 amendments to various acts, all of which will improve and clarify the position of current and former service personnel and their families with respect to a range of benefits, entitlements, financial assistance schemes and administrative procedures. In the main, these amendments are being made in response to matters raised during consultation with our current and former ADF personnel. The federal coalition should be congratulated for its preparedness to listen to its people and to look at their concerns, and for having determined that, indeed, there is a need to address the situation and proceeding to amend the legislation so promptly. In government we are not just concerned at the state of technology and equipment in the ADF, we are also particularly concerned about the health, welfare and morale of our service personnel and their families.This bill is full of amendments to various acts to make things better and simpler for Australian Defence Force people. I propose to work my way through the 11 amendments, briefly detailing the reasons for and advantages of each one. The first amendment relates to compensation adjustments. Members may recall the terrible crash involving the Black Hawk helicopters in 1996, the year we came to government. Subsequently an inquiry was held into the adequacy of compensation for ADF members undertaking high-risk activities in Australia. That inquiry resulted in changes to the amount of compensation to be paid in the event of death or severe injury, the types of services covered by these measures and the recipients of each type of payment or service.The amendments contained in this bill ensure that additional payments for the death or severe injury of a service man or woman made by a determination under the Defence Act 1903 will not affect compensation payments under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Because competition within our legislative program has delayed the introduction of this bill, arrangements have been made to adjust payments for any veteran who has been adversely affected in the interim. This is a clear demonstration of the determination of the federal government to ensure that the recommendations of inquiries are not simply shelved but acted on for the benefit of our service personnel who, for far too long, have been let down by Labor's inaction. The second amendment relates to the extension of counselling and guidance services to the children of ADF personnel who have died or been severely injured during their service. Obviously any resulting trauma could adversely affect the children's educational progress, so it makes good practical sense to ensure that the expertise and educational experience of the members of the Veterans' Children Education Board is made available to those children. The third element of this bill, again, has been sparked by recommendations from a report. Yet again this government is showing its preparedness to adopt the recommendations of the report and its commissions. No more are issues doomed to languish on dusty shelves just because the government has asked for a study or an inquiry into a matter.Many of the amendments in this bill are the direct result of such reports and studies and here we are, again taking action. Professor Denis Pearce looked at the role of the Repatriation Medical Authority and the Specialist Medical Review Council. He suggested some changes to improve the system for determining claims for compensation. His recommendations clarify the powers of the authority in respect of requests it receives to review statements of principles. Again, wide consultations were held with the ex-service community, as well as their peak bodies, to test endorsement of these recommendations. We can now confidently say that these changes represent our veterans' needs and wishes.Amendment No. 4 relates to increasing the Repatriation Commission's flexibility in accepting certain applications for travelling expenses lodged outside of the three-month time limit. Where a veteran has suffered a long-term illness that has impaired that person's ability to manage their affairs, he or she could suffer an unintended difficulty in obtaining reimbursement of travelling expenses incurred in seeking medical treatment. I suspect that the veteran community and ex-service organisations will welcome this change, as I know my office in Gilmore has been made aware of the need. Having demonstrated the need, they expected this government to heed the call and I am happy to say that we have responded appropriately. It is an honour indeed to be able to serve our veterans in a government that will take practical action on their behalf.As you may imagine, the competing demands of other legislation in our program has delayed this announcement. But the veterans in Gilmore have known that we would make it happen as soon as possible. As chair of the government's defence and veterans' affairs committee, it is great to see our veterans' confidence in government being restored where distrust had grown for some years under the Labor government. As the minister highlighted in his second reading speech:The present restriction on the Repatriation Commission to delegate its powers to a person employed under the Public Service Act 1999 is a barrier to effective use of contracted and outsourced services.The fifth amendment, not to be confused with the American one, under this bill enables the Repatriation Commission to delegate its powers to contractors, agencies and firms that are working on its behalf. Control will be maintained through contractual arrangements. The opposition may whinge and ask, `What's wrong with the current delegations? Why change them?' The example that the minister quoted is an excellent example of why it should be changed. If the new pharmaceuticals approvals centre operations were managed by a private contractor it would currently require a contracted pharmacist to make a recommendation to a delegated DVA employee, who would make a decision based on the recommendation. It sounds like something you might see on a television comedy. One of the many things at which this government has proved itself very effective is the streamlining of bureaucracy.This is just one more example. The sixth amendment in this bill covers the creation of funds for special assistance or benefits granted under section 106 of the Veterans' Entitlement Act. This will streamline the processes associated with any such grant by the commission in the future and will solve the current issues of delays while arranging finance. Amendment No. 7 will facilitate greater flexibility and efficiency in the Veterans' Review Board's operations. These better arrangements include an additional configuration of the board, the use of the slip rule where an obvious error has been made in the text of the decision or its reasons to allow its correction, and power to delegate certain action within the board's registry. Highlighted in these amendments are the government's commonsense solutions to possible barriers to efficiency in the service of our veterans. Part 8 of this bill introduces a measure to assist the surviving partner of a deceased veteran. This amendment indemnifies a financial institution against further claim for an amount of income support payments received after the death of a person when the institution, at the request of DVA, allows the partner to access the amount as bereavement payment. Again, this measure streamlines a process that financial institutions have been willing to facilitate. Nobody wants to deny a bereaved partner immediate access to the payment.The ninth amendment relates to GST consequential issues. It completes the measures to ensure that benefits were retained at their current levels after the new tax system came into force. Rather than having to present legislation to both houses of parliament every time—for, for example, increases to the maximum payment for a medical report—it makes practical sense to allow such fee setting adjustments to occur more easily and without wasting our time on such fine detail. Of course, this amendment will also allow GST to be added.The 10th amendment relates again to the streamlining of administrative requirements, this time with regard to health care providers. In keeping with the government's commitment to reduce red tape, this item reduces DVA's administrative demands of providers. We want our veterans to be able to access health care without it causing them or the providers a mountain of paperwork. This will save both time and money, as the time delay currently produced by the provider's having to obtain DVA's permission to treat the veteran will now cease. It is high time that we recognised the significant majority of providers and rendered an appropriate level of care. We can rely on the informed and selected monitoring of contractual arrangements to ensure that the desired level of care is being delivered without overservicing occurring.Last is a measure to provide for an alternative credit provider to administer some advances under the Home Support Advance, HSA. This is one of our initiatives that supports this government's and our community's priorities for our senior Australians to be able to age in place—that is, to assist older people to stay in their homes for as long as they desire. Obviously people can get to a point where the regular home maintenance functions that one performs become too much of a load. Rather than have these chores left undone, thereby reducing the quality of life in the home or creating undue anxiety about finances, HSA has been available but only through one provider, that being Westpac. This amendment will provide the opportunity for tenders for the provision of advances on the open market, therefore ensuring competition engendered by such opportunities will make sure that the best prices and service will be available to our veterans.Mr Deputy Speaker, as you have heard, this bill contains many changes to programs that affect our ADF personnel and veterans. Every single amendment I have addressed today will provide good news to our current or former service men and women and to their families. That is the message from this government—actions, not empty words for cheap political points. I commend the bill to the House.12:42:0019848Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Like the member for Reid and the member for Gilmore, I support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. Quite obviously, the government has done the right thing for the victims of the Black Hawk helicopter crash in 1996, and their dependants, by extending the compensation of $200,000 for death or severe injury and $50,000 in respect of each dependent child at the date of death or at the time of severe injury. The payment of $1,000 to severely injured members or dependents of deceased members for obtaining professional advice is a very worthwhile thing. As I said in my previous contribution, anything that the government does for the veteran community by way of extending compensation and benefit is justly deserved and will invariably be supported by both sides of this House. It is a very worthwhile cause. The extension of counselling services under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme is also a very good thing in terms of counselling services which need to be provided to young children. In my contribution in the debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill 1999 I talked about the high level of youth suicide. It is much higher in the children of the veteran community, as the Morbidity of Vietnam Veterans Study shows. The extension of that service to those children is a very worthwhile thing. I also support the amendments relating to the Repatriation Medical Authority, where you get people who seek a review but do not state grounds for it, where the RMA considers that there are not any grounds for review, or where there is a frivolous or vexatious appeal. Anyone who has worked in Commonwealth jurisdictions knows that people will try a lucky dip approach if there is an avenue of appeal, notwithstanding that there are absolutely no grounds for appeal. This can be very costly and time consuming for the department and, ultimately, for the taxpayer. If there is absolutely no chance of getting a positive outcome, it makes sense to give discretion to the determining authority to not conduct a review and to give the Repatriation Medical Authority time to clarify any reasonable connection between a war caused disease or injury and a veteran's service. The time is better spent there than with those frivolous or vexatious appeals.Another area of amendment deals with the Veterans' Review Board, which is the final determining authority which one can go to within the repatriation system before contemplating going off to the Federal Court, the High Court or the AAT. Clause 104A of the bill is a proposed amendment to allow the principal member of the VRB or the member who presided at the review in question to alter the record where they are satisfied that there is an obvious error in the text of the decision or the reasons. I worked for many years in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and I know we have some officers from the department here as advisers to the government. I am sure they have experienced errors in recording determinations, because the Department of Veterans' Affairs has made hundreds of thousands of decisions over the years, and at times the determining authority puts the wrong effective date or the wrong spelling of a disease. When I was working with the department, there were powers under section 31, I think, of the Repatriation Act, where a delegate of the Repatriation Commission could amend something where there had been a wrong recording. I can think of a funny instance when someone wrote down `cerebral haemorrhoids' when they meant to write `cerebral haemorrhage'. It was quite obvious, even to those not enlightened in the field of medical science, that if someone was suffering from cerebral haemorrhoids, there had been a terrible mistake. You can imagine the cost to the taxpayer to fix that through some formal process of going back to the determining authority—who was, in my day, the assistant commissioner.I can think of another occasion when a doctor from the department wrote to another doctor to do a medical report on a veteran and asked the doctor to report on the veteran's A/Ds. Anyone who has worked in the Department of Veterans' Affairs knows that when you talk about A/Ds you are talking about `accepted disabilities.' But the stroke between the A and the D was very small, and when the doctor received it—and he did not know the veteran's medical history—he read it as `AIDS'. When the patient came in and was assessed by the doctor, the first thing the doctor said was, `How is your AIDS?' The 75-year-old veteran almost had a stroke on the spot, because he was not aware that he was suffering from AIDS, and indeed he wasn't. Several ministerials and an apology from the minister followed, but these are things that can happen. We all like to be precise in our written expression, and we do not like any terminological inexactitude, so if there is some sort of cosmetic surgery to be done on a determining authority's decision—in this case, the VRB's—and the principal member can do that with a minimum of fuss, obviously that is a very good thing. I do not think I need to say more on this bill, because there is support on both sides of the chamber. I think that the net result, as has been described by the member for Gilmore, who went through the amendments more exhaustively, is that it will be of great benefit to the ex-service community because it will streamline the process and it will be more efficient for officers of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That is what those provisions are designed to do, as well as providing extended compensation to the victims of the Black Hawk helicopter disaster and counselling services for children under the VCES. I commend the bill to the House.12:51:0019850Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I am very pleased, like other speakers, to support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. It is refreshing when the parliament can agree on legislation for some very important Australians. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this legislation, coming from an area of Australia which has relied on the soldier settlement nature of its development for its prosperity, from which subsequent generations now benefit enormously. I am advised that 3,792 of my constituents are recipients of veterans' support in various ways, which is a fairly significant number, spread across 73 communities over what is geographically about 25 per cent of Victoria. I am delighted to support a parcel of amendments to legislation to make their lives somewhat easier, especially considering that these veterans, particularly those of World War II, are now very much in their twilight years. I often regret the passing of my late father in 1992 and have often resented the fact that he was cheated of his twilight years and even an opportunity to see his own son take up a seat in this parliament. I have always resented that, and that gives me a special empathy with veterans and their families who are often cheated of quality in their twilight years because of the ordeals they endured. It is a sad reflection on the world that, even since that time, there are more and more veterans coming through the process, even as recently as those who returned from East Timor.The parcel of measures in this particular piece of legislation will be very well received. Some of them are long overdue and some relate to some very significant and tragic events that have occurred. They all come together to make life just that little bit easier for veterans and their families and, from that point of view, I give it my full support. The amendments will assist members of the Australian Defence Force who have been severely injured as a result of their service and also the families of members who have been killed as a result of their service. In particular, there are measures that go toward supporting the family who remain, particularly the children. A further element of this package is the provision of access to counselling and guidance services for children of severely injured or deceased veterans.The bill will also allow the Repatriation Commission to accept an application for reimbursement of travelling expenses incurred by a veteran travelling to obtain medical treatment. For someone representing a rural area, this is a very special amendment which I am very grateful to see. There are some exceptional circumstances that can prevent a veteran from making an application for reimbursement for this travel expense—ill health and so forth—within that three-month period. I am pleased to see that the commission will be given some discretion in that regard. Introducing some flexibility in this regard demonstrates that the government and, indeed, the parliament—given the support from the opposition—are concerned about the veteran community. The bill will also complete compensation adjustments associated with the new tax system. These adjustments will ensure that the value of the pension supplement will flow through to the amount of a bonus calculated under the pension bonus scheme and to the farmers income test, which I am very pleased to see. There is some difficulty across the primary production sector of my constituency, where we can often have three generations—the patriarch of the family, himself a veteran, his sons and his grandsons—all involved in the same farming activity. So I am very pleased to see some integration between the criteria associated with that, particularly the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme. The Repatriation Commission facilitates access to a wide range of health care services for eligible veterans and their dependants. I am pleased to see in this bill the additional flexibility in the provision of allied health services—for example, podiatry and dietary advice—that veterans sadly need. The commission has progressively reviewed the circumstances in which it needs to approve treatment before it is provided to eligible persons. As the Department of Veterans' Affairs has shifted its focus from being a health service provider to being somewhat of a purchaser of services, services are often provided by persons not necessarily connected to the department. This bill reflects these changes and indicates that the parliament is prepared to recognise changes to the way in which health services are delivered. So I am very pleased to see that.There are a several measures in the bill—I will not actually make reference to all of them—that deserve special comment. In the wake of the dreadful tragedy of the Black Hawk disaster, there is a measure in the bill to make guidance and counselling support available through the Veterans' Children Education Boards to children of ADF personnel who have died. This measure not only covers the Black Hawk incident but also makes provision if such tragedies occur again. This measure will provide the expertise and educational experience of members of the Veterans' Children Education Boards in each state to children who, because of the death of a parent, may be suffering their own personal trauma, affecting their educational process.There are amendments in this bill which have the objective of implementing three recommendations in Professor Dennis Pearce's report on the roles of the Repatriation Medical Authority and the Specialist Medical Review Council—again reflecting the changing way in which veterans access their health support. A person seeking a formal review of his statement of principles pursuant to the Veterans' Entitlements Act will be required to state the reasons for that review and refer to evidence not used by the medical review. Again, this indicates some flexibility and makes it easier for veterans, particularly those from World War II who are well into their twilight years. I have referred to the measure relating to travelling expenses. I am very pleased to see this measure, as there are some circumstances, as I mentioned, in which a veteran may not be able to comply with the three-month period. There is also the appropriation of special assistance, the objective of which is to provide apportionment of funds for assistance or benefits granted under section 106 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Ongoing discrete appropriation for special assistance is maintained, so implementation of any grant need not be delayed until finance can be arranged. Linking funding of a grant of assistance or benefit under the special assistance provisions with the funding arrangements for comparable assistance or benefits will enable the Repatriation Commission to make a grant when it is required. This bill addresses many amendments that are long overdue. Veterans in my electorate, particularly those who are required to travel to major metropolitan or provincial centres for health care services, will be most grateful that these measures have been addressed.I would like just to make some broad comments about veterans and the nature and the character of the people I represent. I have always been very pleased to see that the Veterans' Affairs portfolio does not suffer the normal partisanship that can often occur in this place. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the former government was always very generous to me in requests I made to him, as is the current minister, the Hon. Bruce Scott. I today made a summary of the additional measures by which the minister has responded to the needs of the nearly 4,000 veterans across the north-west of Victoria in my constituency of Mallee. The measures include the recent provision of veterans information facilities at Swan Hill and Mildura and a commitment to meet ongoing recurrent costs there to meet the support that is given to veterans in their inquiries about access to services. For example, the Swan Hill Veterans' Information Centre received $17,822 and the Regional Veterans' Centre in Mildura, which provides a very much needed service to something like 1,500 veterans just in the Sunraysia community itself, received a grant of $33, 644 to assist them with the delivery of their services. In total, including all of the assistance being given to veterans to upgrade monuments across the whole of the north-west of Victoria through the Their Service-Our Heritage program, joint ventures with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Veteran and Community Grants program and Building Excellence in Support and Training for Veterans' Advocates, over $200,000 has been provided, spread across 70 communities in my constituency. So I would like to commend the minister for those very positive and very practical responses. I receive appreciation from veterans on a regular basis for the support that they see this parliament providing. I remember Bruce Ruxton, the Victorian President of the RSL, referring to the Hon. Con Sciacca some time ago, when I was in opposition, as being the best Minister for Veterans' Affairs the parliament has ever had. He recently adjusted that comment at a function in Mildura in my constituency out at Red Cliffs RSL. He said that the Hon. Bruce Scott even tips the Hon. Con Sciacca. So congratulations to the minister. I think it is deserving and I have always appreciated the responses that he has provided to me to requests I have made. Recently a community care seeding grant of $60,005 was given to the Beulah community, which has in the district associated with the town of Beulah about 100 veterans, for the provision of a community bus. It was just a delight to be with that community last week, to hand over the keys to that bus and to see the joy and appreciation on their faces as they appreciated the parliament responding to their needs. Beulah is a very isolated community. Without access to health care in the township, veterans are required to travel. With the support of the state with an amount of nearly $40,000, they were able to purchase a $100,000 bus, which can deliver them to the provincial centre located in Horsham so they can access the health support and associated social activities. It is very important for that age group in their twilight years to be able to enjoy and appreciate the company of others in similar circumstances. So I am very grateful to the minister and congratulate him on steering this legislation through the parliament and for the negotiations that he has had in getting wholesome and uniform support from the parliament here. I commend the bill to the chamber and look forward to its speedy passage through the other place. I hope senators in the other place will appreciate this is a much needed measure and that it needs a very speedy response by way of positive support.13:05:0019852Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I today speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. Members can approach how they make their contributions on certain bills in a range of ways. What I like to do, particularly with these types of bills, is not just look at the technical aspects or the changes in the bill, although I do look at those and mention them in my contribution, but also make comment about the general intent, the purpose and the resulting effect on the community. I also like to make some comments on how the community will receive these changes and what is happening in that community. So I am very pleased today to be speaking on this bill, particularly because it comes at a time when we are supporting the needs of our returned soldiers and their families through the annual Legacy appeal—which in fact is today. It was quite timely, as I purchased the badge I am wearing this morning, that I be reminded of the selfless and tireless work Legacy and many other volunteer associations undertake on behalf of the veteran community across Australia. The weather was pretty fresh this morning and I have a great regard for anyone who is prepared to stand outside on a cold Canberra morning selling badges for much needed funds. The gentlemen out there this morning were all volunteers. It would not surprise me if a few of them headed back to work after their stint of badge selling this morning. One gentleman had actually given a member $5 to buy a badge. I know we do not always carry cash in our wallets, but I hope this volunteer got an IOU from the member and that they will get their money back. Overall the effort of Legacy this morning is indicative of the kindness, the compassion and the generosity that can be found in so many veteran associations. Each group has its priority, but I doubt any of them would turn away a veteran or a member of a veteran's family if they were asking for help. Legacy is a great example of an organisation that has evolved with the change in veterans, their problems and the solutions throughout the past 80 years. I would like to quote a founding member of Legacy, Frank Select: We have to remember that in a way we survivors have received a legacy to see that the ideals our comrades died fighting for are maintained in Australia. I doubt those at the inaugural meeting of Legacy could have predicted how relevant that statement is today. Legacy now supports people affected by both world wars, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the Malayan Emergency, the Gulf War and our peacekeepers who are so often forgotten in many of the activities—sometimes even in spirit—that are undertaken. But they are certainly not forgotten by members in this place and they are certainly not forgotten by my electorate or the veteran community in Oxley. I attend many veterans' functions and am always impressed with the camaraderie amongst the members and the genuine compassion they have for each other. As is the case with many other voluntary organisations, veterans' groups are usually held together through the hard work of a select few. At times it must be frustrating when so many people benefit from the efforts of just so few individuals. I have concluded that the major reason these people advocate for others is the fact that if they did not there would be no-one else. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves today still having to buy and sell badges for an annual fund-raiser such as Legacy. I only say that it is unfortunate, because there should be other and more substantial ways for these things to occur, which is not to detract from the good work that Legacy does. These organisations need to be self-funding, but I am frustrated that the financial pressure they face is based on an increase in the resources and services they have to provide to their members.Quickly looking at the services provided by Legacy, there is a broad and diverse range of assistance available, including counselling and advisory services, war widows' pension claims advocacy and assistance, financial assistance to Legacy widows and dependants, health and welfare programs, information, social and recreational programs and a range of other activities. It is frustrating that an organisation such as Legacy, which was developed in the 1920s to assist returned soldiers and war widows get back on their feet, today represents for some the only source of advice and support on everyday matters that they feel truly gives them what they need.It is frustrating that Legacy has the need to provide an advocacy service so that a war widow can adequately deal with a federal government agency. It is perhaps also frustrating that while it is probably necessary that they do have one, regardless of how good the service from government can be, it often replaces or substitutes what the federal government agency might do.The bill we are discussing today has been developed to clarify entitlement eligibility definitions. It is written with the intention of compassion and understanding of veterans' and their families' needs. I do not say that lightly. I have been very critical at times of the department and the minister in certain areas within the portfolio, particularly in areas to do with compassion and understanding. While I think this bill actually redresses some of those issues, I make that statement only to this bill.The amendments to the Veterans' Children Education Scheme, the VCES, are positive. They indicate a commitment by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to the long-term welfare of these people. The amendments to the Repatriation Medical Authority's issuing of determinations of statements of principle are also very positive. The consolidation of multiple cases and the easy rectification of clear administrative errors and decisions are to be commended. It is good to acknowledge that logic can reign in some places of bureaucracy. I am concerned, however, that the theory behind these amendments will be undermined by the reality of the poor resources and the insurmountable caseloads of the responsible agencies. In March this year I was inundated with veterans expressing their concern about the changes to the age criteria of dependents of Vietnam veterans eligible for the resources of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service, the VVCS. The manner in which the change was done was extremely underhanded and it was calculatedly based on budgetary shortfalls. The government's reaction to the protest was to announce in the Veterans' Affairs budget in May that the age for the counselling services would be raised from 25 years to 35 years. What was heralded by the minister as a budget bonus for veterans was merely the rectification of a harsh and grossly non-compassionate departmental decision. So if in March 2000 the VVCS budget had to save a bit of money, one would assume it would need to find those savings in August 2000. If one assumed that, one would be right. The VVCS has been targeted to save a bit of cash and this time the government is far more crude about it.It is now proposed that the VVCS cease the country outreach program. This is scheduled for December 2000, just a short few months away, six months after the last failed attempt to save money in similar areas. The VVCS provides an extraordinary service to its clients. It has an enormous and diverse workload. For many years the service provided by the VVCS has reflected the complexity of Vietnam veterans' concerns and problems. Essential to the success of the VVCS has been the inclusion of family, particularly the children of veterans, in the healing and advocacy process.What are people in the rural and regional areas of Australia to do if they can no longer access the services of the VVCS? The only conclusion I can make is that they will either travel to the nearest service available or simply stop using the service, neither of which is satisfactory or good news for anyone in the veteran community.The recent Vietnam Veterans Health Survey provided conclusive evidence of the significantly high incidence of youth suicide and spina bifida amongst children of Vietnam veterans. I am alarmed that, nearly two years after the initial report was released, the government is winding up an important element of the report's recommendations. I actually spoke a couple of days ago in this House about the findings of both reports, also the Vietnam Veterans Morbidity Survey. The findings are quite stark. I was very disappointed about what I found in those two reports. I will not go into the details here but I will just repeat that I found the reports, the recommendations and the conclusions to be based on disqualifiers, disclaimers, qualification and fear of liability rather than on the premise that there is something positive to come out of it and something positive to be done—although I am certain that the minister's intention is for that to be the case.The VVCS is a highly successful and effective unit of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The service provided by the VVCS is important to the veteran community and should not be limited to those fortunate enough to live near a VVCS centre. There is real pain out there in the veteran community, there is real pain in the Vietnam veterans' community and there is real pain in the peacekeeping community. These are people who have, through no choice of their own, been selected by whatever means was appropriate at the time to represent Australia in conflict, to be there for us. These were the people who did not choose to go but did go and went with great credibility and did great service for their country.What has impressed me in recent years with this community, as I have said on many occasions, is their tenacity, their ability to work together and their capacity to work through and deal with their own issues—their capacity as a community to bind together and to do things for themselves. But as in all things, that is only a starting point, and it is necessary for government to understand its role in that community and its role in providing the resources they need to move forward. For whatever reason, right now or in this period in history we are seeing this community rallying around certain issues and really coming together. There might be a number of explanations for that. I think it might be a coincidence of timing, such that after a number of years certain issues have come to the surface again. The Vietnam veterans' community has found a real binding factor in a whole range of issues. I am impressed with that and I think the government should also be very impressed with that. It should be prepared to take extraordinary steps to move towards resolving some of those issues that have been around for many years.I think the time is right. We are always going to hear from any government or any opposition that the time is right now. But I am not talking about whether it is the minister who is in government now or the minister when we will be in government. Now is the time because the reports have been concluded and we have finalised a number of matters. The community has rallied together with one voice and all of these things are coming together right now. Now is the time for this minister to stand up and say, `I have an opportunity to redress some of these long outstanding issues.' We have seen some movement in this place, after a great deal of pressure in some instances from this side.One of the things that is important and which I applaud in this bill is the recognition of the need for flexibility. This is what we talk about at the coalface. This is what the veterans want. They want and need flexibility. I think this is recognised here and I applaud that. That needs to be backed up with resources, not just goodwill. As I have just described, the resources include the country program, which is now being axed. I do not understand why the government thinks that the axing of the VVCS program in the country somehow signifies an intent to make services more available. We often hear, at painful length, from members of the government about their commitment and dedication and how they understand the bush and regional areas much better than we do. Somehow they think they have licence in these areas. Where is your licence in this area? Why are the government cutting programs in this area? Purely to save money. Certainly, budget measures have to be made and there are always constraints but I do not believe that cutting VVCS in the country is the way to do it.The member for Mallee spoke earlier, and I commend him on his contribution. He talked about quality of life in general and the quality of life he and his father missed out on. We are talking about something that is very real—something that all veterans feel. It is a physical thing. It is something that not only they, but also their families, go through. Anyone looking at the statistics and seeing the effect cannot deny the great pain that veterans and their families go through. It is something that cannot be denied and it is something we have a responsibility to address.The member for Mallee also raised the issue of East Timor. It is an issue I want to put on the record. We again have a great opportunity to correct some of the mistakes of the past, for example, the way we treat the service men and women who return from service in East Timor. We should look very carefully—and I know the veteran community is looking very carefully—at the way we treat them. It is something I put on the record because I think it is very important. I have a very large veteran community in my electorate of Oxley, of which I am very proud. Ipswich has some great history in this area. My veteran community is very involved. They get out there and are supportive of the families. They try to change things and work together to make life easier and better for all veterans and peacekeepers. Recently we celebrated 18 August in the very heart of my electorate, the suburb of Goodna. Some people say Goodna is a suburb of Ipswich—I always say that Ipswich is a suburb of Goodna. On that day we had an incredible turnout. It was different from the event started a few years ago by a handful of Vietnam veterans and each year attended by a couple of dozen people. This year several hundred people turned out. There was a fly-over by an Iroquois, and the day was attended by the commander of the Amberley RAAF base, a number of local federal and state representatives and the Mayor of Ipswich. It was an absolutely phenomenal event and a fantastic day. The organising committee should be congratulated for their great work, as should the Goodna RSL, the Ipswich RSL, the sub-branch, the Railway branch and the other units in my electorate. I was very proud to be there. It was quite a moving occasion. There were not many dry eyes watching the parade. It brought back a flood of memories. The thing that shines out from these days is that this is a fantastic community and one we need to look after. I want to refer in relation to this bill to certificates of appreciation events. I have run a number of these events in my electorate. I thought that the first one I ran would be a one-off. I thought we would ask people whether they were eligible for a certificate of appreciation. I thought it would be something we could do for the veteran community. We have had four events and are coming up to number five. It is something we will keep doing, because it is an incredible event for these people and gives something back to them. I did not understand that well until the shadow minister, Con Sciacca, was my guest at one of these events. Con Sciacca is extremely well respected in the veteran community. He is absolutely revered. In giving out the certificates, he started his speech to the veterans in a bizarre way and I scratched my head wondering where he was going with his comments. He spent about five minutes talking about himself. He said he had been given great honours, not only through his position as a member of parliament but also, when he was no longer in office, as a life member of the RSL, which is an even greater honour. He kept talking about the honours he has had, but he drew his speech to a close by saying to those people that there is one thing he will never get and that is a certificate of appreciation because he did not serve. That really summed up how important and significant these certificates are. I commend the government for this bill. (Time expired)13:25:0019856Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank members on both sides who have made a contribution to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. This bill introduces a number of initiatives that will directly and indirectly benefit veterans and their families. The government is improving the repatriation system, not only through direct measures but also through the better management and organisation of matters under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Defence Service Homes Act 1918.The overall management of veterans' affairs will be enhanced by the removal of redundant provisions in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the increased flexibility in access to assistance and the streamlining of service delivery. The bill will enable the exclusion of certain additional compensation payments from the offsetting provision in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. This will increase benefits to seriously injured members of the Australian Defence Force and the families of those members who have lost their lives in defence service.Other veterans to directly benefit from this bill are those who may be given an extended period within which they may claim reimbursement for travelling expenses incurred when obtaining treatment. The bill will also benefit the recently bereaved by ensuring they have ready access to bereavement payments. The changes to the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 will allow the delivery of home support advances through the most suitable arrangements established by public tender. These advances will assist many veterans and their dependants with home maintenance, modifications and repairs. Overall, the bill is a continuation of this government's commitment to veterans and their families and it ensures that the veteran community continues to enjoy a high standard of compensation and care through access to generous benefits and quality health care services. In conclusion I would like to refer to some of the comments that were made. I recognise the validity of the comments of the member for Reid on the proposed reforms to the military compensation. Noel Tanzer also recognised that it is important for bipartisan support to be given to these matters. I thank him for those comments. I look forward to working with the member for Reid in further consideration of these matters. I thank the member for Gilmore for her support in this bill. She does a tremendous amount of work in her electorate in representing the views of the veterans in the electorate of Gilmore. She also does a great job on our backbench committee, and I want to thank her for that because she is a fierce advocate of issues relating to veterans, not only in her electorate but also broadly across Australia. She recognises the need to streamline the delivery of services in the community and recognises the benefits that will flow from that. As she said, it is really about actions and not words and I endorse her comments.The member for Lowe made an invaluable contribution and I thank him for that. I also want to recognise the depth of knowledge he has of the repatriation system. I acknowledge as well the great empathy that he has for veterans because of his past experience. I am sure the story of his own father is very difficult for him to tell. It just reminds us all of the extent of the pain of those who have served our country and the effects of war on the mind and the body; and, too, how that can have an effect on families that will linger and last long after the experience of war and the immediate experience of war. I want to thank the member for Mallee for his contribution. Coming from a rural area, as he does, in western Victoria, he spoke of the great significance of the return of service men and women to his electorate, which was settled after the First World War, in many instances with soldier settlement blocks. I remember going to a very large reunion dinner in his electorate a couple of years ago. It was a celebration of the early soldier settlements and of course the success—and in other areas the failures—of some of those early soldier settlement schemes. I also recognise the difficulty that he had in making remarks about his father. I know that it is difficult in this House for members to speak of their personal experience within their own families, as the member for Mallee did when speaking of how war service affected his father and also his family. I am sure those sorts of sentiments could be expressed by many people in this parliament, and I thank the member for Mallee for those comments and acknowledge him also for his very kind personal remarks in relation to me. I must just say to the House that I am here to do my job and I will always give it my best shot. But I thank him for those very kind personal remarks.I acknowledge, too, the remarks made by the member for Oxley, the final speaker from the other side of the House, and of course the comments he made in relation to Legacy Week. Of course, it is terribly important and I can only endorse those comments and ask all members of the House to encourage people in their own communities to get behind Legacy's fundraising effort and not lose focus on the work it does. I often think that the work of the Legacy people is done so quietly, and they never look for accolades—they just do a good job. It is important that we in this parliament encourage others to give generously in Legacy Week.I also want to say something in relation to the VVCS and the outreach into rural areas. The member suggested that perhaps there has been some cutting of funding in this area that will see a diminution of this service in rural areas. I said in debate on the previous bill that this is not the case. I am not quite sure where these comments are coming from, but let me assure the member for Oxley that access to the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service is available and that is not going to be cut. In fact, this bill extends the service of the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service to a broader range of service people. I am sure that he and all members of this House would accept that that is a very good thing and something that we should all be behind because it will help current serving members of the Australian Defence Force, in particular those who may have been in Bougainville, Rwanda, Somalia, Cambodia and, of course, also those currently serving in East Timor. So it is an invaluable service and once again I thank the Vietnam veterans who originally put governments on both sides of the parliament on notice so long ago to have this service established to meet the needs of those who have served our country. I am sure that, as it is extended into other areas of service within the ADF, the Vietnam veterans too will gain a great sense of achievement and pride that what they established is benefiting others which is, I think, in the spirit of all those who have served our country. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1985813:34:0019858Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 2), after item 47, insert:47A Paragraph 59Q(7)(b) (formula)Repeal the formula, substitute: 52 x Compensation of lump sum OIFA + 2.5 (MBR + RPA)I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.19858Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills19858R112519858Debate resumed from 28 June, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.13:35:0019858O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 makes a number of amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908 and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980. With regard to the changes to quarantine arrangements being proposed in this legislation, this bill continues the ongoing refinement of the Quarantine Act in the light of the new challenges and changes that confront the quarantine task in the new millennium.As far as the specific changes are concerned, the amendments to the Quarantine Act that we are debating here today allow for the use of computer based systems for the clearance of cargo in that quarantine task. We are in the information age and facilitating the movement of cargo and trade is going to be to Australia's long-term advantage. Many communities, especially rural and regional communities around Australia, depend very heavily on the export of their produce to generate wealth. They need a very efficient and professional quarantine service to ensure that that task is facilitated with relative ease.A number of other amendments are being proposed in this legislation that we do not intend to oppose, for example, that the director of quarantine be able to take into account offences against prescribed state and territory laws as well as Commonwealth laws when assessing the suitability of a person to manage a place where goods subject to question may be treated or otherwise dealt with. Another minor amendment is that a quarantine officer is able to give directions to a person in control of a vehicle. At present directions must be given to the owner of the vehicle, which leads to problems when the owner cannot be easily contacted in case of a problem. Another amendment covered by this legislation is that a quarantine officer is given the ability to direct treatment of a premises that has been exposed to a quarantine risk, even if the animal or plant which carried the risk is itself no longer subject to quarantine. There are a number of other smaller, minor amendments that are also covered in this legislation and, as I have stated, the opposition does not intend to oppose them.I want to make a few comments about Australia's trading performance, because that quarantine task is important to the success of that trading performance. Over the last couple of days statistics have been released by the government which show some very significant export growth, which underpins the importance of trade to the Australian economy. There are several reasons why that export growth has occurred. One significant reason is the low value of the Australian dollar, which is currently trading at around 57c to the US dollar. Another reason is the increase in commodity prices that have been driven by the return to prosperity in the Asian economies to our north. The increase in trade puts further significant pressure on Australia's quarantine task. With that in mind, I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for its failure to adequately resource the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service to carry out its role of protecting Australia's agricultural industries from exotic pest and disease and facilitating Australian agricultural exports”.I have said before in this House that not only has that increased trade put pressure on the quarantine task in this country but also Australia's membership of the World Trade Organisation has imposed significant obligations on us as a trading nation. We have also seen a massive increase in the mobility of people, not only in Australia but around the world. The recent low domestic air fares in Australia have prompted a significant increase in interstate air travel traffic. Of course, that poses in its own way some significant quarantine risks internally in Australia.In a couple of weeks we have the Sydney Olympic Games, which will put significant pressure on our quarantine resources. We will see over time an increasing movement of people within Australia. We will see an ever increasing tourism trade, with Australians going overseas and other people visiting this country. We will witness events in Australia—perhaps not again like the Olympic Games—that will draw people here. While those increases in tourism are quite beneficial to the Australian economy, they present some very significant risks to many Australian industries and to farmers and their families.I do not think Australians fully understand the importance of quarantine to Australia's agricultural industries. My appeal today would be to people who follow the debates in this House and who follow these sorts of issues to really educate themselves, their neighbours and their communities about the importance of quarantine to Australia, because there are many genuine Australian farm families who rely very heavily on the awareness of their fellow Australians about the importance of quarantine to them. You might recall in the old days, Mr Deputy Speaker, that every trip interstate was a reminder of the importance of quarantine because you had to go through various checkpoints where your vehicle was searched and you were personally quizzed about whether you were carrying any materials that might jeopardise agricultural industries in a particular region. Today we really rely on education and public goodwill in managing that quarantine task.As I have said, many rural industries, the farmers who work in them and the regional communities that sustain them depend very heavily on the efficiency of the quarantine service to protect them. The apple industry is a case in point: it is at risk with the dreaded fire blight disease. The chicken industry has problems with Newcastle disease and the beef industry with foot and mouth disease. All of those industries are very important regionally based industries in this nation. I do not think it is understood or appreciated enough either by some of our trading partners just how fragile our natural environment is and how susceptible to disruptions it is from the introduction of exotic pests and diseases. We have a responsibility to preserve wherever possible the uniqueness of that environment for future generations of Australians, and that sometimes necessitates a very strong and vigilant quarantine effort.In the past there have been quite significant criticisms of our quarantine effort. Those persistent criticisms have been based around the quality of the staff employed by AQIS and their level of skill and the sometimes expensive procedures that are required to not only clear imports but also to give clearance to exports to give some comfort to our trading partners about the quality of produce that is leaving Australia and whether it complies with the quarantine requirements of the importing country.There is also a persistent criticism about the time that is being taken to conduct some of the import risk assessments in the new trading environment. Apples is a case in point. The draft import risk assessment was due out last November. It was postponed to May. Then the government announced that it was further postponed until June. We are now told that it is due in September. There is obviously a problem with any process that runs more than nine months beyond the date that was first announced by the government for its completion. The situation in this industry is an example of the need for a process with absolutely no margin of error. If fire blight gains a toehold in this country, the livelihoods of apple growers and the economic wellbeing of the regions they support will be very much under threat. It is absolutely vital that AQIS be resourced adequately to complete and make an accurate assessment of the risks of importing apples from a country where fire blight is known to exist. There are also persistent criticisms of Australia's scientific capacity, as I have just outlined, to conduct these very important risk assessments. There have also been fairly hefty criticisms of the dimensions of the educative task that has been undertaken in the past, given the growth in trade that has occurred and the movement of people internally in this country and the trade growth with other countries. These are very important issues, because AQIS plays a vital role in opening up new market opportunities for Australian producers and it must be adequately resourced to give the customers of agricultural produce confidence in the quality of that produce.I think the criticisms of the quarantine task that have been levelled in the past have had some foundation, and I acknowledge the presence here in the chamber of the honourable member for Corangamite, who I am sure appreciates, coming from a regional area, the importance of the quarantine task to Australia's agricultural industries. I have moved that second reading amendment because I think these criticisms have to be acknowledged by the government. I know that the government will mount its defence along the lines that in past budgets we have not seen any significant decline in the funding to the quarantine task and to AQIS. However, the government cannot deny these facts. Australia is in a sustained phase of trading growth, and that goes back to the Labor years. That goes back to the 13 hard years of Labor, as the government likes to put it—those 13 exciting years of Labor when we finally turned this country from an inward looking country that had existed under the heavy hand of the conservatives to a dynamic, forward thinking, outward looking country that is now one of the great trading nations of the world. Of course, exports have grown, and the government has to acknowledge that fact, and with the low Australian dollar and with the Australian community, dare I say it, living beyond its means, with rising debt levels and growing imports the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service becomes even more important in managing the quarantine task to ensure that those imports that do come into this country meet our standards and do not pose risks to our agricultural industries or to our environment.The honourable member for Corangamite, as he swans about the House today, has offered a few comments under his breath to the points I was making. The simple fact is that he is able to allocate $460 million to advertising executives in Sydney and Melbourne to advertise the government's GST, yet he will no doubt come into this House and argue that the government has maintained expenditure on the quarantine task and has not actually cut it. Given the fact that our exports and imports are rising at such an important rate and given the importance of this task to our trading effort, we ought to be looking at beefing it up, not just merely holding the line. If you can find $460 million for the advertising executives to advertise your GST and blow $12 billion on a tax that the Australian community at the end of the day does not really want, then I would hope that in the budget you are considering now you will find some resources to beef up the quarantine task in this country.Let me go to the second part of this legislation which deals with the wine industry. Once again we have a failure of the government here. It seems we are eternally coming into this House to make a string of minor amendments to legislation because the government got it wrong with drafting errors in the first place. Here we have amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 to allow payers of the wine export charge, as well as payers of the wine grape levy, to vote at annual general meetings of the Wine and Brandy Corporation. I would have thought the government should have got that right at the start, but it obviously has not. The honourable member for Corangamite has to be in here to cop the flak. I know he has broad shoulders and I know he likes his drop of chardonnay. He is from the chardonnay set in the Western District, that great squattocracy out there in the back blocks of Corangamite. He likes his drop of wine. He visits my electorate on many occasions to sample the wines of the Geelong region, and we are always happy to see him there. This particular amendment to the legislation we will not be opposing. The Australian wine industry is indeed a success story as far as Australian agricultural industries are concerned. Over recent years we have seen a rapid expansion in the wine industry. For example, in 1995-96 production volumes were 130 million litres with a value of $471 million. In 1999-2000 that had grown to 288 million litres with a value of $1.352 million. It is an extraordinary development, and I pay tribute to the wine industry, its leaders, for their vision, their passion for growth in the industry and the hard work of everybody from the entrepreneurs to the workers and those who support the industry and for the magnificent job they are doing in rural and regional Australia. Despite the growth, there are some real challenges emerging for the industry. ABARE's 2004-05 outlook identified some of these. The record production that has resulted from increased plantings will present important marketing and promotional challenges for the industry in coming years. The report also identifies the consolidation of production, processing, distribution and retail activities as an urgent priority of the industry in coming years. We can expect a fall in wine prices and that will put significant pressure on the industries. In coming years we can expect a volume growth and a value growth in the wine industry. The influences on that value growth are the exchange rate, changes in the export mix and the normal pressures that come from inflation. But there are also positive factors. Although Australia is a small player on the world stage as far as wine exports are concerned, there is still potential there for us to grow, and of course events like the Olympic Games are going to give a very significant shot in the arm to Australia's wine industry.Members might not be aware but the Geelong region, which I represent and which the honourable member for Corangamite, who is in this House, also represents, has a long historical association with the wine industry. The first vines were planted in the area in 1842 and by 1861 it was recognised as the most important wine growing region in Victoria. It is an interesting agricultural industry from a local and structural point of view. The number of vineyards in Geelong is around 60. The average size, however, is quite small at six hectares. The total area under plantings at the moment is in the region of 440 hectares and it is growing. It is an industry that the Geelong community has earmarked for future development because of its strong linkages to the food industry and tourism. Only a couple of weeks ago, two exciting new initiatives were announced in Geelong to strengthen these important linkages between the wine industry and the food and tourism industries. I was particularly disappointed at missing the launching of these two new initiatives on a very pleasant Sunday morning two weeks ago at La Parisienne Restaurant on Geelong's waterfront—a very attractive waterfront. I notice that the member for Corangamite was not there on that occasion. He normally is. He normally is there sampling. The two initiatives that were announced there were the launch of Geelong's new wine logo and the launch of the food and wine development strategy. I am very sorry the honourable member for Corangamite was not there because, as I mentioned before, he is a member of the Western District chardonnay set that swans around the Corangamite electorate drinking wines from my electorate. I am always happy for him to promote Geelong wines because it means at the end of the day more wealth for my electorate, more employment for my people and of course significant investment for and imaging of the Geelong region. I know he likes a drop; he likes that Bannockburn red. He likes to get up there on Scotsman's Hill with his tory friends sipping on Geelong reds. Geelong is the gateway to the Great Ocean Road and quite a staggering number of tourists visit the region and pass through it on a weekend. MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—On a motorcycle.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The honourable member for Corangamite does not ride a motorcycle. Debate interrupted. Ministerial Arrangements1986214:00:0019862Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be absent from Australia next week. I will be in New York attending the Millennium Assembly of the UN between 4 and 8 September. During my visit I will also attend a meeting of the Commonwealth High Level Review Group established at last year's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Durban to be chaired by the South African President, Mr Thabo Mbeki. During my absence from Australia the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services will be Acting Prime Minister.Questions Without Notice198621986214:01:0019862Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to your election promise that `the GST will not increase the price of petrol to Australian motorists'. Prime Minister, have you seen the latest GST pricing report from your preferred modeller, Chris Murphy, of Econtech? Have you seen his comments on petrol pricing: `The changeover to the new tax system has added about 1.2 cents a litre to petrol prices'? Prime Minister, if your own preferred modeller thinks the GST has increased petrol prices, what evidence do you have that he is wrong?19862Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have not seen that but I will have a look at it. I always try and keep pace with my reading requirements, but maybe the reason why I have not got around to reading that was that my eyes were absolutely transfixed on the transcript that was thrust under my nose by the ever vigilant press secretary who works for me. It is a transcript of a speech made by the then Leader of the House on an urgency motion which was moved by the then Manager of Opposition Business. Both of those gentlemen have changed their positions since this debate took place. The Leader of the House has become the Leader of the Opposition and the Manager of Opposition Business has become the Prime Minister. But what is interesting is not so much the positions we held at that time but the description given by the then Leader of the House to the excise adjustment made by the then government without warning and in defiance of promises in 1993. Do you know what he had to say? He said:First, the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Howard) repeated this furphy that the Liberals go on with—that the Australian public was lied to during the election campaign—And listen to this. This is the best bit:by virtue of the fact that small adjustments have been made to petrol taxes and sales taxes.What he defined as a small adjustment was a 5c discretionary increase. Against that background, with that record, you have no credibility on this issue.1986214:04:0019862Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, has your attention been drawn by the coalition sugar task force to the difficulties facing the sugar industry in Australia? Is the government looking sympathetically at a package to help this important industry regain stability and grow in a competitive global environment?19862Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Can I say to the honourable member for Dawson that my attention has been drawn by the sugar industry task force, which comprises coalition members in this parliament representing electorates where the sugar industry is making an important contribution in very difficult circumstances, to the economy and the community life of those electorates. At the beginning of this answer I want to pay tribute to the members of the task force chaired by the member for Dawson but comprising the members for Leichhardt and Hinkler, and other coalition members, all of whom have worked very hard in a very constructive fashion to draw the government's attention to the difficulties faced by this very important industry particularly, but not only, in the state of Queensland. It will be no secret to the members of the task force that the government has had their representations under very close scrutiny over the past few weeks. I want also to pay tribute to my colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for the very effective work that he has done on behalf of the industry. I am aware that the industry has been suffering very severe problems from low prices, crop disease, cyclones and flooding. The combination of these problems has resulted in very great hardship for growers and communities in many parts of Australia. The Commonwealth, in response to these concerns, has decided on a substantial and comprehensive package of support for the sugar industry in Australia, and I believe that that support package will be very widely welcomed not only in the industry but also in the communities where the industry bulks so very large in the life of communities. The package will include the following components. There will be interest rate subsidies to help growers get their crops in for next year and take advantage of higher prices. It will provide income support for growers while they are working their way out of the current difficulties. It will provide support for farmers to receive financial counselling and business planning advice. The Commonwealth will also work with the industry on restructuring so that they are in a stronger position to deal with any future hardships. My colleague the minister for agriculture will visit Queensland tomorrow and speak to the Canegrowers Council and will announce full details of the package at that meeting. This is a very important package. The government has not lightly taken the decision to provide such substantial support, but we have done so because we believe that the industry has been placed in a very precarious position through forces beyond its control. In those circumstances, particularly as the regional impact of the industry is so large, it is appropriate that this kind of help be given. I believe that when the full details of it are announced by my colleague it will be seen by the industry as generous, comprehensive and substantial. It will be seen as a very broadly based, intelligent approach. It will also have within it the component of an obligation being asked of the industry in relation to the development of a restructuring package. It will be a demonstration of the constructive, realistic way the coalition addresses problems arising in industries in regional Australia which are caused essentially by forces beyond the control of those industries. I commend the package in advance to people in the cane growing industry and the sugar industry. I again thank all the members of the coalition sugar task force and the minister for the very constructive work they have put into the development of what the government and I believe is a fair, effective and long lasting response to the difficulties faced by the sugar industry in Australia. 1986314:08:0019863Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you recall telling the House that when it comes to petrol prices you prefer to rely on the ACCC? I ask whether you are aware that the ACCC petrol price forecasts assume `that the subsequent indexation of excise rates discounts the CPI for the effects of the new tax system' and that `if this assumption is not met, the specified price change target will be exceeded'. Prime Minister, will you be excluding the impact of the GST from the next round of petrol price indexation, or are you prepared to accept a higher inflation outcome? 19864Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I know from long and salutary experience that you never accept anything they say about what you have said in the past. You always go back and have a look at the fine print and you find that there is a slightly different twist. The member for Rankin goes over old ground. The member for Rankin knows that many questions have been asked and the member for Rankin knows that the reason why petrol is at an unacceptably high price is that the world price of crude oil has gone up. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The member for Rankin asked none of those things. What the member for Rankin asked was whether the Prime Minister was going to exclude, as indicated as necessary by the ACCC, the impact of the GST from the next round of petrol indexation. That is all he asked. He was seeking from the Prime Minister—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He has made his point of order. The Prime Minister has been responding to this question for less than a minute. For that reason I did not think any part of his response could be deemed to be out of order. ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would have thought the member for Rankin knew all about indexation of excise. I think the member for Rankin worked for Peter Walsh when it was introduced. He knows all about it. He probably advised him. He probably stands in relation to Peter Walsh concerning indexation as the member for Jagajaga stands in relation to the former health minister and certain health policies. This is tilling old ground, but I am very happy because my patience is infinite in relation to question time. Unlike the short attention span of my predecessor when it came to question time, my patience is infinite. Let me take the member for Rankin through it very slowly again. The world price of crude oil has gone up from about $US12 a barrel 18 months ago to now around $US33 a barrel. That almost trebling of the price of crude oil is the reason why the price of petrol at the bowser in Australia is now so uncomfortably high. I might also remind the member for Rankin that figures I have cited in the House earlier demonstrate that the refinery price of petrol—that is, the price before you impose the GST or before you impose an excise—has gone up by more than the retail price. So any suggestion that there has been a contribution of—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, he has another point of order, has he? PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You're back in here a third time—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition invariably directs his remarks through the chair. He will not now be distracted from what has invariably been his practice in the past. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—It is a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. A very explicit question was asked. It had nothing to do with the effects of the world price of oil on petrol. It is specifically targeted on the question of whether the CPI adjustment in relation to the new tax system will be incorporated—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I heard the question originally and the Leader of the Opposition had repeated it. The Prime Minister was referring to the indexation of fuel, and it was in that context that I allowed him to continue. ZD4Mr HOWARD—As I was pointing out to the member for Rankin, the refinery price, that is before you impose the GST or the excise, has gone up fewer cents per litre than the retail price, which rather blasts out of the water this idea that it is to do with the GST. As always, there is a Beazley quote for every question. The Leader of the Opposition talks so much that there is always a quote left around in a doorstop. This one was on the AM program when he was still in government, on 23 August 1993. This is what the journalist had to say. You must remember it, Kim.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance again. How could anything I said five years ago be relevant to an ACCC report now? What we want to know, and what Australian people want to know is not this ignorant debate—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point and will resume his seat. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—They want an answer to a few of these questions. That is what they want. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition is well aware that I have no idea what the quote from the Prime Minister is about.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has been granted a good deal of tolerance from the chair and will respond in kind. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The context of the interview was criticism of the government's decision to lift fuel excise. We have in fact cut fuel excise.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—We have! We have cut fuel excise by 6.7c a litre.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—But I have that list! I have a Treasury list of all of the adjustments. When you come to June of this year, do you know what it has got after a whole of lot of pluses? From 1983 onwards it has a great big minus.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—And then it has got a great big plus—the GST.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Just listen to this. This is what the journalist on the AM program said:If it is so important for the budget to go through, what is so bad about giving poor people a bit of an extra break and perhaps not taking so much off them in fuel excise?This is against a background of the 5c a litre discretionary increase that nobody was told about. The reply from the now Leader of the Opposition was as follows: I would say that if you go to the record of the government over the last decade, the situation of those who are dependent upon government outlays in one way or another is improved. And you have to look at a budget not just in terms of a snapshot in time but what it reflects for a very substantial period of time.In other words, you had no answer at all. Absolutely no answer at all.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the ACCC's report.Leave not granted.1986514:17:0019865Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General inform the House on the progress of Queensland's alternative native title regime. Is the Attorney aware of any alternative policies?19865Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Barker for his question. The government remains committed to working with the states—MG4Lee, Michael, MPLS4Ferguson, Martin, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell, the member for Batman and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition! The Attorney-General has not even had the opportunity to address the House for 10 seconds. The level of interjection can bear no relevance to his answer and is totally unacceptable.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—I thank the member for Barker for his question. The government remains committed to working with the states to develop a workable and responsible native title regime that balances the interests of indigenous people, miners and pastoralists. That is why we supported Queensland's alternative native title regime that has been before the Senate for some months. But the same cannot be said for the Labor Party. Yesterday, federal Labor served the Queensland people a complete mess. No-one is happy with this 11th hour compromise—not the Queensland people, not mining groups, not native title holders, and certainly not the member for Banks.It seems the only people willing to defend this second-rate deal are Mr Beazley and Mr Beattie. Quite obviously, federal Labor's commitment to sorting out workable native title regimes depends on whether a Labor government is making the request. This is hypocrisy at its best, but it is also policy on the run. Last year, in August, the Labor Party knocked out the Northern Territory's native title regime. Three months ago, Labor allowed part of the New South Wales regime to pass through the Senate without even a murmur. Now your Queensland mates get a half-baked deal that delivers some political satisfaction to Mr Beazley and Mr Beattie, but nothing to anybody else. Queensland Indigenous Working Group chair, Terry O'Shane, was outraged, saying that the opposition leader has blood on his hands. Today, ATSIC commissioner, Ray Robinson, said:As far as Beazley is concerned, he is a sell-out. His shadow minister, Daryl Melham, has virtually told the Australian people that. That is what he has done. He has sold out indigenous people. That is why he resigned.He made an error. He failed to acknowledge that Mr Melham is now a former shadow minister. The Queensland Mining Council chief executive has described this half-baked deal as a `total disaster'. Labor's weak deal continues the uncertainty over native title that has gone on for a decade. Australians deserve better. They deserve consistent policy and consistent leadership. With the opposition leader, a lost shadow minister and a compromised premier they have neither.1986614:20:0019866Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware that your preferred modeller yesterday said that without discounting the February petrol excise for the GST `the government will not be able to keep its commitments on the effects of the new tax system on the prices of petrol'? Prime Minister, if your own preferred modeller thinks that you are breaking your petrol promise, what hope do you have of convincing Australian motorists?ZD4Mr HOWARD—As I said in answer to the first question, I have not seen that analysis, but I will try and catch up with my reading over the weekend. Can I just take the opportunity again of pointing out to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the reason why petrol is so dear now is that the world price of crude oil has gone up. You can ask me every question at this question time and nothing is going to alter that unassailable fact. If you go from $US12 a barrel to almost $US33 a barrel, if you have the exchange rate move against you, of course the price of petrol at the bowser is going to rise. Even if the arguments advanced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were valid—and I do not for a moment accept that they are; I never accept anything as valid from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—the impact is minuscule compared with the impact of the world movement in the price of crude oil.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This goes specifically to the Prime Minister's promises in relation to the GST impact and his preferred modeller saying that promise cannot be kept unless he discounts. Is he going to discount?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There is no way the Prime Minister's question would have been ruled by any occupant of this chair as other than in order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I repeat: if the price of crude oil goes up from $US12 a barrel to almost $US33 over a period of 18 months, if the exchange rate moves against you and if the refinery price moves fewer cents per litre than the retail price, the argument that in some way all of this would be solved if you accepted the arguments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is palpably ridiculous. Nobody likes high petrol prices—nobody on this side of the House and nobody on that side of the House. Certainly the Australian motorist does not like it. But the Australian motorist is not going to be suckered by this glib propaganda from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I say to the motorists of Australia: we regret that the price of petrol is so high, but it is overwhelmingly due to the world price of oil.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Well, do something.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects and says, `Do something.' Okay, let us analyse what one might do. We certainly do not have any policy instruction from the opposition. I have repeated before that if you wanted to make an impact on the price of petrol you could secure a discretionary reduction of 5c a litre. That would cost $1.7 billion. The man opposite who asked me the question says that he will have even bigger surpluses than us. I would like to see that. I think we would all like to see bigger surpluses from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition was not able to produce bigger surpluses when he had charge of it; he produced a deficit of $10½ billion and racked up $90 billion of debt over a period of five years. If you cut excise by 5c, you run the surplus down. That would put upward pressure on interest rates. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, `Well, don't do that because we want still bigger surpluses.' I say: `Okay. Do you want me to take the money out of Defence, do you want me to take the money out of health, do you want me to take the money out of education, do you want me to take the money out of roads?' Of course he would not be arguing that. In other words, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has no policy, no credibility and absolutely no capacity in any intellectual sense to argue that the price of petrol, which is now so unacceptably high, is due to other than the huge increase in the world price of crude oil over the last 18 months. The Australian public increasingly knows that and any proper analysis of what has occurred would clearly demonstrate it.1986714:26:0019867Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, are you aware of industry reaction to last night's Senate decision on the Queensland native title act? What will be the effects for investment, employment and more particularly regional development in Queensland?19867Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I am aware of industry reaction and it has been very strong. It makes it very plain that in fact the ALP's fooling around with its failed policy approach to native title in Queensland is going to have a very serious effect on investment, employment and regional development in that state. For example, Mr Michael Pinnock of the Queensland Mining Council said: Clearly opposition leader Kim Beazley and his Labor colleagues remain oblivious to the plight of the exploration sector which has been brought to its knees—That is by their failed approach. That has been referred to around this place. We have a comment from the Executive Director of the Minerals Council of Australia, Mr Dick Wells. He put it in pretty blunt terms—`a no-win/no-win decision'. He also said:This has profound implications for the future growth of the minerals industry and the wealth and employment opportunities it provides to Australia.He makes this very important point:This decision will do nothing to assist indigenous communities sharing in the economic benefits generated by mining activity.Those benefits in Queensland have been and are quite substantial and could, if the ALP were able to actually get its act together, prove to be of even more benefit in the future. That is the real tragedy in all of this: it is the very people that Labor says it is interested in protecting that suffer the greatest harm from its policy failure in this regard. Labor seems to be incapable of understanding a very simple equation—that is that today's exploration is tomorrow's jobs. Today's exploration is tomorrow's investment in jobs, and jobs for Aboriginal people in particular. In fact, in Queensland, there are no less than 20,000 direct jobs and 80,000 indirect jobs.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—These former people from the ACTU with their profound concern for jobs! They talk all the time about jobs. They do not care about jobs—only their own. They are the only jobs they care about. The fact of the matter is that 20,000 direct jobs and 80,000 indirect jobs—5I4McMullan, Bob, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—I reckon I can demonstrate a bit more concern, in light of your comments, for the jobs of battlers in rural Australia than you can—a damn sight more concern.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—Your reaction displays your cavalier attitude to battlers in rural and regional Australia. It is as simple as that.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question. The member for Brisbane will not provoke the minister. 4K4Mr ANDERSON—The fact of the matter is that we have got a lot of jobs, direct and indirect, in rural and regional Queensland that all started out with an exploration permit for mining. What have we got as a result of your actions? At the end of last month—unbelievably—there were 1,200 exploration title applications pending in Queensland. Compare that with the number granted between July 1999 and the end of May—just 94. They are not proceeding. In real terms, exploration expenditure in Queensland is at its lowest level for 22 years and still falling. For the March quarter, expenditure was down 20 per cent on the previous quarter, down 15 per cent on a year earlier. The plain and simple fact is that exploration in Queensland has been grinding to a halt because of native title problems and last night the ALP jammed the brakes on even harder.1986814:30:0019868Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, when you promised during the election that the GST tax package would not increase the price of petrol for Australian motorists, wasn't that based on the assumption that you would discount the CPI impact of the GST from excise indexation?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—No.DT4Mr CREAN—Well, you say no. I again quote from your preferred modeller:The original new tax system policy document of August 1998 did not—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition needs to relate this directly to the question.DT4Mr CREAN—It is related directly to the question. This is what the Murphy model said.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—No, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had asked a question and is now quoting from the modeller. DT4Mr CREAN—Does he recollect—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not challenge the chair. I ask him to come to the question.DT4Mr CREAN—I am asking him in relation to what his preferred modeller said of their tax package and his promise:The original new tax system policy document of August 1998 did not incorporate a second round rise in excise rates in its figuring on the effect of the new tax system on tax revenue or prices. Rather, that was factored in later.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!DT4Mr CREAN—Prime Minister, was Chris Murphy right?19868Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will analyse the question.1986814:32:0019868Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The government's Indigenous Employment program has been in place for just over 12 months. Could the minister outline to the House the state of play with respect to this program? Would the minister further outline whether there are any alternative approaches that may be implemented?19868Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I also thank him for his personal support for the development and the implementation of the indigenous employment policy. We doubled the funds available, as the member knows—and money is important—and we provided more resources. But also, importantly, we as a government have been prepared to try a few new ideas to see if we can do better in terms of indigenous employment. Where something has worked in the past, we have been prepared to give that a go. We have certainly kept the wage assistance.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You've cut back CDP items.WI4Mr REITH—We had some changes to help CDP.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You cut it back.WI4Mr REITH—No. We introduced some changes to CDP which I think were novel and innovative and worth trying.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Both the Leader of the Opposition and the minister know that such interchanges are outside the standing orders.WI4Mr REITH—In respect of wage assistance, we recorded our highest level of participation in July this year, so that is going well. We attempted to expand the cadetships. We had some positive developments there, but I would like to see more Australian companies take on the cadetships. We have also established the small business fund, and I think that is not only a chance for people to start a business but also to create jobs. More generally speaking, we have established the chief executive officers' initiative for indigenous employment—the CEOs' initiative. That is going pretty well too, and we have been making personal approaches to some of Australia's biggest companies on the basis that whatever they have done in the past—and some have been active—we would like to encourage them to do more in the future. Thirty-five such CEO agreements have been signed. Amongst those 35, we do have some of Australia's leading mining companies prepared to make a real effort. I want to mention some of them—Henry Walker, Rio Tinto, Normandy Mining, Anaconda Nickel, Pasminco, MIM, BHP—and the big mining contractors—Thiess Contractors and Roche Brothers, just to mention some. You do not need to understand a lot about the dismal science of economics to understand what the Courier-Mail said in their editorial this morning. They said: Those who negotiate the proposed indigenous land use agreements will have to recognise that exploration is an essential prerequisite to mining and the creation of opportunities for Aboriginal people.Our Aboriginal and indigenous Australians are some of the most disadvantaged, if not the most disadvantaged, and it is terribly important that we give them the opportunity of jobs. I am grateful for the fact that some of Australia's mining companies are being prepared to make the effort that they have. I was in WA the other day—and you will knock that one back I suppose, because it is a coalition Western Australian government—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPWI4Mr REITH—There they were, committed to a hundred people—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPWI4Mr REITH—Where are the jobs going to come from if the Labor Party uses its numbers in the Senate to prevent our mining companies expanding and growing and providing job opportunities? This is a classic case of a Leader of the Opposition who has one policy one day and another policy the next—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Flip-Flop.WI4Mr REITH—and he is inconsistent—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.WI4Mr REITH—and now there is his embarrassment in being forced—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Moreton!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I take a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is denying his leader the call. The Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I take a point of order on relevance. Mr Speaker, he is referring to indigenous land use agreements, which have nothing to do with the issues that were at stake last night.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—A totally different set of propositions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—A totally different set of propositions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and I will comment on his—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Indeed, we—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I was listening closely to the reply from the minister when he was referring to the legislation considered in the Senate last night, I think. I wondered. I was about to rule as the Leader of the Opposition had wished. The minister, however, has directly related that to the question of indigenous employment. WI4Mr REITH—Nothing can be more important, in my view, than that this parliament focuses on the needs of indigenous Australians and what we can do to provide them with a few jobs. I am not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is embarrassed by the consequences of his own weakness. And he ought to be held to account for the indigenous people who will not have jobs as a result of his policies. The cant and hypocrisy that you people go on with! And you, by your actions, are denying the most disadvantaged people the chance of a job.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will address his remarks through the chair. WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, it is a pretty obvious point. We see that this Leader of the Opposition has got a different policy every day of the week. He flip-flops and responds to the pressure of the last person to put pressure on him.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question.WI4Mr REITH—The people who suffer as a result are the most disadvantaged. He ought to be ashamed of himself.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You ought to be ashamed of yourself.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—You're not the same without those dogs.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I suspect the member for Brisbane has failed to be observant enough to note the obligation that he, the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Batman have to exercise the sort of common courtesy that all Australians expect of us. All previous occupiers of the chair have extended a good deal of latitude to Leaders of the House or Managers of Opposition Business, Leaders of the Opposition and Prime Ministers. But the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House know that they were then behaving in a way that goes beyond that sort of courtesy extended to them.1987014:39:0019870Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I ask the minister whether he recalls telling the House yesterday, in relation to the Airborne Early Warning and Control Project: The decision to defer the acquisition was so that it could be reviewed in terms of the white paper. Is it not a fact that in February last year you announced the development of the Defence white paper, more than four months before you awarded the successful tender for the AEW&C project in July? How can you justify having caused $50 million in project costs to be spent, only to now freeze the project because you want to see the white paper first? Wasn't your plan to develop the white paper well known in July last year when you awarded the tender?19870Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—Yesterday I outlined the reason behind the deferral, and it related to the government's white paper. The white paper is put in position so that over a period of some 10 years you can properly analyse the acquisitions that will take place over that period of time. It is appropriate, therefore, that this deferral should have taken place.1987014:40:0019870Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. 7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect!3K6Mr ROSS CAMERON—Could the minister outline to the House what the government is doing to highlight the achievements of schools that are working hard to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for Australian students?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned!ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is also warned! PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—This is the most absurd question in dorothy dix form asked in this parliament.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The minister has the call.19871Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. As members will know, this government has given top priority to making sure that every young Australian has got the chance to read and write. We have sought to remedy through our policies the disastrous situation left by the previous Labor government when not a single study into the best methods of teaching literacy skills was done over 13 years. The results of literacy surveys were suppressed, including by the Leader of the Opposition when he was education minister, and when he left office, as we found from the national English literacy survey, some 70 per cent of young indigenous Australians could not read and write at a satisfactory level. Nothing showed more clearly the utter failure of the Labor Party to achieve anything like educational equity or social justice for indigenous Australians. This week is National Literacy Week, and National Literacy Week highlights the achievements of a number of schools in Australia which have gone out of their way to give educational opportunities to young Australians who previously missed out. In fact, tomorrow at St Mary's School in the electorate of the federal Treasurer I will be presenting 11 schools with major awards to represent their progress in improving literacy outcomes in their schools. These schools range widely in Australia. Interestingly, these are schools particularly which have focused on giving educational equity to indigenous Australians. One of the schools which is quite outstanding in this regard is Yipirinya School in the Northern Territory, one of the year's major award winners. This is a school that, when this government came to office, had 12- and 13-year-old indigenous students who could not even read a kindergarten text. Within one year of implementing the new literacy program, Accelerated Literacy, which this government has funded, these students made at least three years progress in their literacy in their reading levels. They have gone from struggling to read picture books to reading Paul Jennings novels in less than one year.This demonstrates that a government which is determined to address these issues of educational standards and educational equity can make progress. It highlights the tragedy of the 13 years of the Labor Party in government and the utter failure of the Leader of the Opposition when he was education minister to offer any educational leadership whatsoever in this country. It is the Howard government's strong emphasis on literacy and numeracy skills which is opening up opportunities for young indigenous Australians. The Prime Minister has launched the National Indigenous Literacy Strategy, and we now have some 15 indigenous literacy ambassadors travelling to indigenous communities, urging parents to make sure that their young people go to school and urging schools to work closely with communities to provide culturally appropriate education. This government has addressed the issues of equity and social justice in education, which have been unaddressed for a decade and a half.1987114:46:0019871Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation and the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Minister, is it not the case that over the last three years the government has saved $2.7 billion in interest payments from the sale of the first one-third of Telstra? Is it not also the case that the government has lost over that same period $2.8 billion worth of dividend payable on that one-third share? Minister, how you can guarantee that the loss of Telstra dividends will not be even worse if all of Telstra is sold?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the Minister for Finance and Administration.19872Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I welcome the honourable member's interest in Telstra. It does not surprise me that there is interest on that side of the House in the announcement of the dividend. The government welcomes the announcement yesterday of the results of Telstra. Labor's interest does not surprise me. I noted with great interest that the man that tells the truth in the Labor Party, Mr Della Bosca, has $4,000 worth of shares in Telstra. I noted that the secretary of the Labor Council in New South Wales has $18,000 worth of shares in Telstra. Mr Roozendaal— PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have absolutely no problem with people owning shares in Telstra, but that was not the question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition's point of order is on relevance?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Yes. He was asked about a matter relating to the dividends—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister for Finance and Administration will come to the question.HQ5Mr FAHEY—I am sure that those members of the Labor Party also welcomed the dividend that was announced by Telstra the other day. Let us have a look at the question that was put up by the honourable member for Perth. He asserts that there would be a benefit if Telstra were retained in government hands. That is a false assumption. He is working off the basis that a dividend such as this week's dividend of $4 billion would go to the shareholders. He ignores the fact that all companies make provision for future investment. They do not always declare the actual result; there is a need for future investment.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise again on a point of order that goes to relevance. He was not asked about profit; he was explicitly asked about the impact of the dividend paid to the Commonwealth.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There is no way the minister is being other than relevant to the question asked.HQ5Mr FAHEY—He ignores the fact that, as a result of the sale of the first and second tranches of Telstra, this government has been able to retire a significant amount of Labor's debt, bringing it down from $98 billion to some $50 billion. We have wiped out $50 billion worth of government debt. He ignores the fact that as a result of giving the board of Telstra an opportunity to operate in a truly commercial fashion, accountable to over two million Australians, they have been able to deliver savings on telephony services to Australians in many areas and at the same time improve the service. He should have got up today congratulating Telstra on improvements, under the customer service guarantee brought about by this government, to service levels to all Australians in all states, particularly in rural and regional Australia. Operating on economic voodoo, he conveniently looks at a dividend, ignores the factors relating to the market and ignores the investment that Telstra has made. He simply wants to draw simple conclusions. They are simple, and they do not work. This government wants to unshackle Telstra to give it a proper opportunity to trade properly in the interests of all Australians and in the interests of some two million Australians who have shares in Telstra.1987214:51:0019872Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of any recent indicators of business confidence since the introduction of the new tax system? Are there any threats to the increasing levels of business confidence?19872Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro for his question. I can inform the House that there is new evidence that business is increasing its confidence as a result of the introduction of the new tax system. Indeed, the AICD-KPMG Boardroom Report for September 2000 is headed `Company Directors, Economic Optimism Returns Post GST' and I quote:Fading uncertainties about the GST have led to a strong improvement in economic optimism of Australia's company directors this quarter.It is a good thing that company directors are showing economic optimism. The report continues:The survey reveals confident predictions from directors about Australia's economic performance in six to 12 months time, more so than the June quarter, and 44 per cent of company directors predict a positive outlook for the Australian economy in 12 months time, a 16 per cent increase over the June quarter. Both sides of the parliament no doubt would welcome the fact that company directors are receiving the new tax system with a great deal of optimism and confidence. The interesting thing is that this confidence and optimism is something which the Australian Labor Party predicted would never occur. On 18 June, in an interview with Jon Faine, where he does some of his best interviews, the Leader of the Opposition predicted that the tax system would be `chaotic and complex'.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Not as good as his Townsville speech.CT4Mr COSTELLO—No, it rates with his Townsville speech. The Leader of the Opposition said:It was chaotic and complex to start with and now it is in spades. I mean, you're talking about irrelevance. Every single stunt that we ran in that run-up or that consideration of the GST by parliament a couple of weeks ago they're now actually adjusting the tax system to deal with. So we're no longer in stunt land. We're in tax planning land ...`We're no longer in stunt land.' I do not know whether he has told his Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has been in stunt land for the last 15 years of his life, who specialised in bringing Hockey Bear pyjamas into the Australian parliament—the party of Chifley and Curtin, with their Hockey Bear pyjamas and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with his little lettuce packages. The contribution to tax reform by the member for Hotham will always be remembered in the parliament. That was just about the most sane thing he has said about tax in quite some time.The current stunt is about petrol excise. We have established two things in this debate. One is that they have no intention of taking GST off petrol and the second is that they have no intention whatsoever of changing the indexation on excise. Every time they ask the government whether it will change its policy on indexation of excise, one needs to remember that the Labor Party has no intention whatsoever of doing so. In fact, it is urging us to adopt a policy which it does not have. That is the whole argument that it is putting in relation to petrol. `Why don't you take a policy which we don't have?' Talk about living in stunt land. On the Michael Spooner program, the member for Hotham was asked on 31 March 2000:What sort of commitment can Labor make regarding fuel excise?That is an obvious question. After all, you ask questions about it—you have had four or five. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition replied:Well, what we've—basically our position has been—there needs to be a mix between indirect taxes and direct taxes. We've always had fuel excise in that mix. We were not proposing to make any changes to the fuel excise regime.Talk about being in stunt land. Come into the parliament, ask four questions about changing the indexation of fuel excise, and when you are asked what your position is you say, `Oh, we don't want any changes.' The opposition are not in tax planning land; they are still in stunt land. We have been sitting here since 1 July and what is one word I have never heard come across the lips of the Leader of the Opposition? Roll-back. It starts with an `r' and it is one word—`roll-back'. They are so proud of their policy that it never rates a mention. They are not in tax planning land; they are still firmly in stunt land.1987314:57:0019873Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is for the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, is it correct that funding for government schools can change for three reasons: firstly, automatic indexation for school cost increases and enrolment growth according to a formula set down by Labor in 1993; secondly, discretionary decisions to increase funding; and, thirdly, discretionary decisions to cut funding? Minister, is it correct that a senior official of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs told the Senate last week that the total of discretionary increases for government schools was $106.4 million over the next four years? Is it not also correct that your enrolment benchmark adjustment, a discretionary cut, will take more than $150 million from government schools over the next four years? Minister, is it not true that the net effect of your policy decisions, as opposed to automatic increases, is to cut funding for government schools? 19874Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—It is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition still has not received a satisfactory briefing on the enrolment benchmark adjustment from the member for Dobell, because the enrolment benchmark adjustment is not a school funding policy. It is not a policy which directs money to schools. It does not in any way determine funding flowing to schools. Those decisions are taken by state governments. And we see a dramatic variation in the willingness of state governments to fund government schools.The elements of school funding to which the Leader of the Opposition referred are all subject to decisions by the government. There is no automatic flowing of money to schools without a decision by the government every year. So you do not understand the process of indexation. You do not understand the enrolment benchmark adjustment. At least you have recognised that we are putting additional money into schools for special needs funding. The total impact of the government's decisions is to increase funding for government schools by $402 million over this year, over the period when you were in office. That is a 26 per cent increase in funding for government schools, while the number of pupils in government schools has increased by 2.3 per cent. That means that, as the numbers in government schools have changed, the government's funding has become ever more generous in relation to those numbers and that real funding for government school students has increased. It is a shame that the Leader of the Opposition knows so little about education and has such little interest in it, which he demonstrated when he was minister. He had no interest in the portfolio; everybody could see that. He took no significant initiatives or decisions and he does not even understand the basics of government school funding.1987415:01:0019874Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Would the minister inform the House whether litigation and appeals to international bodies are contributing to the length of time that people are being held in immigration detention? What steps are being taken right now by the government to address this problem?19874Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Wannon for his question, because he does raise a serious issue in relation to the reason why numbers of people are held in detention for quite long periods of time. It would perhaps be useful to let the House know that something in the order of 116 people at the moment are held in detention while pursuing matters before our courts, and that is something in the order of 12 per cent of the current litigation caseload.There are a number of examples that I think would be illuminating to the House. One was a person who illegally arrived in Australia in March 1997, was refused a protection visa in June 1997, went to the Refugee Review Tribunal—which came to the same conclusion in September 1997—applied unsuccessfully to the Federal Court, did not appeal to the Full Federal Court when he lost at the first instance but went to the High Court in December 1997, and commenced another High Court action in 1998. The High Court unanimously dismissed both of those appeals in April 1999. In other words, that person chose to be in detention, with no lawful basis to be in Australia and no lawful basis to overturn any of the decisions that were taken as early as three months after arrival and, of course, remained in detention because of his own actions.I could take you through other cases that are very similar, but let me just say that there is a new and very alarming trend emerging. That trend is in relation to people who have exhausted all other remedies, who have been to the courts and who are now applying under the complaints mechanisms to United Nations committees, asking them to comment on whether or not there is a basis upon which a person should not be removed from Australia, and seeking our cooperation with a view to ensuring that in that time they are not removed. Those bodies, on average, take 18 months to two years to come to a conclusion. In only one case have they come to a view that there was matter worthy of looking at, and what is not on the public record is in relation to that matter: the Refugee Review Tribunal, at my request, has looked at the case again and found there was no substance or credibility in relation to the claims and that, in fact, the very person who was making the claims had no credibility because, at the time he was alleging torture or otherwise had been applied to him in his home country, he was in a third country making asylum claims. We have something like 24 cases of people who are going before various United Nations tribunals now who will remain in detention while that happens. So how can anybody be heard to complain in those circumstances when their own actions have led to a situation where they remain there for one, two, three or four years. I am complaining because we end up having to foot the bill. Can anything be done about this? I know the honourable shadow minister is not here today. But I know the shadow minister says from time to time, `Look, it is a fundamental principle that even people who have come to Australia unlawfully should have access to judicial review.' That is what he asserts. Of course, what he is saying is that, on this issue, Labor is part of the problem, because there is a bill before the Senate that would enable these issues to be dealt with quickly. Nobody has to remain in detention for that length of time. It can be resolved quickly and, as I say, you are part of the problem.This is an issue upon which the Leader of the Opposition should be prepared to make a stand. This is an issue upon which the Leader of the Opposition should say to his colleagues, `We can fix this by cooperating.' I am sure he does not have to worry about the shadow minister for immigration resigning on this question as a matter of principle. Let me conclude by saying that there is a concern expressed by the Labor Party from time to time that there are other people in Australia unlawfully taking jobs from Australians. They argue that, if they were in office, they would do something about it—presumably.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Have you been speaking to Pauline Hanson?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—No, I have been talking to some of your mates in the trade union movement. Let me tell you that there are 5,000 people who have already been to court who have no lawful basis for remaining in Australia and who are using abusive class actions to ensure that they remain here lawfully. There are 5,000 people holding down jobs that might otherwise be available in the Australian community. Who is holding up the legislation that would deal with that? The Labor Party. As I said before, there are some problems in this area, but the reason we have these problems is that the Labor Party is part of the problem, not the solution.1987515:09:0019875Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that a senior official of his department told the Senate inquiry into his new school funding formula that an extra $50 million to 62 category 1 schools was `probably a good estimate'? Is the minister also aware that his enrolment benchmark adjustment has already taken more than $60 million from government schools? Minister, how can you claim that your legislation is designed to restore equity and fairness to school funding, to use your words, when it takes $60 million from government schools and gives $50 million to the 62 wealthiest schools in Australia?19875Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—It is hard to understand how someone can hold even a shadow portfolio and understand so little about the basis of education policy. Everything that the shadow minister says is completely misconceived. The government, for a start, has increased funding for government schools, not reduced funding for government schools. The enrolment benchmark adjustment is a federal-state financial transaction; it does not constitute a school funding policy. Therefore your statement that it has taken $60 million from government schools is incorrect.Let us come to the last point. Your reliance on category 1, the old Labor funding formula for non-government schools, puts you at odds with the entire non-government sector. It is a funding formula which has been completely discredited and which does not represent a listing of the 62 wealthiest schools in Australia. Let us go right through this very slowly so, hopefully, you will understand it next time and we will not get this misrepresentation. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will address his remarks through the chair.BT4Dr KEMP—You have claimed that the 62 wealthiest schools in Australia will be receiving an average of around 30 per cent of average government school recurrent costs under the government's new funding arrangements.MG4Lee, Michael, MPBT4Dr KEMP—You called them the 62 wealthiest schools in Australia. There is a very clear understanding that the government's SES funding mechanism is a much more accurate measure of need than the Labor Party's now discredited funding system, which the shadow minister continues to support, contrary to the views of everybody else in the non-government sector. I have had the government's measure applied to the simulation project data that we carried out over the last couple of years. It shows that, under the government's SES funding formula, none of the schools serving the 62 wealthiest communities in Australia will be funded at the levels that you have indicated.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—No, you are wrong.BT4Dr KEMP—You are totally and completely wrong. You have claimed that an average level of funding will be applied, but no individual school will be funded at that average level amongst the 62 wealthiest schools in Australia, identified by an accurate measure of the wealth of the schools' communities. So your whole assumption about the allocation of that money is completely fallacious. Read the transcript of this if you are not following me, because it is very clear to other members of the House. This funding formula will allocate funding amongst schools according to need.Let me conclude on one point: there will be some schools amongst the 62 wealthiest schools that will receive funding at a higher level only because we have funding-maintained those schools. They will receive that funding only because you have funded them at that level. We have frozen their levels of funding. The only schools that will be funded at the levels you are talking about will be the schools that you have funded—at your level of funding—and we have taken a fair decision not to take their funding away from them. Every school funded under our formula will be funded at a lower level amongst those 62 schools than what you claim is the average level; in other words, you are totally and utterly incorrect and you are totally and utterly offside with the entire non-government sector. You are the last voice in Australia claiming that the Labor Party's discredited funding system has any merit whatever.It is not surprising that the last party to stand for the wholesale sales tax system is also the last party to stand for the ERI funding formula for non-government schools. You are totally isolated. Not only do those opposite say that our system is a bad system, but they are going to vote for it. They are going to keep our funding system when they are in office. It is so bad that they are going to keep it.1987615:15:0019876Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of media coverage of the recent release of a report by the National Harvest Trail Working Group? Has the government responded to the recommendations of the working group so that I may convey this to producers in the Riverina, particularly citrus growers?19876Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Riverina for her question. I note that unemployment in her area has come down from 13 per cent in January 1993 to six per cent now. It is still too high, but it is a big improvement on what it was, thanks in part to the policies of the Howard government.I am also aware of the member for Riverina's acute interest in the citrus industry, hence her interest in the report of the National Harvest Trail Working Group which was presented to the government on 11 August. The government immediately announced that the harvest labour site on the Australian Jobsearch system would be upgraded to provide more comprehensive information on work, accommodation and transport available in harvest industries. We anticipate that that work will be on offer to job seekers by October. From tomorrow, my department is trialling in the Riverland a new system in conjunction with Centrelink, under which able-bodied job seekers will be required to look for harvest work as part of their activity test requirements. This has been welcomed. The Mayor of Renmark has said:With the buoyant conditions that most of the state, and certainly this area, has been having over the last few years, there is definitely a shortage of harvest labour. Growers find it particularly galling to know that, when they can't get labour, there are able-bodied people around on the dole. I am sure they will welcome the scheme with open arms.I would like to thank the committee that put this report together, particularly its chair, the member for Hindmarsh. The idea of a national harvest trail came from her. She has pursued it to the point of fruition. This is a shining example of how a member of parliament can make a difference to the wider community. I also thank the member for Mallee, the member for Hume and the member for Blair for their contributions.I thank Mr Michael Beeston, from the Macintyre Valley Cotton Growers Association, Mr Brian Caddy, representing the Riverland; Graham Robertson, representing Sunraysia; Brian Clark, from the MIA Council of Horticultural Organisations; Vic Dolenec, from the Mildura District Harvest Labour Committee; Stephen Scott, from the Northern Victoria Fruit Growers Association; and Mr Bill Trevor, the Mayor of Isis Shire. These people have served our country well. They are an example of public service at its best.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister is responding to a question about a government backbench report. He is now outlining the government response to that report and is giving us government policy in question time. I think he is out of order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There was nothing—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! A question has been asked of the chair. One would have thought that at least the chair would have the opportunity to respond in silence.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—Put him in the—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs! I have been asked to rule on a point of order. There was nothing out of order or inconsistent in the way in which the minister responded to the question. 1987715:20:0019877Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is again directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and it refers to his incorrect claim that the Labor Party was the last voice which claimed that the ERI had any merit. I ask: does the minister recall telling the House on numerous occasions about the support of the Catholic school system for the government's new schools funding formula? When he made these claims was he aware that Father Doyle told the Senate inquiry into the formula that the SES formula needed modification and should include resource indicators and resource availabilities? Is the minister also aware that the Catholic school system refused to be funded under his new SES system and that the government has agreed to fund Catholic schools in a way that preserves their previous funding levels under the ERI—the system he said is completely discredited?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will come to his question.MG4Mr LEE—Finally, Minister, isn't it true that the Catholic system supports the new SES system so strongly that they refused to be funded by it?19878Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The Catholic system uses the SES funding model to distribute their funds amongst their own schools.MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell has asked his question.BT4Dr KEMP—Let me quote Father Doyle, the Deputy Chair of the National Catholic Education Commission, which rejects the ERI model and which has made it clear that it does not in any way support the ERI model. MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Does he support your SES model?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell has asked his question.BT4Dr KEMP—The commission, which does not in any way support the ERI model and which fully accepts that that model is completely discredited, said this about the government's funding package for schools. I quote Father Doyle:It is a very good and equitable package. The new system is fair and open to scrutiny, yet doesn't drain resources away from government schools. In a caring and democratic Australia, it is vital that we recognise every person's right to choice.That is the view of the National Catholic Education Commission.1987815:22:0019878Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The minister would be aware that a number of us in this place have received an email highlighting the gap between the number of organs required and the number of donations received. Could the minister inform the House of efforts to increase the rate of organ donation in Australia? In particular, could the minister comment on the establishment of the National Organ Donor Register and the outcome of discussions on the topic at the Australian Health Ministers Conference last month?19878Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question on what is a very serious topic for Australia. Australia has a disappointingly low and declining rate of organ donations. We have about 8.6 donors per million of the population per year, which by any international standards is pathetic. It is disturbing that this very low rate is declining. The UK has a rate of around 13 per million, the United States, 21.4 per million, Spain, 33.6 per million and our neighbour New Zealand manages 10.2 donors per million of the population. Australia's very low rate would be even lower if it were not for the very good efforts of South Australia, which has a rate of donation three times the national average. This current performance translates into very real difficulties for people who are waiting for organ donation. Two people on the organ donation waiting list will die per week and more than half of those waiting for heart, heart-lung or liver transplants will die before a transplant becomes available. The international benchmark of world best practice is nearly 1,100 donors per year for a country our size. Last year Australia managed only 194 donors against that international benchmark of 1,100.I have traditionally taken the view that this is a state and territory matter because it relates largely to the way that public hospitals operate, as this is where most suitable potential organ donors die. I was very much moved earlier this year on New Year's Eve when the Prime Minister and I went to visit Sir William Deane who was having a sleep-over for about 50 kids who were waiting for kidney donations. He is patron of the Australian Kidney Foundation. Talking to those children and hearing their stories and the anguish of the families of these children waiting for organ donations made me look at the issue again to see whether there was anything the Commonwealth could possibly do.As a result of that meeting that the Prime Minister and I had, I was able to announce in June this year that we would be setting up a National Australian Organ Donor Register to try to address this issue. The organ donation register will do two things. Firstly, it will enable families to be able to discuss the issues towards a better understanding of what individuals would like towards the end of their lives. Secondly, it will enable organ donation coordinators to securely access the information and help them in seeking the consent of family members. The Health Insurance Commission is going to develop and run the National Australian Organ Donor Register and it will give it very substantial publicity in a whole variety of ways—one which springs to mind is when we reissue the Medicare cards for Australia this year. The register will commence in November 2000. We are planning a large communication campaign to be associated with it. I took this approach to the Australian Health Ministers Conference in Wellington last month. They were very supportive of it. We had a lengthy session discussing the measures that they would take to try to complement this. I believe that, by working together, this country can turn this around very rapidly and do something for the many people who are waiting for an organ donation.1987915:22:0019879Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is again addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and it refers to his claim that the enrolment benchmark adjustment does not reduce funding to schools. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Tedious repetition!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Fisher, I have repeatedly stated during question time that everyone has the right to be heard in silence, and it is anticipated that people asking questions would at least be heard in silence so that the question can be heard.MG4Mr LEE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, how can you claim that the enrolment benchmark adjustment was a funding issue between federal and state governments when it is listed as a cut under `Education' in the 1996 Budget Papers on page 388? Minister, are you now so ashamed of the enrolment benchmark adjustment that you are trying desperately to blame someone else for your own creation? Since you are so embarrassed by it, will you agree to match Labor's commitment to abolish the enrolment benchmark adjustment?19879Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—It would be helpful if the opposition could get its argument straight. The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question earlier based on the assumption that we were automatically increasing funding for schools and the member for Dobell is asking me why we are cutting funding to schools. Are we cutting funding or increasing funding? Which is it? Are we increasing funding or cutting it?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Cutting it in real terms.BT4Dr KEMP—Sorry—you're not sure about that? Let me tell you: we are increasing it.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the minister wishes, I will repeat the question. Why are you so embarrassed about the EBA?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Dobell, that was not a point of order. Has the minister concluded his answer?BT4Dr KEMP—Yes.1987915:28:0019879Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Minister, I note the IOC's approval for an EPO test for Sydney. What has been the government's involvement in this decision?19879Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—May I congratulate the member for Herbert for his interest in this subject. I know he has been a strong supporter of the government's Tough on Drugs policy. Part of that has been our Tough on Drugs in Sport policy. As a part of that, we have funded our scientists' research into a blood test for EPO. I would really like to thank the member for Herbert as he has given me an opportunity to thank some of our great scientists who have been involved in this project. From the Australian Institute of Sport there was Robin Parisotto, Dr Chris Gore, Michael Ashenden, Dr Peter Davis, Dr Ross Smith and Dr Allan Hahn. They were instrumental in getting this project up. From the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory, we had Dr Ray Kazlauskas, Dr Kerry Emslie, Chris Howe and Dr Graham Trout. From the University of Melbourne we had Dr Ken Sharpe. I would like to acknowledge them in this House for the work that they have done and put it on record for everyone to see.Prime Minister, acknowledging the hour—I know it has been a long week, and I am the final speaker—good luck for the games ahead. I know Australian sportsmen and women will do us very proud. It will be a very level playing field and we will be watching pure performance.ZD4HowardMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The House and the chair would be facilitated if members would quickly either resume their seats or leave the chamber because I have a short statement to make to the House. I understand there are no papers for presentation today. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Sit down, boofer!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will apologise. As I was on my feet, any interjection was inappropriate and I do not believe that was an appropriate interjection to make under any circumstances. I ask him to apologise.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I will withdraw the comment. It was not directed at you; it was addressed to the Treasurer who was standing on his feet and paying no attention to you.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The statement was withdrawn.Miscellaneous1988015:32:0019880SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Members will recall that on Monday of this week the honourable member for Boothby asked whether it would be possible for Mr Nelson Mandela to be invited to a parliamentary reception or to address the parliament when he is in Canberra next Wednesday, 6 September. I can now confirm my earlier preliminary advice to the House. My office has been in contact with our High Commissioner in Pretoria to again raise these possibilities with Mr Mandela's office. The High Commissioner confirmed that Mr Mandela very much regrets that he cannot accept the offer of being received by the parliament, although he was honoured to have been asked.Matters of Public Importance198801988010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government to implement and pursue policies that would advance Australia's standing as a Knowledge Nation.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:33:0019880Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—For Australia to succeed as a knowledge nation we need to do two things. Firstly, we need to increase the skills of all of our people, not just the wealthy. We need to invest in the capabilities of our people to handle the type of economy which we now must be in if we are going to succeed as a nation. We have to see education and skilling as not simply a private opportunity but a public investment, and probably the most important public investment that a nation makes. Secondly, we need increased investment in science, technology and engineering, both public and private. We need to see increased investment in science and engineering and research and development as at the heart of the successful nations of this century. We can no longer be a nation that looks to comparative advantage which comes from simply our location, the comparative advantage which comes from our resources, the successful nations, or the comparative advantage, I might say—to take it a point further—that comes from skills in derivatives, from being a derivative economy, from taking up other people's investments. We have always been pretty good at taking up other people's ideas. We have always had a big take-up of technologies invented by others. These are all parts of a comparative advantage, not a competitive advantage. For a competitive advantage we need to be the inventors of new things. On both these fronts this government stand condemned by their acts of commission and omission. I draw attention to, for example, the most recent evidence of an act of omission. That comes from their chief scientist, a man whose position was declared—in the mind of this government at its level of relevance—when they took that permanent official of previous Labor governments and made him a part-time adviser to themselves. That is a statement of where they saw the significance of science. But what that gentleman has done in the report that he has put forward is draft a set of particulars for an indictment of this government. On every page of that report is a criticism explicitly of the direction this nation has gone over the course of the last four years. It is an extraordinary document. The initial reaction of the minister to whom that report was offered was to say, `It could be a bit expensive; we need to do these sorts of things without spending too much money.' The indictment in the chief scientist's report goes not just simply to the industry minister and the way in which we treat support for research and development in this country but also to the education minister and the way in which he has handled his obligations as far as the school system is concerned. We in the Labor Party have announced a series of policies in this area, and I am pleased to see the endorsement of the Chief Scientist for the various positions we have taken up. We have said that, as far as we are concerned, the starting point, the first building block, of a knowledge nation is what is happening in our schools. We have announced a program of education priority zones to address those weaknesses, particularly in the government school area, which create a culture described by the Chief Scientist as not being conducive to the type of thinking we need in the science, engineering and technology areas. One of the reasons why we put down those education priority zones was the revelation that very large numbers of our students were being taught by teachers whose specialist background and whose skills were not in the subjects they were teaching. When the Chief Scientist got hold of that fact, he said that if there is not a love and knowledge of the discipline, but simply a teacher staying just ahead of the students that he or she is teaching, then the culture of knowledge in that area could not be imparted, that what students needed was teachers in love with their disciplines, capable of imparting excitement to the students in front of them. The propositions we have put forward are the sorts of propositions that he endorsed, specifically those that we have announced to encourage teacher education, both at the outset and during teachers' careers, to ensure that teachers are supported by government as they restructure their skills or establish those skills in the first case in the maths or science area—the basic building blocks—and to ensure that there is an adequate supply of teachers in the system who are capable of creating that culture about which the Chief Scientist is talking. The report goes beyond that, into the other areas of research and development, and the building blocks associated with research and development, which occur in the research institutions of our nation—the research institutions which are being defunded. It just so happened that the Chief Scientist came up with precisely the policy that we announced to double the number of post-doctoral fellowships in their various categories, enhancing, therefore, our scientific endeavour. He did not come up with a further idea we have had, but I am sure that he would approve of it—that is, how we keep the best brains in our country or bring them back if they happen to be overseas. There is now an obvious substantial brain drain from our universities in the science and technology areas as students find themselves unhappy with the scouring of our universities that has taken place over the last four years by this government. This is a massive indictment of the direction of government policy, and the Prime Minister cannot handle it. The Prime Minister sees national development in a 1950s context. He sees national development in terms of the monuments he leaves behind. He sees it in terms of one foot off the bus on the way to the golf course, `Where can I leave a monument behind me when I privatise Telstra, if I get away with that, that both perhaps bribes the community and is an appropriate edifice in my memory?'—his memory so firmly rooted in the middle parts of the last century. That is the Prime Minister's position. He cannot comprehend the facts. He has had at least four reports before him from his Innovation Council and from his Chief Scientist and the various white papers on research that have been put forward but not acted upon by his minister. He has had nothing whatsoever to say about any of those reports, except perhaps that what we ought to do is to start to look back at that monument building. He does not understand that it is how we mine the minds of our people this century that will determine whether or not we are successful. You can see it in the value of the dollar. Many factors determine the value of the dollar, but one of the critical factors happens to be this: we are not perceived on this globe as at the leading edge of the new economy. We are being judged on the old basis of Australian development. Therefore, as other countries look to us and work out what the value of our currency ought to be, at the back of their minds is this fear that we may well not be in this century a successful or relevant nation. That is what we have to deal with now. That is why we have done the unusual thing for an opposition of starting to put out very detailed policy in the education area, in the research and development area—Dr Kemp interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The fact that you have not been watching what we are doing is a matter of complete irrelevance. You have been asleep at the wheel for the last four years except in one area—your obsession. Having outlined the positive directions in which we wish to see this area go, I turn now to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, who is at the table. One of the problems of having an education minister like this minister at the table at this point of time is that his views on education represent his special obsession—a special obsession that has marked his life since he came to be responsible for education policy for the Liberal Party a melancholy decade ago. He put to his colleagues in the Liberal Party what his intentions were. His intentions were to take students out of the government school system and put them in the private school system and to adjust funding in a way that pursued that objective. That has been his obsession. Everything the minister says about literacy, everything he says about the positive programs that he believes ought to be pursued in this country, is nothing more than a cover for his basic objective. His basic objective has been the destruction of the public school system, the elevation of the most privileged elements of the private school system and the demonisation of those who are obliged to deliver education to our people. There has been no assistance for enhancing their skills, no assistance for ensuring that they are able to handle the new technologies of education, no assistance for the 300,000 people who are responsible for ensuring that the basic building blocks of our knowledge economy are strong and sound. He has not been assisting them, but demonising them. That is what he has been about. He has gone to the states, deprived them of resources and then said: `Achieve these objectives.' It is not a tactic to achieve those objectives; it is a tactic to blow a smokescreen across his true intentions—those intentions put in place a decade ago and now being implemented by him in detail.The consequence of that, of course, is the sorts of devastating retention rates that we now see—retention rates going backwards. I was at a school in Victoria recently and there were many good features of the school, and I praised them. I talked about their retention rate of 80 per cent. In Australia that is a good retention rate against an average of 68. I then pointed out to those students that, if I were standing before a class or a school in Korea and talking about an 80 per cent retention rate, I would be addressing failure. If I were standing before a class in the United States and discussing an 80 per cent retention rate, I would be discussing failure. If I were standing before one in the UK, I would be discussing failure. If I were standing before one in Germany, I would be discussing failure. If I were standing before one in France, I would be discussing failure. It is the minister's job, along with those of his state counterparts—BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—Why didn't you raise it to 80 per cent?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—My friend, in the early nineties in many parts of this country it got to well above 80. Then we had the state Liberal governments, augmented by a federal Liberal government, and we became uniquely the only country in the Western world that saw those retention rates going down—your unique achievement. And you have other unique achievements. Your other unique achievement is that we are the only country where public investment in education is going down. Your figures would look a great deal worse were it not for the fact that the adjustments that we put in place in 1993—that you have not yet interfered with—still flow through. I am going to have a great deal to say about these matters in this parliament over the course of the next year and a bit. This is the most important issue confronting our nation today. The fact that our political opponents cannot understand that—they still see this in the context of a private opportunity and not an opportunity for the development of our nation—is going to be the principal issue around which the next election campaign revolves. The problem for you, my friend, and your colleagues is that your record is already established and there is nothing you can do in the next year to turn it around. We have pride of authorship of our ideas but not ownership. We invite you to pinch them all, and we will top you again.15:48:0019883Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—It is good to see the organ grinder at last fronting up rather than the monkey. The Leader of the Opposition really had to give this speech because he has to give an occasional speech about education. He shows no real knowledge or interest in it, but he has got himself locked into this concept, which he has never given any content to, of the knowledge nation. He could not ask the shadow minister for education to deliver a speech on it because he has excluded him from the committee to develop the policy. The member for Dobell is not a member of the opposition's knowledge nation committee—the shadow minister has been excluded. The knowledge nation is supposed to be so important, yet the shadow minister for education is not even a member of the committee to draft the policy we have not yet seen. The Leader of the Opposition had to get up—he has not got a shadow minister who can do the job—because he knows he has to give an occasional speech on education; otherwise he would have no credibility whatever. His credibility is already very low. When he was minister for education, he found that it was a very uninteresting portfolio and he developed extraordinarily little interest in it. In fact, he told his biographer Peter FitzSimmons when he was minister for education:... I lost a lot of ambition and I stopped straining ... I thought that there was less capacity to achieve in that portfolio than just about any I have had.I suppose that is why this is one of the areas where he has achieved less in opposition. He has not achieved much anywhere but he has achieved less here than almost anywhere else. When he talks about his policies, let me just say that we would be happy to take any policies that he puts forward, but there have not been any policies worth taking at the moment. It is just empty rhetoric and occasional motherhood statements that nobody could disagree with. Fundamentally there have been no policies whatever. That is because he was, as the Australian said on 31 March 1993 when he was minister, `one of the most reluctant of education ministers—it is no secret that Beazley's intellectual interests lie elsewhere'. Helen Trinca told Peter FitzSimmons:I was disappointed, as a journalist, that he didn't seem to be putting his whole heart and soul into the (education) portfolio.The Financial Review wrote:... there is a perception that Mr Beazley is not really interested in the employment, education and training portfolio ...His biographer said:He just didn't seem totally absorbed in his portfolio ...The Sunday Age stated:... the greatest ambition harboured by the highly relieved Beazley was a change in portfolio ...That is the record in government of the Leader of the Opposition. We can dig deeper into this rhetoric. The Leader of the Opposition mouths this rhetoric about the tremendous importance of higher education. I agree that higher education is fundamentally important to Australia's future. That is why the number of students on campuses now is the highest it has ever been—40,000 more than when Labor was in office. That is why university revenues are higher now than they have ever been—about a billion dollars more than when Labor was in office; around $9 billion. That is why Australia's university investment in research and development continues to grow. In 1998, higher education research and development in Australia was estimated to be at $2,600 million at current prices, an increase of 13 per cent over 1996. As a result of this government's policies we are seeing rising participation rates in schools and growing participation in education, particularly by the age 15 to 24 cohort. On the most recent figures, about 55 per cent of the 15 to 24 cohort were in education or training compared with 49 per cent when we came to office. Our policies have actually lifted educational participation and lifted the research effort of our universities. In fact, I have just returned from leading a trade mission of senior university scientists and researchers to Israel. The Australians finished their trip with a great deal of satisfaction at the state of Australian science and research and its capacity to commercialise that research. The Leader of the Opposition had a distinctive view about the growth of participation in universities. Mr Beazley's record was that he gave up; he gave up on universities. He told the Age on 28 February 1992:The desperation to get into higher education is really misplaced.As minister in 1993, in a speech to the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne, he said:I do not accept that it is the responsibility of government to meet all so-called unmet demand for higher education. Indeed, it would be irresponsible for a government to seek to do that.The Australian reported, on 14 February 1992:Mr Beazley said that Australia had unquestionably reached a point where people's expectations about entering university had to change. “You cannot provide universal higher education,” he said.He said in the speech to the Centre for the Study of Higher Education:We are approaching the limits of our capacity to continue to expand publicly funded university places.That was in 1993. This government has lifted them 40,000 above the point where they were when we came into office. As if that was not enough, he told the Australian on 25 October 1993:We're going to have to cap university expansion. We've got too many universities in this country. We don't need any more.That is the commitment of the Leader of the Opposition. This is the same Leader of the Opposition who gets up here and mouths these motherhood statements, without policy content, about the significance of universities for Australia's future. The Leader of the Opposition has the most abysmal record of any minister for education and training since the Second World War. He is a man who when in office totally neglected the 70 per cent of young Australians who do not go from school to university. He had no interest whatever in the promotion of studies for those young students to meet their skills. And everybody on the Labor side admitted it. Peter Baldwin, the former Labor member for Sydney, said in his lighthouse speech, `That was something we just didn't do enough about when we were in office.' It was clearly admitted. John Dawkins said exactly the same thing: `It was one of our big gaps.' It was still a big gap in Kim Beazley's speech in Hobart. He did not even mention these people. He does not know anything about it. He does not know what is happening out there—the revolution that is going on in the senior years of schooling as a result of this government's policies. Indeed, he is astonished when he finds out what is going on. In a recent visit to Lyndhurst Secondary College during, presumably, the campaign for the Isaacs by-election, he was immensely impressed with what he found. He said in a press release:Lyndhurst Secondary College now has a year 12 retention rate of 80 per cent and a tertiary entrance rate of 62 per cent. It is a great example of what can be achieved when schools, governments and communities work together to solve a problem.These are our policies that he is talking about. He called a press conference to praise our policies. These are the policies—the Jobs Pathway program, the Full Service Schools program, the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation. This is the consequence of linking 30,000 businesses with Australian schools over the last four years to make sure that young Australians have relevant skills that are going to lead them through to jobs. The Leader of the Opposition is actually stealing our policies. He has offered us the opportunity to steal his and we would be happy to pick them up, if there were any, if they were any good. They probably will not be, so we probably will not steal them. But anyway it is a kind offer on his part. This is the first opposition in history which is stealing the government's policies. They are already implemented and he is calling a press conferences to praise them. On some matters the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right. Our policies are working and they are giving students the skills that they need. When the Leader of the Opposition was education minister, the issue of literacy was still of some interest to people. But there were surveys coming through showing that there was a massive problem. What did he do about these surveys? He sat on them; he suppressed them. The Australian Education Union—as we know, it writes the Australian Labor Party's education policies and writes all their rhetoric, which is mouthed duly and obediently by people such as the member for Dobell—did not want these surveys published because they showed a problem. Kim Beazley decided that the best way to deal with this problem was to hide it, to brush it under the carpet and hope that nobody would notice. It was only after the change of government that these surveys were finally published, at my direction as minister. We found that 30 per cent of young people in year 9, 14-year-olds, could not read and write properly. These were the young people who were leaving school early and falling into the unemployment queues and becoming long-term unemployed.The Labor Party is a party which bleats constantly about equity, fairness and social justice. Where was the equity, fairness and social justice in refusing to acknowledge this problem and doing something about it? When I became minister for education I found that, over the entire 13 years of Labor, not a single study had ever been done to assess what was the best way to teach young people to read and write—no evaluation of methods to teach literacy skills. When the National English Literacy Survey was undertaken by us in our first year of government, it confirmed that this problem that had become apparent at year 9 began at year 3—in fact, it began at year 1; it was already very evident at year 3. So we put in place the first national literacy standards ever. They were opposed by the Australian Education Union. They have never been endorsed by the Labor Party—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Absolute rubbish!10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order!BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—The Labor Party knows that the Australian Education Union does not like these assessments, because these assessments can show that there is a problem in the schools that needs to be rectified and some people might think that teachers need more skills in order to address these problems. As part of our whole package to lift these skills and opportunities for young Australians, we put in place—contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition says—a $77 million quality teaching program, to teach teachers—MG4Lee, Michael, MPBT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—To teach them how to—MG4Lee, Michael, MPBT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—No, this follows on from—MG4Lee, Michael, MPBT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—That is absolutely wrong—professional development started from year 1 of the national literacy plan.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Oh, it's part of literacy funding, is it?BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—It is part of the literacy funding.MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dobell will be silent and the minister will ignore his interjections.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—So it is to go to teach teachers to address the needs of young people who need these skills. This is already in place. We are doing this, and the Labor Party is just thinking about it. Kim Beazley is saying this needs to be done. Perhaps if he visited another school after Lyndhurst Secondary College—and maybe the member for Dobell can arrange another visit to a school for the Leader of the Opposition—he will discover that this is already going on and that these skills are actually being taught to teachers now. MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Dobell is pushing it.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—We have in this Leader of the Opposition a former minister who simply does not understand education—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Hear, hear!10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Moreton should be silent.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—who has no interest in it, who is wrong in almost everything he says about it and who, worst of all, has betrayed, year after year, the young people in this country who are most disadvantaged, particularly the 70 per cent of young indigenous Australians who could not read or write after 13 years of Labor. We have acted to help them. The Labor Party has no claims to be a social justice party because it has never been concerned with educational outcomes. We are, we have put in place the policies to achieve those outcomes, and that is why Australians see this government as the first government for quite a long time to really address the educational needs of this country.16:03:0019886Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—Governments are responsible not just for Australia's wellbeing today or tomorrow but for Australia's wellbeing in the coming years and decades. There can be no doubt that the government is ignoring that responsibility, that it is failing in its duty to care. It is failing in its duty to look after the future wellbeing of our young people and our children. They are the ones that will suffer the consequences of this government's neglect and its failure to adequately resource the infrastructure that will guarantee them a future.The government's insistence on ignoring the value of education and research and development will hurt Australia for generations to come. From its very first days in government, the Howard government mounted a relentless attack on our R&D capacity, with cuts to R&D expenditure for the public sector agencies, a reduction in the major research and development tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent, and by making the position of chief scientist part time. There could not have been a stronger message sent to the community that this government had a minimal commitment to the development of science and technology. Since then, however, things have got worse and worse.It is a shocking indictment of this government that business expenditure on research and development has fallen every year since it came to office. Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on 29 August revealed that Australia has registered the worst percentage decline of the 17 OECD countries listed. This is at a time when other countries, including Japan, the United States and most of the countries of the European Union, have been steadily increasing their commitment to research and development as a percentage of GDP. The 10 per cent fall in gross expenditure on research and development is a damning indictment of a government that is holding back Australia's science and innovation based industries. This government's failure to encourage research and development is an attack on our future, particularly on the future of our young people. At a time when other developed nations can see the importance of supporting and encouraging the business and industries that are at the forefront of technological change, this government does less than nothing: this government actively discourages progress.Why is this government acting to slow down the creation of the high skilled, high waged jobs that Australia desperately needs to compete in the new economy? The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin, has admitted that his government's decision to cut the research and development tax concession in 1996 has been disastrous. He tells us that he will announce a strategy in 12 months to address the issue—12 months time. The chief scientist's report, to which my leader has just referred, underlines very clearly the strong link between research, innovation and growth. At a time when the only constant we know is change, our national wealth, the creation of new jobs and the hopes of our young people are entirely dependent on a reasonable level of expenditure on science and technology, on innovation and on education in science and technology. I suspect that part of the problem is that the Prime Minister just does not understand what progress means and is afraid of what he does not understand. He lives in another world—a world gone by where major technological innovations happened rarely and change was slow enough for him to cope with. He does not understand that this government is neglecting its responsibility to young Australians. He does not need to worry about their future; he has had the career he wanted. Doubtless he will write his memoirs in comfort, congratulating himself on his achievements. But if he goes outside his privileged world he will find thousands and thousands of Australians who were young when he was in office and who were deprived of the chance to work in the industries of the 21st century because this government did nothing to encourage research, development and innovation.The critical element is not only the immediacy of research and development but the future of young people in our schools today. This government when it was elected boasted that it was for all Australians. Now we know what it means by all Australians, or perhaps rather what it does not mean by all Australians. It certainly does not include the 70 per cent of children in government schools, because we have all read the memo where Dr Kemp wanted to encourage children away from government schools. It does not mean the 32,000 disabled children in secondary schools. How pathetically mean to withdraw $3 million over the next four years from this vulnerable group. And it does not include the children who live in rural Australia, who need support in their education. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has muddied education policy with his mantra of freedom of maximum choice for people. In fact, he has bored this parliament and the media into submission. As the Age editorial of 24 August stated, it is time for this minister to forget his silly rhetoric for choice and to meet his obligations as the minister to develop policy for the future needs of this nation.On Wednesday during question time the minister introduced a new mantra—obviously he has got bored too with the old one. The new mantra is: freedom and equity—fairness. But how can we take this mantra any more seriously than the old one? We know freedom of maximum choice was nothing more than code for, `If you don't have the ability to pay, you don't get the service.' We on this side of the House think that when the minister talks about freedom and equity he still really means, `If you don't have the money, you won't get the service.' How else can you possibly justify increasing the subsidies of the wealthiest 62 category 1 schools by $50 million, yet by his use of the enrolment benchmark adjustment reducing funding to government schools, even though their enrolments are increasing by a similar amount? The very idea that you can blur the public-private divide and create a single market in education is unworkable. Isn't it a sad indictment of this government that compulsory education is seen as a market? They just cannot help themselves. Everything has to be seen as a business. We have to make money out of everything. Wouldn't we rather that the business of the government was the goal of ensuring that each child has access to free, good quality education that is going to lead them to work and a feeling that they have a contribution to make to our community? That is the goal I want my government to have. I do not want it to be a business. There is no point in the minister for education testing our children to see if they are literate and then criticising the teachers and saying they are failing. The government needs to make a genuine commitment to making sure that the schools have the resources they need to ensure that our students get the results that they need. Labor has the policy answers to solve the problems created by this government. We will increase public investment in schools. We will increase investment in tertiary education and research and development. One of the initiatives will be the education priority zones. These will help local communities work with the Commonwealth government to solve the problems they are having. Education has always been seen by the Australian Labor Party as the means by which all people, regardless of wealth, are given the way to establish fulfilling and meaningful employment. In 1996 this government introduced the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment Scheme. This takes money from the state schools when the proportion of private enrolments increases, even when our public system is growing. It is unfair and we will abolish it. We will reinvest those funds in government schools. We are committed to increasing the number of research fellowships for Australian researchers. We will ensure that researchers have the opportunities they need and deserve at home. 1K6Billson, Bruce, MP83WGerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK—You can protest, but you are messing up our country. The government have failed to meet the demands of the time. They will stand condemned for their lack of commitment to supporting education and their destruction of the research and development capacity of Australian industry. The real answer is a Beazley government.16:12:0019888Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I am delighted to stand here today and respond to the matter of public importance the member for Dobell chose not to—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like the honourable member to withdraw the comment he made just a little while ago across the chamber that I was a spiv. I think that is unparliamentary and he should be asked to withdraw.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—I withdraw all reference to him as a spiv and I will continue my contribution.The matter of public importance today seeks to break new thresholds in irrelevance in terms of what is actually put before this parliament. Fortunately, there is not an obligation on those that submit it to actually have some relevance of proof or fact to their claims. There is a notion in here that there has not been action taken to advance our national interest, particularly when it comes to developing knowledge, opportunities that stem from it and our longer term capacity. It is also interesting that at the end of the day the Leader of the Opposition's emphasis is on our standing as a knowledge nation—not what we achieve, not what we do, not anything about the opportunities that are made available to our citizens but just how someone might see us. That gives you an insight into what this is all about. The motion is empty politicking. It is a further example of what the Treasurer spoke of today where the opposition are in stunt land. They say they are in tax planning land, that they are not in stunt land any longer. I reckon the knowledge nation claim is part of that barren place they have been, with poll driven antics and empty sloganeering. What is this place, the knowledge nation that the Labor Party talks about? Have you heard them talk about ideas? No, you have not heard them talk about ideas. Have you heard them talk about policy? You have not heard them talk about policy other than those hot ones that have been borrowed without consent from other parties that have actually developed the ideas. They are barren of commitment. You look at the commitment itself and even at the SES arrangements for funding. Isn't it interesting that the shadow minister has not consulted the member for Isaacs? The member for Isaacs could tell you something about the SES and why the school community she was a part of thought it was such a good idea. Maybe you should consult and get some insights into what choice in education is about and what role that plays in supporting parents and young people developing the tools and the building blocks so that they can participate in this country.Look at what the Leader of the Opposition is on about—it gives you an insight into what is really going on when we talk about the Leader of the Opposition and his commitment to the knowledge nation. The Leader of the Opposition has said that being minister for education was one of the most uninteresting experiences he has had. The biography written about him shares with us some of his views and interests, and there are some fascinating quotes. It is helpful to be reminded of them:... I thought that there was less capacity to achieve in that portfolio—being education— than just about any I have had.It gives you an idea why the slogan of `knowledge nation' is empty—because the Leader of the Opposition's heart is not in it. He said that it was a portfolio in which there was less capacity to achieve. That was his view. You look at the policy platform and you wonder why it is empty of ideas; it is empty of commitment. There are other references to the now Leader of the Opposition. He is referred to in the Australian on 3 March 1993 as `one of the most reluctant of education ministers'.Opposition members interjecting—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—It is great to see the members opposite warming up for the footy on the weekend, warming up for a bit of cheering at the AFL Grand Final on the weekend. The shadow education minister is at the table. He has missed out on making a contribution to this debate today because it is recognised that he has nothing to add. He could not crack it for a guernsey on the Labor Party's task force on the knowledge nation, and now he seeks to throw personal vitriol at me for highlighting his inadequacies. I thought you might have got a run off the interchange bench today—one day, perhaps. Let us push on. Why is there this task force? The Leader of the Opposition talks about his visit to the Lyndhurst Secondary College, about what a sensational school the Lyndhurst Secondary College is. Do you know why it is so sensational? It reflects the coalition government's policies. These things do not happen just by chance. These things do not happen by running around with slogans like `knowledge nation' and hoping that there will be some osmosis and that people will think, `That's what we're on about it; let's go and do it.' It actually takes a bit of thinking. It takes a bit of policy insight. It takes a commitment to making sure that you can put in place the programs that will make a difference.The member at the table was talking before about my background and my personal characteristics. I am happy to share those with people. I went to a secondary college that was a disadvantaged school. That is right: I went to one of those schools. I know a bit about how it works. I know how that policy operated on the ground, and I am happy to share that with the member for Dobell after he has consulted the member for Isaacs about why the SES funding arrangement is a good thing in her mind and why the Labor Party should get behind it. One of the things that the Labor Party seems to miss is that if you do not have the basic tools of a basic education you cannot participate in further opportunities. Three-quarters of young people leaving secondary colleges in this country are not going on to university, and all Labor wants to talk about is university. What is wrong with the three-quarters of our population that do not choose that pathway? Are they somehow less capable of contributing to our country? Absolutely not. They are the people who are in small businesses and trades, making a very meaningful contribution, driving innovation, putting their life efforts behind it. Are they not deserving of recognition? I think they are. Those people out there in small businesses and vocational trades are making a go of their lives, but you do not hear any discussion about them in the Leader of the Opposition's contribution. It is all about universities. If you leave the secondary college and you do not have the basic tools of being able to read and write—Opposition members interjecting—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—You can shout like you're at the footy—congratulations! If you do not have the basic tools of being able to read and write, how can you then go on to further training and development opportunities? This highlights the absolute hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue—talking about the building blocks of the knowledge nation and then denying individuals an opportunity to gain basic skills and competencies that will allow them to participate in the economic opportunities that we have.You talk about the record of the coalition government. I think that that is a terrific thing to talk about, frankly. Look at what is going on and you will see an increase in Commonwealth outlays to education—not a cut. This is the great fallacy we hear from those opposite, particularly the newer members. When your colleagues in the Labor Party talk about a cut in education, do you know what they are talking about? They are talking about what we have been able to provide compared with some fallacious, fantasy forward estimates from the Labor Party built on the assumption of a surplus—estimates that actually deliver a $10 billion deficit. How can you compare what we are doing with some midnight dreaming from the ALP, a party that could not balance the budget in a growth period of our economy? The Labor Party calls it a cut, but regular people look at the sums and see it differently. They look at the numbers: in 1995-96 there was $9.4 billion going into education. What is it now? Now there is $11.1 billion going into education. Most regular people think $11.1 billion is more than $9.4 billion—it is an increase. When one number is bigger than the other, that is an increase. It is not a cut; it is an increase. I am happy to go through that again slowly! Look at the breakdown of figures in public school funding. There was an 18 per cent increase in 1994. An increase is not a cut; an increase means more—18 per cent more in this case. Look at other areas. Government schools are receiving an extra $1.4 billion over the next four years compared to the last four-year funding period. Look at the resources that have gone into the national literacy plan, helping to test 30 per cent of Australian schoolchildren so that as they go through those early years of their education they learn to read and write. The ability to read and the ability to write are basic tools if you want to engage in any sort of economy. If you are serious about the knowledge nation, you have to make sure that there are the basic tools with which to enter into our economy and our society—but that is something that was not of interest to the Labor Party. We have doubled the number of people that are in new apprenticeships. Apprentices are fine, talented, gifted people—some of them not necessarily academically minded but they are talented people nonetheless—able to make a contribution to our economy. There are 264,000 new apprentices in training as of the middle of this year, picking up the numbers from a 30-year low bequeathed to us by the ALP. What is it you have against people with vocational skills? Don't you recognise the contribution they can make to communities right around our country and the innovation that goes on in smaller businesses, often driven by people who have not gone to university, because they are out there every day toiling with new ideas and new insights?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Many in Dunkley.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—A great place. What happened at the national ALP conference down there in Tasmania? I do not know whether there was a lot of practice shouting for the footy going on; one thing that was not going on was any discussion about IT. What happened on the day when information technology and communications were to be discussed? There were 14 sessions on the agenda, and the ALP had 17 federal shadow ministers supposedly talking about policy, but when it came to information technology and communications what was the offering? Enjoying life: arts, culture and heritage. Anything about IT? Anything about communications? Anything about the biggest revolution going on in our world? Nothing. They got to talk about arts, culture and heritage. Important as that is, what about talking about something that we all know is transforming our lives? In the electorate of Dunkley, we are having an e-commerce expo. We are showing what can be done, supporting our community and doing real things, not just flapping our gums like you guys. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Committees19891198911989116:23:0019891Slipper, 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: Proposed ABC Perth Accommodation Project, East Perth, Western Australia.The Australian Broadcasting Corporation proposes to construct new office accommodation and studio facilities in East Perth. The ABC is seeking to consolidate and improve its Perth accommodation in a way that meets its organisational and strategic objectives. These objectives include: addressing the particular problems and inefficiencies relating to its existing accommodation in Perth; generating revenue for the ABC's digital conversion program; restructuring of the corporation into a content led organisation capable of meeting the challenges of a changing media environment; and maximising the efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation. The proposed development will replace inadequate buildings and facilities at 191 Adelaide Terrace in Perth, with accommodation at East Perth that is up to date, functional, safe, compliant and designed to maximise efficiency, output and creativity. Many of the buildings on the Adelaide Terrace site are in a poor state of repair and are inappropriate for the functions they contain. Analysis has shown that it would not be cost effective or practical to rehabilitate and maintain this inefficient and unserviceable accommodation to modern standards and, in property terms, the current ABC occupation represents a gross underutilisation of the development potential of this prime near-CBD site. This development proposal involves the purchase of a new site at East Perth from the East Perth Redevelopment Authority, the construction of new facilities and the sale of the existing ABC Adelaide Terrace site.The broadcasting industry is currently undergoing a major transformation with the advent of digital broadcasting. This project will provide the ABC with the facilities required for digital production and transmission, including facilities suitable for both wide-screen standard definition television and high definition television production. This project will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the ABC in a number of ways, such as property rationalisation, which will generate revenue to support the digital conversion program of the ABC; production will become more efficient through appropriate building layout, physical proximity and custom-design facilities; enhanced opportunities for cross-media content development and program research will support the generation and re-versioning of content for new services; and integrated technical support and archives facilities that are easily accessible by staff will improve efficiency and contribute to the range and depth of output.The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal is $28.5 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in March 2001, with completion and occupancy by December 2002. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills19891R111919891Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments— (1) Schedule 1, item 26, page 14 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute:26 Paragraph 54(6)(a)After “divisional application”, insert “for a standard patent provided for in section 79B”. (2) Schedule 1, page 14 (before line 11), before item 27, insert:26A Subsection 55(1)After “under section 54”, insert “or under subsection 62(3)”. (3) Schedule 1, item 34, page 15 (after line 29), at the end of section 62, add: (3) If: (a) a divisional application provided for in section 79B is made for an innovation patent; and (b) a notice is published in the Official Journal that the complete specification filed in respect of the divisional application is open to public inspection;the Commissioner must also publish in the Official Journal a notice that the complete specification filed in respect of the original application on which the divisional application is based is open to public inspection. (4) Schedule 1, item 42, page 17 (after line 15), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) The reference to a complete patent application first-mentioned in subsection (1) does not include a reference to a divisional application for an innovation patent provided for in section 79C. (5) Schedule 1, page 28 (after line 6), after item 57, insert:57A Subsection 114(2)Repeal the subsection. (6) Schedule 1, item 74, page 32 (line 3), omit “request” (second occurring), substitute “specification”.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.19892Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Committees1989219892Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave— agreed to:That Dr Nelson be discharged from the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs and that in his place Dr Washer be appointed a member of the committee, and that Ms Livermore be discharged from the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and in her place Mr Griffin be appointed as a member of that committee.Bills19892The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000Trade Marks Amendment (Madrid Protocol) Bill 2000Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme Extension Bill 2000Bills19892R112519892Debate resumed.16:29:0019892O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—When the earlier debate on this bill was adjourned, I was lauding the member for Corangamite for his love of Geelong wines and I was discussing the potential of the wine industry in the Geelong region. I know the honourable member for Corangamite has not been offended by the remarks I was making because he slipped me a note during question time on the matters we had under discussion. I think he slipped me the note because honourable members might not know that he is a marathon man, a marathon runner, and he wants to get his times out into the public arena. He chided me for not mentioning the fantastic half marathon he ran from Corop to Warrnambool in two hours and three minutes. All I can say to the honourable member is that we know he loves Geelong wines. He juices up in Corio, he psyches himself up as he drives through Corangamite and then, of course, he runs like a tortoise in Wannon. I have to say to the honourable member: `We want you down in Geelong to sample our fine reds and whites.'We have a wine industry that is really showing great potential in the region and we acknowledge the constraints on it. We do have a wine community in the seat of Corio. The urban areas are in a sense encroaching on some of the good production lands around Geelong but, with careful planning, we can cater for both the needs of the urban environment and the needs of this very important industry in the region. Another constraint on the industry is, of course, the adequacy of the water supply. Many members might not know that, in the Geelong region, we have had some three years of water restrictions. This is a potential constraint on a very important and growing wine industry in the region. In the last 12 months we have seen the industry coming together, the winemakers coming together, with the City of Geelong and with the tourist authority in Geelong to better promote Geelong wines. We are seeing that, with good planning at the local level, we are getting a very important growth in this excellent industry for Geelong.So, in my concluding remarks on this particular piece of legislation, let me say that we have put this second reading amendment on the quarantine aspects to give members an opportunity to debate what we think is a very important issue for Australian agriculture, and indeed for Australia generally—that is, the efficiency and the professionalism of our quarantine service and whether it is being adequately resourced by this government. I did mention in the debate earlier today that the government would define `adequate resourcing' as not taking away money from AQIS and from the quarantine task—that is, it may well have maintained expenditures over the period it has been in office and it might well argue that it has not subjected this particular area to the types of savage cutbacks we have seen in other areas. The point I was making in that debate is the fact that, over the life of this coalition, our trading performance has grown, as it did under Labor. I do not hide that fact. I am not here to say that just because a coalition government is in power this country is not exporting or that there has been no growth in exports. But certainly we saw over the Labor years, and we are seeing now, reasonably good export performances from our industrial base, from our economy, and, of course, with that and with the growth in imports comes increasing pressure on the quarantine task. Therefore, along with the massive movements of people in and out of Australia and within Australia and, of course, the responsibilities we now assume under the WTO, we would have expected a significant increase in expenditure on the quarantine task. I have moved the amendment but, at the end of the day, we will not be opposing this piece of legislation.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the amendment seconded?84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.16:36:0019893Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—It is always interesting to rise in this House after the member for Corio and put straight some of the propositions that he puts in the area of agriculture. I note that the Labor Party do not have anyone who has any knowledge of agricultural industries on their side. The member for Corio claims that he was born on a dairy farm, but I think he soon found that the union movement was more comfortable and a better career for him than milking cows. I will not pad out 30 minutes as the member for Corio has done, because the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 is rather simple legislation. I think the very fact that he has moved a frivolous amendment to this bill to enable him to go on at some length on issues that were not relevant really shows that he does not understand this very much at all.Rather than putting forward an amendment which suggests that AQIS is not doing its job in Australia, the honourable member for Corio should admit that AQIS has done an exceptional job in the areas it covers. I agree with him when he says that quarantine is a very important area in Australia, particularly for many of our industries. Our isolation ensures that we do not have some of the world's great pests and diseases; therefore, we are very keen to try to keep this country free from them. He also made reference to the honourable member for Leichhardt, who was in the chamber at the time. The honourable member for Leichhardt would be well aware that a couple of years ago an exotic fruit fly entered Australia, near Cairns in North Queensland. AQIS did a great job in eliminating that pest from Australia. I know of at least two occasions when the Mediterranean fruit fly entered Australia through the Kununurra district in Western Australia. AQIS did a great job in cleaning up that exotic fruit fly.The member for Corio is being very unfair in suggesting that AQIS is not doing its job. I believe it has done a good job. I suppose that agricultural industries believe that it is a little too strong at times. It is criticised because of our commitments to the world trade agreement, which means it has to make assessments on whether imports can come into this country. We all know that industries prefer not to have competition, and therefore the organisation does come under some criticism. Criticism is reasonable if it is fair, but we have a commitment. It was not this government that signed the world trade agreement, but it was signed by Australia and has to be honoured. Therefore, sometimes the decisions that AQIS has to make in these areas of trade are not totally supported by some industries.These amendments are rather simple and try to streamline the areas where AQIS works. Getting some modern technology involved where products imported into this country have to be assessed by AQIS will hopefully make it cheaper. That, surely, is something that we should be applauding. Extra powers have been given to AQIS in these areas, particularly in relation to exotic insects that may come into this country. It will have extra powers to search and destroy. Having been a minister for forestry in New South Wales, I am well aware of some of the insects that can come into this country and have devastating effects on our exotic forests and our pine forests. It is important that these pests be kept out of this country. The honourable member for Corio talked about Australian trade and how it is growing, and it is growing commendably. He talked at length about the wine industry, which has done a magnificent job in the last few years in gaining markets, particularly in Europe, under very strong competition. Those industries are able to do that because they have the support of the Australian government. They have confidence that they are protected by measures in this bill, and that exotic diseases and pests cannot get into this country and decimate industries.During the parliamentary break, I visited Argentina. If anyone wants some knowledge of what foot-and-mouth disease can do in the cattle industry, it is worth a trip to see those countries that have had to put up with that disease for many years. While I was in Argentina, they declared themselves free of foot-and-mouth. It had taken them years to do it with inoculations. Sadly, I was no sooner back in Australia than there had been another outbreak of foot-and-mouth in Argentina. That means that that country cannot export to world markets, which is a very big detriment to its trade. Australia needs to be able to trade in agricultural products, and we know how important they are to this country. I think that brings home to us how important it is to have the protections that we have in our agricultural industries.The second part of the bill is very simple. I know the member for Corio said that the government should have got it right in the first place. I have probably been around parliaments in Australia a little longer than the member for Corio, and I recall quite often legislation being amended in a small way because it was not working exactly as it was intended. Thank goodness that, if parliaments can see that legislation is not working the way it was intended, they can quickly rectify it so the original intention of the legislation can be carried through. I support the bill. I think it is a very simple bill. It is obviously bringing into place legislation that will help in the protection of industries in this country and make our quarantine services more effective.16:43:0019894Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 is an important bill, and I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. As has been mentioned by the member for Corio, if we get the provisions of AQIS wrong it has huge repercussions for areas such as the McMillan electorate and other regional seats right across Australia. We do not want to see an outbreak of Newcastle disease, which would damage the chicken industry. We do not want to see foot-and-mouth disease in Australia, which would damage the beef industry. We do not want to see any disease introduced into Australia which has the potential to undermine the good work being done by the many rural industries which people in regional communities so heavily depend upon.In considering the performance of AQIS, I urge members to at all times run the rule of commonsense over decisions. I have had conversations about AQIS with abattoirs in my electorate and about some of the hardness AQIS applies to circumstances the abattoirs often face. We do need AQIS to be a thorough, strong and accountable authority, but I do not think anyone in this chamber or in Australia more generally would want to see the compliance requirements of AQIS so rigidly enforced that companies in rural areas such as my electorate are forced to go to the wall as a result of complying with its requirements. I make that point whilst we are talking about AQIS and its performance because I do not think it is something which we should allow ourselves to lose sight of.I want to talk a little bit today about an industry which is particularly important to my constituency, the seed potato industry. It is an important employer in West Gippsland generally and across the entire Gippsland region, but in particular it is an important employer in the town of Thorpdale in the south of my constituency. To give you an idea of how important an employer the potato industry is in Thorpdale, I can recount to you a time when I went to the Thorpdale Primary School for the first time as a member of parliament. I asked the children in the group that I was addressing, which was made up of grade 5 and grade 6 students, how many of them had parents who worked in the potato industry. Every kid except one in the class put their hand up, and it turned out that that one student was the son of one of the schoolteachers. We should not understate the importance of the potato industry to small towns like Thorpdale which have depended, and still depend, very heavily on the potato industry for their livelihood. Over the years there have been substantial efforts made by people in the seed potato industry in particular to value add and to export. These are all things which we, as parliamentarians, encourage, and what people universally agree need to be done in terms of Australia's rural industries. We want to see more value adding. We want to see more export of our primary produce. That is what they have done and the success they have had is a tribute to them.I would point to some statistics which have been provided to me by Seed Potatoes Victoria, the peak body representing seed potato growers right across the state of Victoria. They have kindly provided me with this graph which shows that in 1993 some $223,000 worth of seed potato was exported compared with, in 1999, $2.9 million worth of seed potato exports. You can see very clearly from this graph that the industry has been experiencing some success in its efforts to export its product, namely, the seed potato. That is the sort of thing we need to encourage. That is the sort of thing we need to get behind, because towns like Thorpdale need to have an industry which it is dependent on, which is not stagnating, which is not going backwards and which is not harking back to the golden days of the 1940s or the 1950s but which is actually growing its product, value adding to its product and exporting its product, in particular to Asia. This is the sort of thing we need to get behind.It is worth noting the percentage of seed potato exports as a proportion of total potato exports for the industry over that period. Once again Seed Potatoes Victoria has kindly provided me with two graphs which demonstrate this information. The graphs illustrate that, in 1993, $223,000 worth of seed potatoes were exported compared with $4.2 million worth of total potato exports. In 1999 that had grown to $2.9 million worth of seed potatoes exported compared with $13.189 million of normal potato exports, I guess we would call them. So you can see that not only has the amount of seed potato exported grown but as a proportion of all potato exports over that period it has grown as well.The reason that I mention this information is not only to inform the House of a great success story in terms of the value adding and export of an Australian primary product but also to highlight the risk to the seed potato industry which has been created by, of all things, the goods and services tax. I have here a letter which I will read out in part to the House. This is a letter from Seed Potatoes Victoria and written by the executive officer, Tony Pitt. The imposition of GST on seed potatoes but not on normal potatoes has the potential to be a significant problem for the industry and to substantially undermine the industry and the good work which they have been doing. This is a letter which he has written to the Australian Taxation Office. His letter was prompted by a decision of the Australian Taxation Office to reverse the goods and services tax status of seed potatoes to be no longer GST free. He says in his letter:This is a decision which will undermine the work of the last 60 years to develop a certification system for potatoes, a system that has benefited both the industry and consumers.He goes on:It is an extremely competitive marketplace and potatoes are traded in a variety of different ways. A certified seed crop is differentiated from other potato crops in that it has followed a system of management protocols and crop health checks determined by the certification authority. When harvested, the potatoes are visually no different from any other potatoes of the same variety but they are able to be labelled as certified seed and generally attract a premium price if sold for seed purposes. This is the value adding that I was talking about, not just putting them in the ground and then flogging them off without any sort of thinking in terms of value adding going on. They are actually working to a management plan which is so strict that it is accredited, and that allows them to charge a premium price for their product. As I said before, this is something which we need to encourage, not discourage.Mr Pitt's letter is quite long. I do not want to read it all out—I do not think I will have time—but he does go on in his letter to say: The impost of a 10 per cent goods and services tax on potatoes sold with certification labels will clearly drive buyers towards other products. Some of this will be to unlabelled seed and some will be to potatoes not produced within certification protocols.He also states what he sees as being some of the likely repercussions of this action taken by the federal government. He says:The result will not be in the interests of the potato industry, the consumers or Australia as a whole. It may be a worst case scenario, but I can visualise the following as likely repercussions of the decision ...He then made quite a few dot points in his letter. I might just get to those which most poignantly illustrate the point: `the certification system collapses due to financial constraints', `private certification schemes will probably develop to replace the current scheme'—although there is some concern as to the effectiveness of those and whether or not there will be the same trust associated with them as is the case with the current scheme—`export trade and certified seed collapses because importing countries will not recognise the integrity of privately run schemes' and `the work done in developing a certification scheme in potatoes for the past 60 years is lost as personnel and expertise leave to find other areas of employment'. The last point he makes is `consumers suffer in the long term as disease levels rise again in potato districts and quality and farm productivity decline'. They are the points made by Seed Potatoes Victoria—the peak authority for seed potato growers in the state of Victoria—about the imposition of the GST on their industry. It is important to note that in May of this year Seed Potatoes Victoria had a ruling from the Australian Taxation Office saying that seed potatoes would be GST free. In June there was a reversal of that decision. That meant that the previous advice was no longer current, and they had prepared on the basis of that previous advice. Many people in the industry—as has been illustrated by this letter—have some very grave concerns about the impact of the GST on seed potatoes and what it will mean for their certification process, which they have worked long and hard for some 50 or 60 years to get up and running and to have as a real success story. And it is a real success story. They are exporting more than ever and they have been able to get into some of those tough markets in Asia as well, and it is really to their credit.I note that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is at the table, and I appreciate him being a part of this debate. I would again urge the minister to use whatever power he has to overturn that decision in relation to the GST status of seed potatoes, so that the industry can continue its success, continue to build on its export successes and actually develop the potential that so many of us have seen in the potato industry for quite a few years. I urge the minister, in the best bipartisan tradition of this place, to please take that consideration seriously and perhaps, if he sees fit, report back to the House at some point in the future.The reason I mention the seed potato industry in particular in relation to this bill is that people in the seed potato industry have raised with me a concern that they have in relation to potato cyst nematode—PCN. I have written to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to this matter. I have his correspondence here which I will mention at least in part. The minister responded on 29 June to my correspondence which I sent on 30 May, and I appreciate the considered letter that he wrote in response. I advise the minister that, to the best of my knowledge—even though this was a considered response from him to me in relation to a serious issue—there has still been precious little progress made in relation to the concerns which seed potato growers in Victoria have about artificial trade barriers between Victoria and other states being created by state administrations refusing to admit that PCN in Victoria is now completely eradicated and no longer a problem. This is a serious issue. The Constitution of Australia does require that there be no trade barriers between states. I fear that we have state administrations in Australia using PCN as a reason to basically stop competition from the very efficient and very productive seed potato growers in Victoria, in particular in Thorpdale. GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—Talk to your mate David Lewellyn in Tasmania.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—The minister tells me to speak to my colleagues. I can assure him that I have done and will do. But I would make the point that the intervention of the minister on behalf of these people would be gratefully welcomed. If the minister were interested in coming to my constituency to meet with these people, I would be very pleased to organise that for him. This is a serious issue. When you are talking about towns like Thorpdale where, as I mentioned before, all the mums and dads are employed in the potato industry, you cannot afford to let an issue like this go without the government attention it deserves.There are two government issues affecting the industry. The first issue is the imposition of the GST, which is going to, in my view and in the view of Seed Potatoes Victoria, drive people away from the certified product to the non-certified product, which will lead to the destruction of all the good work they have done. The second issue is the establishment of the artificial trade barriers, as I described them, on the very flimsy basis of a PCN problem in Victoria. I think we owe it to the people of Thorpdale and of West Gippsland generally, who depend on this industry, to come up with an appropriate public policy response to the very serious problem which confronts their towns. I would point out again—and I do not think we should ever lose sight of this—that, if left to their own devices, the seed potato industry in Victoria would be going great guns. It really seems that it is only government regulation that is standing in their way. I do not think it is a good thing for us to lose sight of that or to be flippant about it. The two things which stand in their way are the establishment by government of these artificial trade barriers and the GST imposed by government. We really owe it to them to not shackle them or stand in the way of their progress in terms of developing export markets, particularly those in Asia. They have done good work. They have been productive. They have been forward thinking. We really need to reward that work rather than punish them by forcing them to endure all sorts of government red tape and bureaucratisation of their industry. As I said, we need to be always conscious of the need to free up these industries rather than restrict them through unnecessary administration costs and charges and all the rest of those things which stand in the way of their progress. I conclude by thanking my colleague the member for Corio for his interest in this issue. The member for Corio has been down to my constituency on a number of occasions to meet with potato growers on this issue, and he has been able to provide good advice and be an effective voice for their concerns. I place on record my thanks to the member for Corio for his interest in this area, and I know that it is ongoing. Again I extend a sincere invitation to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is at the table, to come and meet with potato growers in my district so that he might see and hear at first-hand the concerns which they have in relation to this industry. If his timetable does not allow that, he might consider requesting a response from his department on some of the concerns which I have addressed in my remarks today in relation to both PCN and the establishment of the artificial trade barriers, which I do not think anyone in this House thinks are appropriate. In Australia we need to do something in a bipartisan way to fix them. We also need to look at the imposition of the GST on seed potatoes but not on normal potatoes, which I think is an anomaly. I do not think it was a situation that could ever have been imagined when the GST legislation was drafted. I challenge anyone to point out the difference between a sack of spuds that are seed potatoes and another sack of spuds that are not seed potatoes. To avoid the cost, the additional 10 per cent GST which they will have to apply, people will start saying that seed potatoes are not seed potatoes, so all the good work in terms of certification will actually be for nothing because there is an additional 10 per cent fee attached to them. So the market will be distorted, if you like, by the impact of the GST, and that is not a good thing. We do not want to see that. That is the sort of product that we want to encourage because it is a certified product and a certified product leads to less risk of PCN in the future. These are the types of things we want to encourage. In the last few seconds I have left, I invite the minister to ask a senior officer in his department or an adviser to review some of the comments I have made today and perhaps undertake to write back to me in due course so that I can provide that information to my constituents.17:03:0019898Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise to take part in the debate on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. This bill was introduced on 28 June and is of importance to Australia's horticulture industries and the grape growing and wine producing industries. Both industry sectors are of importance to primary industry in Australia and in my own region of central Victoria. This bill makes a number of amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908 and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980. The first provision of the bill relates to quarantine operations. This provision is designed to amend the Quarantine Act 1908 in response to the Nairn report of 1996 on Australian quarantine operations. That report, in recommendation 63, suggests that Quarantine Australia:Develop and increase the use of electronic information systems to speed the clearance of cargo, subject to the development of satisfactory quality assurance systems and audit procedures.The government responded to the Nairn report in 1997 and backed the proposal to enhance electronic systems that facilitate the clearance of cargo. The amendment before the House gives effect to this development and, as the minister indicated in his second reading speech, the new part VA is aimed to provide a legislative framework for this system. Accordingly, amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908 allow for the use of a computer based system for the clearance of cargo and a person to be appointed as both quarantine officer for plants as well as for animals. Of course, this is one of the more interesting aspects of this bill and I will have a little bit more to say about that later on in this speech.The bill also allows for the director of quarantine to take into account offences against prescribed state and territory laws, as well as Commonwealth laws, when assessing the suitability of a person to manage a place where goods subject to quarantine may be treated or otherwise dealt with. It also provides for a quarantine officer to give directions to a person in control of a vehicle. At present directions must be given to the owner of the vehicle, leading to problems if the owner cannot be easily contacted. It also provides for a quarantine officer to direct treatment of premises that have been exposed to quarantine risk, even if the animal or plant which had carried the risk is no longer itself subject to quarantine. Seizure notices are also to be given to a consignee or addressee as well as to an importer. This is important with respect to mail items.The second set of amendments relate to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation and, in particular, to the voting arrangements that have existed for payers of the wine grapes levy and payers of the wine export charge at the corporation's annual general meetings. The amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 allow payers of the wine export charge, as well as payers of the wine grape levy, to vote at annual general meetings of the Wine and Brandy Corporation. This had been the government's intention, and the industry's understanding, when the Wine Export Charge Act 1997 was introduced, but their failure to simultaneously amend the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act at that time led to an anomaly in the voting arrangements. This bill provides for the appointment of a person to act as a quarantine officer for both animals and plants and it is timely in relation to the potential dangers emerging as a result of the possible flood of fruit and other agricultural items into Australia. I refer in particular to the concern that is being expressed in the apple and pear producing industries in Victoria over the danger of fire blight being brought into Victoria. In my electorate of Bendigo, the Harcourt Valley region produces quality apples and pears and is a fast-growing area for grapes for both the table and the wine industry, and I know that local producers are very worried about their futures should their orchards and vineyards become contaminated. Equally concerned are the growers in the Goulburn Valley who have been very vocal in their opposition to AQIS lifting bans on quarantine which will allow fruit from overseas to enter Australia. A report appeared in the Shepparton News on 13 July this year following reports that the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service is, in fact, revisiting its decision to stop apple imports from New Zealand, where the disease is endemic. At the time of this item's publication, growers in the district were still waiting for the AQIS ruling and several deadlines for the ruling had already passed. The concerns of producers in the district were given all the more focus because a visiting international contingent had been on the road educating growers about the threat of the disease.Before I continue with the report from the Shepparton News I thought I should refer to the AQIS fact sheet on the Internet, where there is a special section concerning the disease of fire blight in apples and pears. The AQIS fact sheet has these comments on fireblight:Fireblight is an extremely infectious and destructive bacterial disease of apples and pears. The disease also occurs on several members of the family `Rosaceae', including wild and ornamental species. The organism may persist in stem cankers and is therefore difficult to eradicate. Fireblight is endemic on native rosaceous species in North America, particularly the eastern parts of the United States. When the European pear was first cultivated in North America, the fireblight organism was found a favourable host ...In particular the AQIS fax sheet says:The apple industry in South Queensland and the pear industry of the Goulburn Valley in Victoria are considered most vulnerable, but apples and pears growing anywhere in Australia could be attacked by fireblight, should this organism enter the country ...The fax sheet continues:Fireblight is a native of North America. It first spread to New Zealand in 1920, Bermuda in 1938, Mexico in 1943, United Kingdom in 1957 and Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Guatemala in 1996. Subsequently the disease has spread to Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, northern France, Switzerland, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Lebanon, Armenia, Bulgaria, Jordan, countries of the former Jugoslavia, Italy, Romania, Moldavia, Israel, Turkey and Iran.This disease gets around.The AQIS fact sheet lists the species that are susceptible to fire blight and notes the symptoms. It says:Infected blossoms and new shoots die and discolour, turning brown or black as if damaged by fire. Cankers develop on branches and twigs following invasion of the tissues. Initially these cankers are reddish in colour but progressively they become brown and then black.Describing the biology of victims of the disease, the AQIS fact sheet notes:All parts of the plant may be attacked including blossoms, twigs, spurs, fruit and branches. The bacteria enter through blossoms, natural openings or wounds, and multiply rapidly. Spring and summer hail storms can cause injuries, which provide ideal wounds through which infection can occur.The bacteria overwinter primarily in blighted twigs and stem cankers. Cankers remain dormant until the Spring when new growth commences. Bacteria are most active towards the outer edge of the cankers from which drops of exudate containing abundant bacteria are produced. The bacteria may be spread to blossoms from these exudates by insects, including bees, or by driving rain. Dispersal from the exudate also occurs to young shoots and wounds. What is especially informative in the AQIS fact sheet is the warning that the great danger with fire blight comes from the flesh of the fruit affected. This is noteworthy because growers are fearful that they could be facing a lifting by AQIS of the quarantine ban on apples from New Zealand.Under the heading `Quarantine Risk' the AQIS fact sheet notes:Introduced vegetatively propagated material represents the major quarantine risk. Seed free of pulp is not considered a quarantine risk ...and the fax sheet then notes:... Australia has adopted stringent precautions to minimise the risk of introducing fireblight.I return now to the report in the Shepparton News dated 13 July. Here there is a report of comments by Dr Tom van der Zwet, a US-based plant pathologist. He notes the conditions that fire blight likes and the kinds of pears grown in the Goulburn Valley. He is reported as saying that it was an explosive mix and one that he would be unprepared to risk if he were making the call on the future of Australia's $320 million apple and pear industry.In the Shepparton News Dr van der Zwet said that the way the disease established itself in new countries was unproven, but there was no doubt about the result. He is quoted as saying:If it's not caught in the first year, you'll never get rid of it.Dr van der Zwet said that the cost would come in controlling and managing it, that there were no registered drugs in Australia to treat it and it could threaten orchardists' livelihoods. Equally noteworthy is the reported comment of Shepparton orchardist George Themilis, a third generation orchardist in the district, who is quoted as saying in the Shepparton News:We're extremely disappointed in the whole process. We feel the risk is too great and that AQIS and the politicians have failed our industry in no uncertain terms. It's outrageous.I wish to refer also to concerns that have been aroused over the danger of admitting into Australia the killer vine disease known as Pierce's disease. The concern has been aroused because of the decision this year by AQIS to approve the importation of table grapes from California. I refer to the report in the Weekly Times of 9 August that the decision by AQIS is conditional on pre-shipment of inspections and methylbromide fumigation. It reports also that AQIS's decision is awaiting final government approval.I represent an area in Central Victoria where grape and wine production have been undergoing a rebirth and have started a reinvigorated life. This industry is now a significant element in the economy of the Bendigo region. I can understand why producers would worry about a disease like Pierce's disease. Grape and wine production was big in the Bendigo region in the 19th century until it was wiped out for decades by a disease known as Phylloxera. It has taken decades for the district's grape and wine industry to recover. It would be an outrage to see any section of the industry anywhere in Australia endangered by other diseases and to have to contemplate the possibility of any kind of new threat to the flourishing young industry in Central Victoria.I note that the Weekly Times reports that the table grape, dried fruit and wine industries are protesting, quite rightly, that not enough is known about Pierce's disease. This disease is presently playing havoc in California, from where the `coals to Newcastle' grapes would be imported to Australia. The disease has existed there since the 1880s, with sporadic outbreaks until 1997 when phenomenal damage was done through the agency of its carrier—a small insect known as the `glassy-winged sharp-shooter'. That damage has been immense, prompting the United States government to allocate $40 million to stop the disease. A state of emergency has been declared in California.Australian grape industry spokespeople are fearful that, if the disease gets to Australia, it could create devastation. They are not convinced by AQIS's claims that fumigation by methyl bromide will destroy the sharp-shooter as there have been apparently no specific studies to prove the effectiveness of methyl bromide for this purpose. These anxieties have been aired by David Hunt-Sharman, the executive officer of the Australian Table Grape Association, and by the Australian Dried Fruits Association, the Murray Valley Wine Grape Growers Council and the Australian Winemakers Federation. The Labor Party has no problem with this bill, but I caution the government to heed the advice of the fruit growers and ensure that this important sector of our agriculture industry is not threatened by diseases that have so far not contaminated our orchards. My colleague the Labor candidate for Murray, Allan Calder, informs me that orchardists in the Goulburn Valley are watching this matter with great interest—as are the growers in the Harcourt Valley and other areas of Central Victoria. The people involved in this industry may face disaster if the minister for agriculture makes the wrong decision. For my part, I am pleased to be able to put this back on the national agenda and trust that the minister will carry out decisions that allow this industry to survive.I also note that during the research for this debate there were some people from the industry in Canberra this week. I am not sure if they met with the minister, but I know that they did meet with some of the other MPs. That shows the depth of concern that people have about the potential dangers of fire blight in the orchard industry and Pierce's disease in the wine industry. There were allegations of a fire blight outbreak found in a tree in a Melbourne park some years ago. I understand that a New Zealand person made those allegations but nothing more came of it. During the debate my colleague the member for Corio had some wonderful things to say about the wine industry in the Geelong area. I am sure he is right; I am sure they produce some very good quality wines in that area, but I would like to inform him that Bendigo is a superb boutique wine growing area. We have a whole host of superb wineries, with wine crops virtually surrounding the whole district.The member for Corio, in his contribution, suggested that the member for Corangamite was a great connoisseur of Geelong wines—he probably is. I issue an invitation to the member for Corangamite to visit Bendigo again. He was in Bendigo some three or four weeks ago on a parliamentary committee, looking at our heritage buildings, and was very impressed with the buildings he saw. He kept asking about me about wineries and I kept telling him that I would be more than happy to show him some wineries on another visit—we were very busy at the time. I also issue an invitation, and echo the words of my colleague the member for McMillan, to the minister for agriculture to visit the Bendigo region to see the wine industry and the apple and pear orchards in the Harcourt Valley and to learn first-hand how the industry is faring. It is a very efficient industry—an industry that we are all very proud of in Central Victoria. It is an industry that would be in some danger of fire blight and other diseases if AQIS were to lift the import ban on fruit from New Zealand. There are a whole range of areas that need to be looked at. I would personally be very pleased if the minister were able to visit that area, to consult with the industry and to learn first-hand about their problems.17:20:0019901Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank members who contributed to the debate on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. There have been some quite constructive contributions on quarantine issues and matters of interest to agriculture. It was a rare but pleasing sight to see two or three members of the opposition contributing to a debate on agricultural issues—that is very rare indeed. Nearly all of the contributions come from those members who represent the agricultural industries, namely, the members of the National and Liberal parties on the government benches.The bill deals with basically two separate sets of issues: amendments to the Quarantine Act and amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporations Act. The main amendment to the Quarantine Act is the insertion of a new part to facilitate speedier clearance of international cargo through the use of a computerised system for issuing notices. The legislation will support AQIS in maximising the use of technology to make the most efficient use of its resources. Other amendments proposed to the Quarantine Act will ensure that AQIS is able to deal more effectively with quarantinable diseases and pests if they are discovered in Australia. While AQIS strives to keep such quarantine risks offshore and works actively with our international trading partners to achieve this goal, some quarantinable pests and diseases will make it past the border. Timber pests are of particular concern. Australia is free of many timber pests and their establishment in Australia would affect not only our native and plantation forests but also rural areas and vital agricultural industries, and could also prove a problem for backyard trees. This bill strengthens the power of the Quarantine Act to deal with these sorts of issues. There are a range of other, perhaps more minor, amendments which deal with some of the regulations and other elements of the act.Members in their remarks have made a number of comments about the importance of maintaining Australia's disease-free status in industries wherever they exist. I wholeheartedly concur with those views. It is absolutely essential that Australia adopts and maintains high standards of quarantine. Some of the criticisms from the member for Corio suggesting that the government has somehow or another reduced expenditure or its efforts in quarantine are completely false. Indeed, the government has devoted increased resources to quarantine measures. If the honourable member was to visit parts of North Queensland, particularly areas like the Torres Strait and across into the Northern Territory and north-west Western Australia, he could not help but notice the significant effort that is now going into quarantine in that regard. I was in the Torres Strait islands a few months ago. Virtually every island now has a quarantine officer, or if it is an uninhabited island then there will be unattended traps which are visited regularly to try and intercept any risk of insect passage through those islands to mainland Australia. There is a real effort being put into those barrier areas where a particular effort needs to be made. As we are on the eve of the Sydney Olympics, our attention is also drawn to the importance of having a strong quarantine effort at airports. Bear in mind most of the traffic in and out of the country and therefore most of the risk actually comes through the legitimate movement of people to and from the country, especially through our airports and our ports. There needs to be a vigilant effort in that regard at all times.The second section of the bill deals with the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act. Currently, two different levies are paid to the Wine and Brandy Corporation. The first is known as the wine grapes levy. It is paid to the corporation by wine producers. The second is known as the wine export charge, and it is paid by wine exporters. There are a number of wine businesses that pay both levies. In 1997 when the Wine Export Charge Act was introduced, the intention was to give the payers of both levies the same voting rights at the annual general meeting. A number of consequential amendments were made to the act but inadvertently not all relevant sections were changed. These amendments rectify those anomalies. There has been widespread support around the chamber for the contents of this bill. I note that the opposition has a fairly superficial amendment which does not deal with the substance of the matters in the bill. Naturally we reject both the content and the intent of the amendment, but I thank the opposition for their support of the substantive measures in the bill.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.19903Bill (on motion by Mr Truss)—by leave—read a third time.Adjournment19903Motion (by Mr Truss) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1990317:27:0019903Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I always find participating in the adjournment debate in this House and bringing praise to local achievement something I can be very proud of. I am not proud today to talk about lack of local achievement. Sadly, nothing could be more embarrassing for the ACT than the current fiasco going on, led by a Liberal local government, in relation to the Bruce Stadium. The Bruce Stadium is a fiasco that began some time ago, when the original estimate of redevelopment cost was $27 million, with $12.7 million of that coming from the public purse. Now, somewhere between $39 million and $50 million has been spent on the redevelopment out of the public purse. We still do not have a naming rights sponsor, so it is still called the Bruce Stadium and accordingly some of the money has been lost. The Olympic effort to bring the Games to Canberra, nothing of which I would ever object to, has so far cost or will cost in the vicinity of $20 million, which includes revenue guarantees given by government to SOCOG. The returfing of the pitch at Bruce has cost around $1 million so far. There is also a revenue guarantee of $3 million per year for 10 years to go to the Raiders, the Brumbies and the Cosmos teams to guarantee their playing there. Another $6 million has been spent on the Manuka upgrade because Bruce was converted into a rectangle and therefore neither AFL nor cricket could be played there. Upwards of $80 million has been spent in costs in one way or another relative to the development or redevelopment of Bruce. Now, sadly—this is a tragedy for this community—there is the whole question of whether the Olympics will in fact get here. I personally hope they do, because nothing could make Canberra more proud. The difficult thing to swallow is that the Chief Minister in the ACT always acknowledges when something successful happens—she is very quick to take the praise when something good happens—but when something like this happens where does the line of responsibility lie? With anybody but her and with anybody but her government. We now have the incredible situation where it is going to cost another half a million dollars to returf Bruce Stadium; we have possible threats of litigation from the people who laid the turf in the first place; and we have definite threats of litigation from two other areas of commerce in relation to Bruce Stadium. At the same time we have the Chief Minister curtly walking off a news interview last night because she had to go and talk in the chamber in a minute's time. I am sure she wished she did not have to leave the chamber for the next month, in fact. I have no sympathy for her; I have condemnation for her and her government. I sincerely hope that, despite this mess, the Olympics will arrive in Canberra and succeed. My fingers are crossed and I believe it would be fair to say that the rest of Canberra's fingers are crossed. In the meantime what we need is a Chief Minister to stand up to this farce and to do something as a matter of urgency. One of the most important and early things would possibly be to apologise to the ACT community for the damage to our reputation in this country and, unfortunately, internationally.1990317:30:0019903Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I would like to take this opportunity to speak about a great Australian, Sir James Gobbo, the Governor of Victoria. Sir James's contribution to our society is well known to many and extends over a number of decades. On behalf of my constituents, I wish to place on record a statement of gratitude for his service. Sir James has worked tirelessly within the community for nearly 30 years. During this time he served with distinction on the bench of the Supreme Court of Victoria. He has been hailed as the face of multiculturalism in Victoria. But three weeks ago his term as Governor was cut short in the most controversial of circumstances.Sir James was born in Melbourne of Italian parents who returned to Italy when he was a young boy. He returned to Australia in 1938. Since then, he has had a strong influence on the Italo-Australian community, and in return he has received its affection and admiration. As the first Victorian Governor from a non-English speaking background, Sir James's appointment was hailed as a breakthrough for a multicultural society. Until he became Governor, Sir James had been the Chairman of the Council of Multicultural Affairs, a post he had held since its inception in 1987. He was also the founding chairman of the Italian Historical Society, better known as COASIT. His community work, however, extended way beyond promoting the cultural diversity and richness of our Australian society. Sir James has worked tirelessly in the area of welfare and aged care for decades—for 12 years as the Chairman of the Caritas Christi Hospice, a hospital for the terminally ill, as Chairman of the Mercy Hospital for Women and as a board member of the Victorian Health Organisation. Health care workers still look upon his stewardship with a feeling of great pride. Many years ago, Sir James foresaw the need to deliver health services to ageing first generation ethnic communities, recognising that they were at their most vulnerable point in their lives. Sir James was a popular Governor for a host of other reasons as well. He was a great ambassador, who always endeavoured to promote Victoria overseas. On recent overseas trips he promoted and helped to showcase the abundant opportunities available when doing business with Victorian based companies and industries. He also was not afraid of breaking conventions. He ensured Government House was more accessible to the general population and made every effort to be more inclusive of young people and rural Victorians.In the period of uncertainty following last year's state election, Sir James's behaviour was exemplary. He exercised political judgment, ensuring stable government was delivered to Victoria. His even-handedness has even been acknowledged by Premier Steve Bracks. But the fact that Sir James had behaved in an exemplary manner throughout his whole public life did not lead Premier Bracks to extend Sir James's term to the customary five years. This decision stunned many Victorians—mainstream, ethnic and the casual political observer. Initially, speculation was rife but in the minds of many the Premier's explanation was not a satisfactory one. There were suggestions that Sir James's term was not extended because he was a Kennett appointee and Bracks wanted to assert his stamp on the office. Others have suggested it is because of his previous affiliations with the right-wing Rumour Tank, whose membership included the former Premier. A Machiavellian observer has even suggested that Premier Bracks is taking out life insurance to protect the long-term interests of his minority government. The possibility that Sir James may not side with the government, should its ability to provide stable government be threatened, was probably too much for Labor.I wish to clarify that the disappointment felt by many Victorians over the decision not to extend Sir James's term is not related in any way to the appointment of Mr John Landy as his replacement. I am sure Mr Landy, a much respected Australian in his own right, will be a good Governor. He has already shown he has a tremendous amount of human spirit and good will. Unfortunately for John Landy, he will become Governor in controversial political circumstances, and he does not deserve to have such an obstacle placed in his way. Australians have always believed in the notion of a fair go, and perhaps this is why there has been such community outrage. Premier Bracks, in an act of political hypocrisy, politicised the appointment in a manner which even his Labor supporters would never have envisaged their arch-enemy, Mr Kennett, doing. Whatever the reasons, the decision not to extend Sir James's term is an unpopular one and will bring an outstanding career in public life to a premature end. I wish Sir James and Lady Gobbo all the best in their future endeavours and thank them for the outstanding contribution they have made to our state and our nation.1990517:35:0019905Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I want to raise an issue on behalf of a constituent involving the Department of Veterans' Affairs, particularly the Office of Australian War Graves. Mr Rob Alback of Yeppoon, in my electorate, has been trying to get a sensible and compassionate decision out of the Office of Australian War Graves for most of this year. Mr Alback was advised in January that his stepfather, the late Private Arthur Jeffs, is entitled to an official memorial in recognition of his war service. This meant a great deal to Mr Alback and his family as most of the members of his immediate family have served in Australia's defence forces over several generations. The family's pleasure at the news was shortlived, however. In April this year it was advised, by a letter from the Office of Australian War Graves, that an official plaque could not be placed on the niche purchased by Mr Alback's mother—in the RSL memorial garden near their former home in Hervey Bay—because Mr Jeffs's ashes were not available to be placed in the niche. Mr Alback has repeatedly explained to the department and to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that his mother, Mrs Jeffs, in the years following her husband's death, was not in good health herself and consequently made many rash decisions without consulting her family. One of these decisions was to scatter her late husband's ashes in a place of special significance to her, even though she had previously purchased the niche in the RSL memorial garden near Hervey Bay. This is where it starts to get ridiculous. There is now a niche in the Hervey Bay RSL Wall of Remembrance which the family of Mr Jeffs regards as his resting place but the Office of Australian War Graves will not allow an official memorial plaque to be placed there. Instead, the minister and the Office of Australian War Graves have told Mr Alback that an official plaque can be placed at the Queensland Garden of Remembrance in Brisbane. The reason for making this distinction is set out in the minister's letter to Mr Alback of 10 July. It says:This policy has been in effect for many years and to change it now would be mean that the Office of Australian War Graves would be placing a token memorial where there are no remains.So apparently to put an official memorial plaque in a place where there are no actual remains but which nonetheless has special meaning for the veteran's family is a token. But on the other hand, according to the minister, putting an official memorial plaque in a cemetery in Brisbane where there are neither remains nor any meaning to the family is somehow not a token. I agree with Mr Alback that this is bureaucracy gone mad. Throughout all the correspondence between Mr Alback and the department and the minister, it is obvious that the major concern is to rebut Mr Alback's request and prove that the department's position is somehow technically correct. I ask why are they being so defensive. Mr Alback is not trying to overturn the entire policy of the department but just to get a sensible and sensitive decision in this particular instance. All this leads me to ask what is the point of providing for the commemoration of ex-service men and women: is it to pay respect to those people and their families for their service, or is it to give the department an opportunity to wield rules and draw imaginary lines? This is a family with a proud record of serving our country. Mr and Mrs Jeffs were both returned service people. Mr Alback served in the Air Force, his sister served in the Navy and his nephew is currently serving in East Timor. I ask the minister, Bruce Scott, to please intervene in a way that is reasonable and fair to grant this family their simple wish for their late father.1990517:38:0019905Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I received a very interesting email yesterday. It was unusual inasmuch as the headline was `Why are Petrol Prices So Low?' It comes from the Friends of the Earth. While I do not always agree with the Friends of the Earth, I thought they made very good points. They ask:Why are petrol prices so low in Australia? Why are more people driving cars and comparatively fewer people using public transport? Why are state governments building expensive environmentally damaging expressways? Why is there an ultra modern motorway between Sydney and Melbourne compared to a hundred year old railway? Why is the trucking industry going broke after governments have spent billions of dollars on roads? Why is the Labor Party afraid of higher petrol prices, decreased road use, less pollution and less profit for tollways? The Friends of the Earth I thought raised some pretty good issues, especially at this time when petrol prices are causing a great deal of concern and heartburn to many of us here in Australia. On the Sunday program on Channel 9 on 27 August, the Treasurer said that we have no control over petrol prices, and we all know that to be true. But I have a very bright young man in my electorate whose name is Paul Martin. He drives a vegetable oil powered vehicle on the streets of Sydney. He says that we do not have any control over fossil fuel prices but we are sitting on a vast untapped pool of oil ourselves, that is, vegetable oil. Paul tells me that biofuel is a grown fuel oil that can be extracted from hundreds of different plants, used fats or cooking oil. As a matter of fact, he mainly uses used fish and chip shop oil. I do not know what they do with used fish and chip shop oil, but he has found an excellent use for it and it works very well. He said the only problem is that when he goes past the car smells of fish and chips, but I suppose that is a minor problem. He says that such oil crops can be grown in an immense variety of climates and soil conditions, making no area of Australia unsuitable for oil production. We all know that Australia is suffering salt damage and degradation to much of its once arable lands, but Paul tells me there are strains of diatom algae which have been proven to favour saline water in very hot, dry climates. Oil yield from algae is four times greater than from canola, a common oil crop in Australia. Paul also tells me that this untapped commodity and opportunity can help make this country truly self-sufficient in many of its energy requirements while reducing foreign debt. Gone is sulphur dioxide, the culprit in acid rain, along with greater reductions in carcinogens. Renewable fuels are carbon neutral, resulting in a zero net output of carbon dioxide. Not only would we be moving towards our emission reductions commitment from the Kyoto protocol, we could then ensure that exposure to the world's fossil oil supply and demand is not driving our economy. Added to cleaner emissions is removal of the visible black smoke typical of diesel motors, quieter engine running and, according to engineers, better engine lubrication. Our government could pick up on this opportunity to put biofuels onto the agenda of today's energy opportunities. Not only must we become more self-sufficient in our fossil oil demands, we must keep millions of dollars lost overseas in Australia and create more crop growing and employment opportunities for rural communities. This is just one example of how Australia has the potential to take control of its fuel needs and have a positive impact on our environment. Paul Martin is only 24 and he is a very bright young man, as I said. His vehicle runs just like any other diesel motor, with a biofuel made by a simple process with waste cooking oil and methanol. It costs him about 20c a litre to produce and, compared to today's diesel at around $1 a litre, Paul's vehicle is five times cheaper to run. Paul asks this question: why do we allow our energy supply to be governed by fossil oil availability and not embrace the opportunity to have our farmers produce our own oil? There is another great renewable source of energy in Western Australia that is worth a quick mention, which is also helping the environment. This comes from Electricity Supply magazine of August 2000. It seems that over in the west chickens produce 100,000 tonnes of droppings a year, and the farmers have found a way to eliminate a problem and to generate income. The article reads:Australia's first power plant fuelled by chicken droppings will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and almost eliminate a health hazard. It could be the first of a number of such stations around Australia, which faces a chicken poo mountain of up to one million tonnes a year. The 10 MW station to be built near Perth will burn 100,000 tonnes of droppings annually, virtually all the waste created in 52 chicken farms near the city. There are reportedly only a few such power stations in the world—about five in Britain, one under construction in Italy and some being considered in the United States. The Perth project has been sponsored by the chicken farmers, who have contributed $1 million to form the company. (Time expired)1990717:43:0019907Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I saw an article in the Sunday Territorian of 27 August by Simon Kearney headed `Female teachers “make boys dull”'. It was an extraordinary article. To be fair to the author, though, there is a story to it. He provided a potpourri of comments about the so-called consequences of the feminisation of the teaching profession and schooling. He offered a submission by Sydney's Hurstville Boys High School to the inquiry into boys in education by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations which is now taking submissions on this issue. It criticises the `influence of female teachers in early years of schooling who often treat boys in more negative ways and structure classes in such a way as to alienate some boys'. As I said, there was a host of comments about the feminisation, and the alleged effects of feminisation, of the teaching profession. To be fair to Kearney, he offered counterarguments to these, but the point is that these statements were made. What basically comes out of it is that there is a crisis in education and it is a crisis about boys in education. If you look at the number of conferences, projects, studies and the statistics and research delving into the issue of boys in education and the alienation and disengagement that appear to be taking place in our schools, we cannot hide the fact that there is a problem. Many institutions—universities in particular—and many people are looking for solutions. They are offering modellings and they are doing trials of programs, but this is still a problem. The irony is that this problem was apparent in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. It was going on at the same time that we quite rightly took up the issues of girls in education and gender equity. However, we tended to get a counterproductive product for both boys and girls because we tended to get an imbalance in programs at the institutional level; they did not appear to be complementary. In other words, quite rightly we should have been looking at the question of gender equity, but it tended to work primarily in favour of girls. It was necessary, but few complementary programs took place. The overwhelming evidence at the moment is that boys are not performing well, nor are they performing as well as girls.The Victorian Quality Schools Project substantiates this indication of a growing learning differential and the growing disengagement and alienation from schooling by boys in particular. I recommend that anyone who is interested in this area look at the project. It demonstrates quite clearly that the following problems are becoming increasingly evident: switching off from learning, failing to learn, boredom, moderate to serious behavioural problems in our schools, increasing aggression and violence, truancy and early leaving.The Dusseldorp Skills Forum in 1999 estimated the cost involved with early school-leaving at $2.6 billion per year. That is a national disgrace. There are lots of models being offered to schools and a lot of research is being undertaken. I certainly recommend the MYRAD project in Victoria, particularly with regard to the areas of middle schooling, and the ACSA project recommendations of the mid-1990s. There is a lot of good work being done by leading educationalists, but I do not have time to name them all at the moment.One of the most important resources involved in this issue are teachers. We need to get teachers back into the profession—it is a great profession. We need adequate and proper training for them, and we need proper support for them. We must work towards developing a gender balance in the schools. We need to test the contention that many young people would be less likely to be at risk of alienation and dropping out if a case management system was introduced for all students as a continuum from child care and preschool years through to senior secondary years. We need to test the contention raised by educationalists that the traditional curriculum and structures in our schools, particularly secondary schools, are now well past their use-by date and that the time for major reform is well and truly overdue. There are many more things that we contend on this issue; the important thing is that it is now being raised. There is an inquiry into these issues, and we should all look at the results of that inquiry and work in a very bipartisan way to do something about it. (Time expired)1990817:48:0019908Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—This speech is the text of a letter which I have asked to be read out to a series of meetings in the banana growing areas in North Queensland, areas which account for $230 million of Australia's $250 million banana industry. Unfortunately, many decision makers in government in Australia—state and federal, of whatever political persuasion—seem to have very little regard for the interests of everyday Australians and their livelihoods or for their country's economy. The deregulation of the wool industry, the tobacco industry and now the milk industry has resulted in the most dire consequences. In the tobacco industry, the number of growers has dropped from 660 to 120. In the wool industry, income dropped from $5.9 thousand million to $3.2 thousand million in the 2½ years since the deregulation of that industry. In the milk industry, within two months of deregulation income dropped for the average farmer from an average 42c per litre to, for most of Australia, an average 27c per litre. And that is only in the first two months! Quite frankly, the decision makers could not care less about the damage being done to individuals or to the economy. The purpose of saying these things is not to disparage decision makers in some holier-than-thou manner but to plead with them not to take the battle against AQIS lightly. Even worse from our point of view is the callous disregard for the national interest shown by AQIS. A huge sign in Mareeba says it all: a line has been drawn through the word `AQIS' and, instead, the letters `ACQUIESCE' have been written underneath it. I feel that that sign says it all. They are not the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service; they are the `Australian Economic Rationalist Implementation Service'. What else can you assume when they have made decisions detrimental to the peanut industry? You might say that that was not strictly in their purview, but it most certainly was under their zone of responsibility. They made a decision to allow higher poison levels in the peanut industry and thus allowed Chinese and American imports into Australia. They made a decision in regard to the durian industry to apply three highly restrictive criteria to Australian farmers importing seeds and then applied none of these three restrictive criteria to Thai farmers exporting the same fruit into Australia. There are six major diseases in grapes in California that we do not have in Australia, yet even that did not slow AQIS down in allowing Californian grapes into Australia. I might add that both of those decisions have been overturned on appeal and are now standing in limbo-land. The disease situation in California is so serious that even the Bulletin magazine has a two-page spread on the massive destruction in the grape and wine industry in California because of the glassy-winged sharpshooter bug, which we do not have in Australia—along with six other diseases that they have in California that we do not have in Australia. It is impossible for us to continue to talk about a `clean green' image when every single product from overseas is being allowed into this country. It is very hard for me to find a single example where AQIS has rejected an application. I can go on and talk about pork, salmon and chicken. Chicken meat was a classic example of the almost criminal irresponsibility of these people. The European scientists, on whose work they based the decision to allow chicken meat into Australia, wrote to an Australian senator advising that under no circumstances could the work done to date justify allowing cooked chicken meat into Australia. This did not stop AQIS from making a decision that cooked chicken meat should come into Australia. The cooked chicken meat had already been allowed into this country by AQIS at that time. When the government intervened and forced AQIS to do the scientific research, it was found to be extremely dangerous to allow cooked chicken meat into Australia. In a number of these cases, we did not raise a sufficient storm of protest. AQIS has done more damage to Australia's economy than any drought or collapsing world prices. So such a protest is more than justified.We have immense confidence in Lennie Collins and in Vicki Kippin O'Connor, but we must also write letters, ring up talk-back radio, attend rallies and mass meetings and do everything humanly possible to demonstrate to the people of Australia the disastrous consequences of a continuation of the irresponsible policies of AQIS. Soon after the fall-out from the grape decision, Mr Hickey, the then head of AQIS, left his post. Much more fall-out must occur before Australia's AQIS provides the same conscientious service as the quarantine services of other countries, for example, the United States. If bananas with black sigatoka disease are allowed into this country, a $250 million industry will be lost, along with the jobs of 7,500 people directly employed in this industry. We will have moved significantly closer to the prediction—now the saddest reality—that Australia will be a net importer of food within 12 years. (Time expired)1990917:54:0019909Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Yesterday, the member for Makin orchestrated a front-page story in today's Adelaide Advertiser on petrol prices. Good on her, I say. `Petrol rebel defies her PM,' the headlines screamed. That is the spirit; that is what we want to hear. The article states:Despite a public rebuke from the Prime Minister ... Mrs Draper said she would not be deterred.That is telling him. The article continues:... if my constituents are unhappy about a Government decision, then it's my job to take my constituents' concerns to Canberra.Quite right, too. She told ABC radio in Adelaide:I've actually started a petition from my office ... to actually freeze the excise rise in February next year.AAP said:Mrs Draper was unrepentant.But the member for Makin intended to go further. I quote again from the Adelaide Advertiser:Mrs Draper also plans to give a speech on the issue in parliament today ... she will call for an excise indexation freeze.Interested in her intentions, I examined the speakers list in both the House of Representatives and the Main Committee, and there she was, the second speaker in members' statements in the Main Committee this morning. But she did not turn up. The member for Petrie took her place. She squibbed it—the full bottle emptied. And she has not taken the opportunity thus far to speak in the adjournment debate. Mr Speaker, there is plenty of time left. I am prepared to sit down right now and let the member for Makin carry on. I would even move an extension of time to hear the member for Makin's speech which she promised, in the Adelaide Advertiser, to give.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—Give her a ring, Mr Speaker.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—Give her a ring. Look; here is the front page story, here is the petition, here is the speakers list, here is the AAP report, here is the transcript from 5AN in Adelaide, and there is the Chief Government Whip. We want the member for Makin. There is still plenty of time left. But where is the member for Makin? I wonder what the headline will be in the Adelaide Advertiser tomorrow. I am sure the Advertiser writer Phillip Coorey is watching this right now. I wonder whether his editor will allow the headline `The member for Makin squibs it on petrol prices.' The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, was not very impressed with the member for Makin, though she did have a bit of an ally. Mr Causely was a little bit sympathetic to the member for Makin. Everybody else went into hiding. We still have a couple of minutes left. I am slowing down a little bit.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—I'll go and give her a call.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—Go and give her a call. I will stand here and take up a little more time. Perhaps Phillip Coorey, if you are out there at the Advertiser watching this at the moment, you can start creating the headline and the front-page story. We had Kate Ceberano on the front page of the Adelaide Advertiser today—a very good photograph. Perhaps we could have the member for Makin tomorrow with the headline `The member for Makin squibs it'.Seriously, when you deal with the press in this country and you make promises, and you say you are going to go into the House to make a speech and you do not, there ought to be some accountability. I want to see in the Advertiser tomorrow the accountable story. The light is on, there is still some time, there are a couple of minutes before 6 o'clock. She could still come into the House and explain. Perhaps she will even indicate that she will cross the floor on fuel indexation and excise. I wonder whether she will do that. No, it is still a bit silent. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the petition, the headline, the speakers list of the Main Committee and the transcript of the ABC radio 5AN program this morning. Could I have them incorporated? Leave not granted.(Time expired)1991017:59:0019910Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—The Mater Aged Care Service in Forbes has topped an amazing 12 months with their successful three-year accreditation, which was recommended this week. The Mater really is one of the best small nursing homes in Australia, and I thank Mr Chris Gardiner, the Regional Manager for Catholic Health Care Services, for his comments. The Mater is rebuilding itself and is using a $900,000 Commonwealth grant to assist that. The sisters at Mater providing pastoral care, diversional therapy and resident staff support are Sister Marie Carey, Sister Chris McGrath, Sister Jo McNamara and Sister Bonna Venjucon. Management of the Mater has been under Catholic Health Care Services for the last 4½ years, with Chris Gardiner as the CHS and manager. The current leader is Mrs Judy Wilson, who is the Director of Nursing; previously it was Jill Single.The Mater operates with an open management system, with all staff able to participate in annual business planning and in which all financial information policy frameworks are available for review. The Mater has consistently spent at least twice the industry average on staff development over the last few years. Some of the active community supporters of the Mater have been Mr Michael Riley, Mr Kevin Cooney, Mrs Nancy Stewart, Mr Neville Webb, Mrs Jean Murphy, Mrs Mary-Lou Kemp, Sister Bernadine Evans and Sister Murray. It is a very active auxiliary that provides funds for vital equipment and furnishings.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.18:00:0019910House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.2000-08-31—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members199111991109:40:0019911Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—The forthcoming Olympics are of historical importance for all Australians. Some aspects of the circumstances surrounding the games have particular significance for particular sections of Australians. In my electorate there is a very large Macedonian Australian community. It is of great interest to them that, in the context of the Olympics, there will be the first visit to Australia of a Macedonian head of state. President Boris Trajkowski is a most impressive man. I had the opportunity to meet him in Skopje, Macedonia, last year at the height of the Kosovo conflict, which was right on the doorstep of Macedonia, and when that country was experiencing massive problems. President Trajkowski is visiting Australia via the United States, where he has particularly high level access, including to President Clinton. In Australia, in addition to being here for the Olympics, he will also be taking the opportunity to launch a pay television service by satellite linking Australia and Macedonia. It is most important that President Trajkowski, on his visit to Australia, has high level access to Australian leaders. The absence of a diplomatic mission of Macedonia in Australia underlines the importance of this need for personal contact.I understand that during the visit he will be attending a reception hosted by the Prime Minister and the Governor-General for visiting dignitaries, but it is most important that, with this opportunity of the historic first visit of a Macedonian head of state, there be one-on-one meetings between Australian leaders, including, hopefully, the Prime Minister, and President Trajkowski. As I said, this is a leader who does enjoy top level access in the United States and it would seem singularly appropriate that that also occurs in Australia.I have no doubt that one of the substantive issues on his agenda at any such meeting would be the question of diplomatic representation in Australia. This has been an issue for some time. I can say, from the visit I made to that part of Europe last year, that in Skopje the Greek embassy is quite noticeable. And when one visits Athens the Macedonian embassy is quite noticeable. So there is no issue between those two countries in terms of diplomatic representation. Sometimes the sensitivity in the past of that relationship has been given as a reason for perhaps delaying the question of Macedonian representation in Australia. As I said, it is not an issue in that part of Europe; those two countries enjoy close relationships, economically and politically. One would hope that the visit of President Trajkowski to Australia would present the opportunity for top level dialogue between Australian officials and Macedonian officials, and the resolution of this issue.1991109:43:0019911Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—In the recent break I took a trip out through the north-western part of my electorate. It was a trip of about 2,500 kilometres, done over a week from door to door, Monday to Friday. I want to talk about a particular part of it. From the time I left Cobar on Monday lunchtime to the time I arrived back in Bourke on Thursday night I did not pass through one town that had a doctor or a lawyer or an accountant or a vet or, in fact, any professional person, which is quite interesting.The people in those areas do not complain about that. They do not whinge and say, `We should have access to all these services.' They do have a fantastic medical service provided by the Royal Flying Doctor Service, of course. But these communities are getting on with life and doing the job.One of the most common problems that they do raise out there, though, is their rural roads. They do not want bitumen from door to door. They do not even really demand access to their road immediately after rain. But what they do request is access to roads that are not completely washed away every time there is rain. It is certainly a safety issue. There are more and more tourists travelling up and down that part of the world. With respect to the part of the world I am talking about, I went from Cobar to Ivanhoe, Wilcannia, White Cliffs, Tibooburra, Wanaaring, Enngonia, down to Bourke and then back to Dubbo. There are sections of all of those roads that desperately need work. The Linnett family, who run the Kilfera field days and who are in charge of the Cobb Highway Action Group, have been successful in obtaining money to seal the road to the south of Ivanhoe, but there is still a section of the Ivanhoe to Wilcannia road that is quite dangerous. Similarly, with respect to the Wilcannia to White Cliffs roads, the Central Darling Shire is doing its best and is paving that road little by little. Interestingly enough, from Monday lunchtime to Thursday night, I probably only spent about half an hour driving on paved roads; for the rest of the time I travelled on gravel roads. Other sections of road that desperately need looking at are the Bourke to Wanaaring road and certainly a lot of roads around Enngonia. There are other roads that I did not travel on during this trip, but I have travelled on them many times. The Nyngan to Tottenham road and the Tullamore to Narromine road also need a lot of work done on them.This sort of area has not been in the realm of Commonwealth government spending before. The issue is that these rural roads are reaching the stage where they desperately need money to be spent on them. I believe that the Commonwealth is the only place from which that money will be forthcoming. The local councils do their absolute best to maintain these roads with the resources that are available to them, but we are talking about billions of dollars across Australia to bring the roads up to an appropriate standard. This is vitally important for the health of the people who live in the outback, for tourists who are visiting the area, even for schoolchildren who often cannot access school for up to 10 days after there has been rain. The situation is not satisfactory. It needs to be looked at. I realise that if money is spent on roads, it cannot be spent elsewhere, but I would like to see that done. (Time expired)1991209:46:0019912Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I wish to reflect on the news that Australia's richest man, Kerry Packer, lost $34 million last month on a gambling spree in Las Vegas. I am sure that most Australians will feel uneasy about this sort of extravagance. Notions of public morality and justice are under threat when it is possible for one person to accumulate such extraordinary wealth and then use it in such an extraordinary way.The economist Thorstein Veblen called it conspicuous consumption—the use of wealth for a personally indulgent and flamboyant lifestyle, way beyond any decent community standard. In a society plagued by entrenched poverty and disadvantage, this kind of behaviour is morally offensive. Surely those who have been fortunate enough to accumulate considerable wealth should use it in a socially responsible fashion. Blowing $34 million at a casino is not a very responsible thing to do.In his defence, I am sure Mr Packer would say that he has every right to spend as much as he likes, wherever he likes. Having the right to do something, however, does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. Social norms matter, especially at the extremes of social behaviour. In his defence, Mr Packer would also point to his support for a number of charitable causes. Like most forms of corporate philanthropy, however, Mr Packer donates to those organisations with which he has had personal experience, particularly medical equipment and hospital services. Only a small proportion of corporate donations in Australia actually reach poor communities. Surely this is the most important test of one's social conscience—the capacity to support causes beyond the range of one's own interests. So what does such an incident mean for the Australian parliament? I believe that it highlights one of the ethical flaws in the Howard government's policy on mutual obligation. What is more unacceptable in our society: for an unemployed, low income person to refuse to look for work or for a wealthy person to waste $34 million in a senseless gambling binge? I find both cases unacceptable. They should be subject to policies of mutual obligation. Unfortunately, under this government, only the first case—the low income, unemployed person—is expected to discharge his or her social responsibilities. The standard for Mr Packer is very different. He is one of the beneficiaries of the parliament's decision to halve the capital gains tax rate and lower the corporate tax rate. He is a leading beneficiary of the government's inability to eliminate tax manipulation and tax avoidance in corporate Australia. He is the primary beneficiary of the government's decision to introduce a restrictive anticompetitive regime for digital television. This is a publicly funded donation to Mr Packer—more money to fund his mad gambling.On each of these issues, the parliament has failed to uphold decent standards. If someone has enough money to blow $34 million at a casino, then they have enough money to pay more tax and help to build a better society. If someone has enough money to engage in conspicuous consumption, then they have a conspicuous responsibility to assist the most disadvantaged parts of society. Two weeks ago, to its credit, the McClure report on welfare reform recommended that the principle of mutual obligation be extended to corporate Australia. Mr Kerry Packer would be a very good place to start. 1991309:49:0019913Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise today to speak about a very disturbing incident that has been occurring a bit too regularly in my electorate. I was contacted recently by the manager of a local bank. An elderly client had advised the bank manager that she had been asked to send two telegraphic transfers of $15,000 to an overseas listed company, and she was about to send her third payment of $15,000. The particular company had sent out a very glossy prospectus and the woman had been solicited by phone by a man with a Canadian accent. It is not uncommon to receive glossy literature like the example that I have in front of me. A lot of these companies have their prospectuses prepared overseas. The company whose prospectus that I am holding in front of me is listed in Bangkok, London, Tokyo and Sao Paulo. The operatives live in another country from those and they solicit money from people around the world.Many of these companies are not licensed to operate in Australia. Clearly, that has been the case with a number of companies that have been brought to my attention. When I intervened in this case and spoke to the client of the bank, I was told in no uncertain terms to mind my own business. It is very difficult to try to assist people in these cases when they do not want your help. I did everything I could for the client concerned but, in the end, I think she sent more money overseas. On the last occasion that I checked, she had sent $60,000. I do not think she will ever see that money again. These sorts of companies are very despicable. They prey on elderly women and members of the community who are very vulnerable.I compliment the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation for distributing a book called the Little Black Book of Scams. I regularly send it out to constituents. It contains some wonderful information. People are very devious at coming up with new schemes and new ways of soliciting funds from the most vulnerable in our society. All I can say to anyone who is thinking of purchasing shares in some of these overseas companies is to make sure that they are licensed to operate in Australia. There is some wonderful information available, particularly through the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I have asked them to investigate another company at the moment. There are a number of good organisations, such as the Financial Planning Association and the Australian Investors Association. People can also speak to a fund manager—someone with experience. I cannot emphasise enough that people should invest in Australian companies and ensure that their investment is safeguarded against this sort of activity, and to make sure that companies that they want to invest in are reputable listed companies that are registered and licensed in Australia.1991409:52:0019914Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I was very fortunate recently to be able to attend a committee meeting in the Northern Rivers district of New South Wales, where I met with a number of representatives from local industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to find that we met with representatives from the tourism industry, which of course is a very important industry, particularly in the Byron shire, and also right up and down the North Coast of New South Wales.The representatives of the tourism industry were very keen to tell our committee that, while they saw tourism and hospitality as a growth industry in the area, and while they saw the importance of tourism and hospitality for jobs in the area, they were also very concerned about the local environment. The reason that tourism is so successful in that region is because it has such wonderful natural resources—beautiful beaches and a lovely hinterland. The tourism and hospitality operators to whom we spoke are very conscious of developing those resources sensitively to make sure that the industry is an ongoing and sustainable one, rather than one that is developed very quickly in the coming years and then peters out because the very thing that attracts people to the area is lost by overdevelopment.I was also fortunate enough to speak to representatives of two new and emerging industries in the area. One was a local group of film-makers called Filmworks that is based in and around Byron Bay. This was a bit of a revelation for me. I did not realise that the film community in the area was quite so sophisticated. In fact, there are close to 400 producers and other people employed directly by the film industry in and around Byron Bay. The plans that they have for the development of the industry in the area are fascinating. The only thing that is really lacking is some vital infrastructure. Because much filmwork is now done digitally, the requirement to have high capacity telephone lines and other high capacity telecommunications technology is very important. Unfortunately, the industry is being let down in this area and growth is being constricted to a certain extent.The other industry representatives that we met in the area were representatives from the information technology area who have set up the Northern Rivers Information Technology Group. They pointed to the fact that they have any number of very highly skilled people living in the area but the growth of the industry up there is again constrained by the narrow capacity of their telecommunications facilities. With greater telecommunications facilities, that area has the potential for exponential growth and to provide decent, well paid, high skilled jobs in the area. I look forward to continued investment in the telecommunications infrastructure which would allow both of those industries to continue the growth that, obviously, the people employed in those areas would like to see.1991409:55:0019914Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I rise to speak on behalf of members of the Australian Defence Force in Townsville. Townsville is a garrison city: it contains Australia's largest defence base, incorporating elements of both the Army and the Air Force at Lavarack Barracks and at RAAF Townsville. Members of the Defence Force have been appalled at comments in the media about the government's Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000, which has recently been introduced. Some of the comments in the media have just been over the top, such as a comment in the newspaper Vanguard that the military in Australia is being `reorganised' and `imperialistic forces are going to take over the world'. Then we get people saying in letters to the editor, for example, that the government is going to allow soldiers to shoot other Australians. One particularly disgraceful comment was by a person who said that the heroes of Timor were going to return to Australia to be the butchers of Sydney and Melbourne. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to assure the Australian people and the defence forces that this new bill in the parliament has the purpose of bringing surety to what has always been the case.The law has always been that, if there is a lethal threat towards any person, the person can use a lethal threat back, and that goes for ordinary citizens in the street. The truth is that the Defence Force will not be called out unless the civilian authorities are unable to handle whatever situation there might be. Suggestions that, for example, the Defence Force will be out there when the World Economic Forum meets in Melbourne in the near future are just pie in the sky. You will not see the Defence Force out in that particular situation. You will see the police force of Victoria or the Australian Federal Police or, if need be, police forces from other parts of Australia who are called to assist, but you will not see the Defence Force.The last time the Defence Force was called out was way back in the aftermath of the Hilton Hotel bombing, and there was a very specific reason it was called out then. I certainly do not see any need for anyone in the community to be concerned about this new legislation. It is something that has been wanted for a long time. It brings security and certainty to the operation of the defence forces if and when they may be required to be called out for domestic violence. I hope that these right-wing crackpots go away, stop spreading misinformation and let us support our Defence Force.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 175A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills19915R111919915Debate resumed from 29 June, on motion by Mr Entsch:That the bill be now read a second time.09:59:0019915McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—The opposition will be supporting the Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000. We have been advised of some amendments that the government will be proposing in the Main Committee, and we will be accepting those amendments also, as they are only minor corrections to the original intention of the bill, and the original intention of the bill has the opposition's support.This is a bill to amend the Patents Act 1990, to repeal what is known as the petty patent system and to implement in its place an innovation patent system. It makes other amendments which, although some of them are of consequence to individuals, in the great scheme of our whole intellectual property protection regime are relatively minor matters.As I said, fundamentally the objective of the bill is to introduce a new innovation patents system to provide more accessible and effective protection for what might be called lower level or incremental inventions. It also has two further objectives by way of minor amendments to facilitate the streamlining of the mechanisms available for the payment of fees under the Patents Act and to correct some unintended ambiguities in the Patents Act. I will not refer again to those minor matters. We accept that tidying up process, and it is appropriately done in the context of this piece of legislation. I would like to give some background, because I think people can often get lost in the arcane detail of the patents system. There are many people who spend a lifetime working inside the patents system and know it so well, but it can be confusing for the layperson looking in from the outside. At its core, the patents system is a simple and important concept.A patent, I think, is best described as a right granted for a device, method or process which is new, inventive and useful. But what is important about it is that, in a sense, it is a form of mutual obligation. On the one side, the state says to the inventor, `This is a legally enforceable right that gives you, as the owner, the exclusive right for the life of the patent to commercially exploit that which you have invented.' That is very important. On the other hand, it says to the owner, `Your obligation in these circumstances is to share that know-how by providing a full description of how the invention works.'It is fundamental to being a successful, modern, industrial country that we have a contemporary, effective, strong body of intellectual property protection laws. This legislation is part of modernising that framework, and we support it. The idea being introduced in this legislation is not new. In fact, many would say that perhaps it should have been done earlier. A report from the Advisory Council on Industrial Property in 1995 concluded that the petty patent was not achieving its objectives.The scheme was introduced in 1979 with the intention that it would provide protection for innovations typically developed by Australian small and medium business enterprises. It was intended to provide relatively inexpensive patent protection for inventions with a short commercial life. So it was clear that the intention was worthy, and I think it had universal support both at its introduction and during its life. But the review concluded that it was not achieving those objectives and that it should be replaced with the innovation patents system, which would require a lower inventive threshold—the old petty patents system has the same threshold as the standard patent—so that it would be better suited to the needs of small to medium business enterprises and have a shorter life.The government accepted most of the recommendations of the advisory council by agreeing to establish this system to protect incremental inventions so that a patent may be granted more quickly after a formalities check and provide the patent owner with a right that is quick, cheap to obtain, relatively simple and which lasts for a sufficient time to encourage investment in developing and marketing the invention.On those grounds, we support what is envisaged here. In essence, it goes to what is important about intellectual property in general historically, and certainly in the 21st century successful economies are going to be based upon the successful development of ideas. There are many phases in that. What has now become `the national innovation system' is a phrase that covers a multitude of sins. But I think there is now probably quite a well-developed concept of the cyclical nature of the process. We used to see it as more linear from invention to commercialisation and we now see it as a mutually reinforcing, more circular, process. The Wills report called it a virtuous circle. I am concerned—not with this bill, which I support—but with two aspects to which it relates. One aspect is the increasing evidence that, in the area of patents, as in other areas of research and development performance, Australia is falling behind international best practice—not in the regulatory framework but in performance, in output—and that, overall, our intellectual property protection framework is being undermined in ways that cause me concern. But I repeat, my concern is not with the bill; I support the bill and the way that it is strengthening our patents system. Copyright protection, which is very closely related as part of this framework of intellectual property protection so fundamental to a modern industrial society, is not getting the recognition it deserves. The rights of copyright owners are not being reinforced and protected as rigorously as, I believe, is the proper objective as defined in the summary of this bill. That is, to encourage people to exercise their creative effort in this country—whether it is an invention through the patent system or an artistic creation which is more likely to go through the copyright system—to make it here, to develop it here, to retain the ownership here and to generate international income coming back to Australia from that intellectual property.We need to look at the balance between consumer and creator interest. For example, some aspects of what has been done with regard to parallel imports, which has some benefits, do not recognise the fact that intellectual property, as protected by copyright or patent, has many of the characteristics of property, and that the owner has rights in it and that those rights are important not only as a matter of fundamental justice but also as being at the core of successful 21st century economic practice.I was very concerned to read the report by CHI Research Inc. It was funded by the Australian Research Council and the CSIRO. It asked, `How well is Australia doing in patenting as a measure of our international performance in research and development in this rapidly advancing research based technological age?' and concluded `Fair to middling'. I think the data backs that as not an unreasonable analysis. We are not doing disastrously. From the period 1979 to 1997 our share of patenting in the US patent system actually went up. But it went up very slowly, and many of our key competitors passed us. By definition, not everybody can have passed us, because our proportion went up, so we obviously enhanced our performance compared with some. It was not a disaster; it is just not good enough, and we need to do better. That is why we welcome this minor but welcome advance in the legislative framework for our intellectual property regulation.As I indicated earlier, we will accept the amendments proposed by the government in the Main Committee, and we wish the bill a speedy passage. But, more importantly, we hope that, when subsequent reviews are done, they will say that Australia's international patent performance is at the international cutting edge, instead of just fair to middling, and that our research and development performance is improving. And when investors around the world look at where they might locate major research and development activity, they will be encouraged to believe that our intellectual property framework is so rigorous, so comprehensive and so contemporary that this will be the place in which they choose to make that investment, to create those jobs and to generate the ideas that could be the foundation for our successful 21st century economy. I support the bill.10:10:0019917Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10— It is my pleasure to follow the member for Fraser in this debate on the Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000 and to say that there is nothing in his remarks which I could differ with, and much to heartily commend. It is pleasing that the measure has bipartisan support and that the legislation can expect a speedy passage through both houses. As the member for Fraser said, the success of nations in the 21st century will depend in large measure on their capacity to convert good ideas into good products and commercial successes. It is interesting that in the management literature one of the concepts gaining increasing profile is the idea of latency. It is based on the argument that in any commercial organisation there is a pool of good ideas out there. The line workers in a factory may be sitting there all day assembling components, but they are having ideas about how to improve the products, the processes, and the management of the enterprise. The idea of latency is that the most successful organisations are the ones that can take those good ideas that are spread in a diverse, chaotic way throughout the organisation and promote them through the ranks of decision makers, to the point where they can be identified, evaluated and acted upon, and that the truly nimble, fleet-footed, forward looking companies are those which have the capacity to virtually instantaneously elicit and convert the ideas into action. As a nation we are asking ourselves today about our level of latency. We are asking, `What is Australia's capacity to draw out of the population the best in creativity, in innovation and invention, and convert it into action?' This measure seeks in an incremental way to tighten the legal framework within which ideas are commercialised. I say `incremental' because the bill specifically addresses incremental innovation. The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, in its review of the petty patent system, identified what it referred to as a gap in our legal framework. It said that in the big ticket items, in the great leaps forward, the system was adequate, but that there was a gap, which particularly applied to smaller and medium sized enterprises and to lower level and incremental innovations where the changes, instead of being inventions of new technologies, tended to be adaptations, refinements or improvements to existing technologies. The advisory council said that the standard patent system was really too expensive and too slow to be able to rapidly identify those innovations, accord them some legal status, and give the creators the benefit of that commercial protection of their intellectual property. The council therefore recommended this idea of the innovation patent, which already had been adopted by about 45 nations around the world. In that sense it is not a new idea, but it is a good idea. The bill achieves its objective of greater speed, economy and flexibility by a couple of means. The first is to lower the threshold of innovation required in order to trigger the protection of the bill. We are not necessarily requiring a kind of great leap forward but just an incremental advance in an existing technology will satisfy the requirements of the legislation. The second measure which the bill introduces to increase speed is to grant that protection to a qualifying innovation without what is described as substantive evaluation. That means that there is not a group of scientists who are going to sit around and evaluate every possible ramification of this innovation against a set of statutory criteria. That process is expensive and very time consuming. It will be done on a more off-the-cuff evaluation—a quick look, if you like. A sense of the direction of the innovation will be enough to attract the protection.Some may say, `Isn't that a concern if you are granting someone protection for an idea which, for example, may have been invented by someone else in some other part of the world? Isn't there a problem if it is not carefully enough evaluated?' The point there is that, if the patentee subsequently seeks to rely on the innovation contained in the innovation patent, then he will have to go through this further step of substantive evaluation, and that will take some time, it will be more costly, it will involve testing the assumptions and the claims of the innovation against the world literature. But he does not have to go through that in the first instance, and that is the simple, commonsense, practical step forward contained in the bill.The final aspect of the bill is the fact that you will only be granted protection for eight years, as opposed to 20 years, which is the previous standard. What this allows us to do is to better reflect the true character of innovation at the beginning of the 21st century, which is that in many instances a technology simply is not going to last for 20 years. The commercial value of a technology can change very quickly. We are seeing the revolutions per minute, if you like, of innovation increase so fast that the idea of eight years is very attractive to those who recognise that their idea may well be superseded by a better one in a very short space of time. So that is the general background to this set of specific measures. I want to turn briefly to this wider question: how do we address this issue of fostering innovation, invention, discovery? One of my reasons for concern is a humanitarian one for that little cadre of eccentric, in many cases, inventors in Australia. As members of the House of Representatives, most of us have had the experience from time to time of the frustrated inventor who, in exasperation, as a final resort, comes to see their local member of parliament to say, `What can you do to help me to commercialise this great idea?'The inventor is an unusual class of being. Often, we find them to be a little bit eccentric. One of the reasons is that they have the faculty of being able to imagine a new world, a new product—something unseen which is visible to him or her but not to the rest of the world. It is an indicator of the sort of character we are dealing with. Very often, the inventor will become completely obsessed with their particular innovation, whereby they live, sleep and breathe this idea. The level of conviction that this innovation is going to make a difference to the world is palpable. In many cases inventors seem a little eccentric because they have not had enough sleep. That is one of their problems. They are so absorbed with their idea. I suspect that there is no greater form of loneliness and isolation than that which attaches to genius unrecognised, to innovation unappreciated.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—Is that your problem?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—I wish it were my problem. I have enough light only to recognise this form of isolation in others; I would never claim to have experienced it myself. The point is that we want to savour and honour the innovators of our culture; we want to allow them to get to market quickly. There have been some interjections from the other side. I point out that this bill—and intellectual property as a concept—is the ultimate refutation of socialism and the bankruptcy of the collective idea. It says that, if you want to motivate people to take risks and to give their heart and soul to an endeavour, you must give them an incentive: an individual personal reward for effort. Intellectual property is a relatively arcane and sophisticated concept. Those opposite who continue to practise the rhetoric of class warfare in relation to education funding and the like demonstrate how much they are creatures of centuries past rather than of centuries to come.Daniel Boorstin is regarded as the world authority on innovation. He wrote three books entitled The Inventors, The Creators and The Discoverers, and I think won a Pulitzer Prize for one of them. I quote not from any of those books but from Inventors and Discoverers Changing Our World, to which Boorstin has written the introductory chapter. Talking about Columbus—I want to talk about the genius of the individual that must be recognised and nurtured—Boorstin says:The classic chronicle of discovery is anything but anonymous. On the contrary, it is intensely, even intimately, personal. Columbus's achievement was a work of salesmanship, courage, expertise, knowledge of wind and current, organisational ability and stick-to-itiveness. He did have a compass and could find his bearings by ancient methods. But his was a personal, not a technological, triumph. Nobody before him had just the qualities, or found quite the opportunity, to do it.Discovery and innovation are intensely personal. They are chaotic, unpredictable, haphazard and serendipitous. We must ask ourselves: are we the kind of culture that values, encourages and nurtures that sort of intensely individual gift and talent? Alexander Graham Bell, for example, said of the inventor: `An inventor could no less cease to invent than he could cease to breathe.' He was saying that some men and women are created to invent; it comes out of their pores. The honourable member for Fraser referred to the performance of different nations in the OECD, including Australia. Individual invention takes place in a cultural context, which is either encouraging or discouraging. I must ask: what is our capacity and our level of tolerance to the zany, the eccentric, the different, the unusual and the unorthodox? QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—That's your problem: you're zany.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—You are probably correct. I would be honoured if that were the case—if the zaniness added something to the global body of knowledge. This is why things such as the scientific and scholastic values that have underpinned innovation, particularly in the Western world, over the past five centuries are important. We have seen an unbelievable flowering of knowledge. I refer, for example, to Matthew Richardson and his Penguin Book of Firsts, in which he says:From around 1300 there is a steady increase in the number of firsts being entered—for which Western Europe is mostly responsible. It culminates in the intense activity of the 19th and 20th centuries—two hundred years that furnish more entries than any earlier period of similar length.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—What were the dates?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—He says that from around 1300 there was a steady increase and then an intense burst in the 19th and 20th centuries. In talking about innovation, the most extraordinary statistic is that in the last 60 years of the 20th century, we added 20 years to the life expectancy of the average Australian. At the beginning of the century, the average Australian was living to the age of 60. Today the average Australian is living to the age of 80, and one in three girls born in Australia today will live to 100. The actuaries and biologists tell us that by the end of the 21st century, Australians will routinely be living to 110 and 115 years. Some will say that that sounds just unbelievable.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—With biotechnology,150.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—That is right. As the member rightly points out—biotechnology. And most of the patents are being registered in the area of biotechnology, of health research—for example, in the human genome project where we have the capability to physically map every gene in the human body. Of course, this raises a number of philosophical questions about whether we should be allowed to own the intellectual property over the human genome. One of the things that Boorstin points out is that the speed of innovation in the last two centuries made it nearly impossible to prophesy impossibilities. I will just repeat that. He says: The new partnership of the search to know—discovery—and the passion to innovate—invention—made it nearly impossible to prophesy impossibilities.When you think, for example, that from the time of Icarus, men and women were dreaming of heavier-than-air flights, century after century, then you get in 1904 to Kittyhawk, where two bicycle manufacturers from Dayton, Ohio, without a tertiary qualification between them, take off in the first heavier-than-air flight in human history on a windy peninsula in North Carolina in 1904. In my own lifetime, a mere 65 years later, you have Neil Armstrong stepping out of the Eagle spacecraft with the words, `One small step for a man'. When you think about the incredible compression of innovation into that century, it is just the most stunning achievement. I can see members looking for me to wind up, which I will happily do now.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr Andrew Thomson—No.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—Extension of time.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—Thank you, I appreciate that very much. The Chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, Maurice Newman, once said in relation to micro-economic reform that there are prizes for those who get there first. The same maxim is applicable to this idea of patents and the protection of intellectual property—the creation of innovation and discovery. There are prizes for those who get there first. For example, the race to map the human genome is driven in part by the realisation that those who can tie down the variables first will be able to create new technology. BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—Greed—is that what drives technology?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—Not at all. I am just saying that if our task as members of the House of Representatives is to protect and uphold the interests of Australia and the individual citizens who elected us, one of the things we have to do is protect Australia's strategic interests. It is not just quality of life issues; there are also defence and strategic questions. There are, in fact, whole new worlds out there which will be discovered in the next century. We want to ensure that Australia takes its place in the vanguard. We want to be at the forefront. We do not want to be playing catch-up. We do not want to have people in the middle of the next century walking into our electoral offices—or the offices of those who succeed us—saying, `I've had this great idea. I've had several offers to commercialise it, but they all come from overseas.' We want to see these ideas developed in Australia. We want to build a reputation as a country which nurtures idiosyncrasy, eccentricity, differentness and creativity and which does not insist on orthodoxy at every point. We want to be a government that also reflects those values. Those values, I think, are reflected in a small way in this bill. I am grateful that it enjoys the support of all sides of the House and I fully commend it to the chamber. 10:30:0019921Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I think the honourable member for Parramatta made a very good contribution, probably the best contribution I have heard him make to the House. The points he was trying to make were very good—Australia does have to do that and to encourage that. It is just unfortunate that he is a member of a government that has downgraded development and research in this country. We saw a headline this week which was a damning indictment of the Howard coalition government. XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr Lieberman—Your research is deeper than the headlines, surely!BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—My research goes further. It shows that the government is a worse government than the headlines are showing. It shows the government is bereft of ideas, decent policy and any opportunity of taking Australia forward.Government members interjecting—BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not be provoked by those people on the other side. The Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000 does have the support of both sides of the House. It amends the Patents Act 1990 to repeal the petty patent scheme, implement the innovation patent scheme and make other minor amendments. Its major objective is to introduce a new, innovative patent scheme to replace the current underused petty patent scheme and to provide a more assessable and effective protection for lower level and incremental inventions. That will help people get off the ground, and make it simple and easy, but give them some protection while they develop their idea or invention a bit further. It also facilitates streamlining the mechanisms available for the payment of fees under the Patents Act and there are a number of minor amendments to correct unintentioned ambiguities in the Patents Act.A report in 1995 concluded that the petty patent was not achieving its objectives and recommended that it be replaced with the innovation patent scheme that would require a lower inventive threshold than the standard or petty patent. It would have a shorter life of eight years, compared to the current 20 years of a standard patent, and would provide protection for lower level inventions.An innovation patent will be granted after a formalities check and will provide a patent owner with a right that is quick and cheap to obtain, is relatively simple, and lasts for a sufficient time to encourage investment in developing and marketing that invention. Then if a substantial examination is to take place, which is time-consuming and costly, in which the invention is assessed against statutory criteria, it will only occur if directed by the commissioner of patents or requested by the patent owner or a third party. If the patent meets the requirement of examination, it will be certified; if not, it will be revoked. To reduce the scope for unsubstantiated threats, an innovation patent owner can only enforce their rights if their patent has been certified. These patents are very important to a country and can be used to assist in developing new technology. Some Australian inventions are absolutely legendary and in many cases have generated millions of dollars for their owners and for Australia. The protection provided through the patent scheme has had a big part to play in this success and will encourage people to continue their research to develop new and innovative products, exploit new technology and promote the transfer of technology to Australia.It seems a great pity that so much can be achieved by Australians all over the nation, yet this government is not prepared to put decent amounts of funds into research and development, or create policies to do so. It cannot just be left to the business community to put up the wherewithal to develop ideas. There are times when there is insufficient risk capital available for the private sector to invest. There needs to be government assistance on crucial inventions. I do not care what the member for Parramatta would call that—maybe socialism, maybe interventionism. But those things need to happen, and the member for Parramatta should look at history and see how they happened in the past and how this great nation of Australia was developed.I can think of many good ideas that have passed this country by. They might have made something for the inventors, but not enough for them to reinvest and develop their ideas in Australia. So many good ideas have zoomed off and left us—gone overseas, offshore—because of the lack of support from all sectors. This situation is just not being addressed at the moment. Under this government, there is no will to help research and development look at innovative ways to do that. This government keeps passing the buck rather than using the buck to get something going.0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPBV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—I do not believe that research and development is money down the drain, although those on the other side may think it is. I think the member for Parramatta was talking about people having vision and being able to look outside.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPBV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—It is basically true. The member for Macquarie does not understand that governments need that visionary outlook. His party has certainly failed, and is failing, to do that in any way at all.0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPBV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—The government is certainly not using opportunities to get us into R&D, so I wonder whether this development in the patents scheme system will be able to play a role. It will certainly help to make things simpler and cheaper for people to get something going.As a country, we are clever—we have had to be. Historically, because of our isolation, people have made do and developed things to cope under the circumstances. No-one would have believed possible what we have been able to achieve at times. That occurs more so as you go further out, where people do not have the same access to things. The statement that necessity is the mother of invention is very true in the history of this country. You can see it all over the place.I am reminded that islands are a great example of this—and I do not just hold Tasmania up as an example. On some of our islands you can see the dump at the back of the shed and you can see things working. These things are working because of someone's inventiveness and innovation—by people being able to pull something apart and stick something onto something else to keep it working. They know that the ship is not coming in for another two months with the new part they need, so people's ideas—innovations—make things happen. We have been very good at that in this country. I can think of a Tasmanian example. Early last century, all the glass developed for precision type usage—including microscopes, gun sights and bomb sights—was imported from Europe, particularly from Germany at that stage. As we came into the Second World War, all that importation ceased and Australia was desperate for precision glass. A Tasmanian academic who had been doing some work with silica sand in Tasmania discovered that we had some of the best silica sand in the world—which we still have—and he started up a small company, undertook a few experiments with different processes and techniques and began manufacturing precision glass, to the extent that people from overseas were beating a path to his door. His little company played a very important role in Australia's war effort and went on long after the war until technology overtook it. He finally retired after making a great contribution to the Tasmanian economy and to a country in need at the time. Of course, he achieved something for himself, but his company really helped hugely at the time. Tasmania has had many other inventions, both in the past and now, but many have sadly disappeared offshore to be developed by those who could take a greater financial risk than our local folk. But lodging patents and developing ideas is expensive and needs to be assisted. This bill may help in a small way for some smaller ideas and very early development, but we need to do more and we certainly need to do more in R&D.This has been made quite apparent with the recent report Investing in our future, compiled by the Australian Research Council and the CSIRO. This found that Australia was lagging behind its trading partners when it comes to lodging patents in the United States. The way it is measured involves the analysis of the patents assigned to a particular country, using a certain technique described in this paper, which provides a means to objectively assess the potential for participating in that prosperity and to identify strong and weak areas in technological potential.The fact is that 96 per cent of those patents cited in research out of Australia were from publicly funded institutions such as universities and the CSIRO. We have to be more proactive in funding research and development if Australia is to get near the front of the bandwagon. It is for this reason that I think biotechnology research must be encouraged in Australia. We are very strong in this area. Public funding allows us to ensure that it is transparent and open when dealing with safety and ethics of proposals, particularly where the project has implications for health and the environment.When I was doing research on and discussing the Gene Technology Bill, I found that, despite discussion on the labelling issue previously, we have been eating GMO foods already with consumers really not being aware of it, despite their objections. How many people read their labels anyway? Most of this material is developed overseas and has been introduced by multinational companies into their products. The companies have the opportunity to make this information available as a positive contribution to the debate, but they are falling down on their responsibilities—probably because of the research needed and the public consultation has been funded from so little. Companies are there to turn a dollar, but the government is there to make sure the consumer gets the truth and fairness of the product. We need to know that GMOs can be a plus for the consumer as well as for the producer, and that should not be hidden, nor the processes under which they are assessed. So public research is essential to ensure an unbiased approach. I am just an ordinary backbencher; I have no specific scientific background, but I do have a farming and primary industry one and I can see that there could well be pluses all around in biotechnology. I know the debate is contentious, but I really believe that, used correctly, this technology could bring ordinary farming much closer to organic farming and could be beneficial to farmers, the land and our environment.I reviewed heaps of material for the GMO speech that I gave this week, and I still cannot believe that what this technology is doing is any less than what man has done over the last 10,000 years or so—only it is being done more quickly, more precisely and with more control from ourselves. Holding up research for a year, as in the Tasmanian case where a moratorium has been put on field trials, I do not believe will work and I believe it will put us behind the eight ball. We will still be importing heaps of produce that has GMO content and not be able to develop import replacements. Knowledge is strength. If we know and can trust what is going on, we can keep an eye on what else is happening around the world, and have our regulators at the ready to deal with problems that might occur. Prohibition tends to send everything underground and that is when things start to get dangerous. I have never been a believer in prohibition so I cannot agree with my own state government colleagues that there is a need for a moratorium and a possible ban on GMOs. They would have to ban the manufactured produce already flowing into the state and we cannot opt out from the rest of the world and expect to survive. Patents become part of the chain of events as new ideas come forward. Australia needs to be in a position to hang on to the ownership of the technology, especially that which involves biotechnology at this crucial stage. Obviously, patenting is part of the early process. Any way it can be made simpler and less expensive will help the country and those people using innovative ideas. However, this bill in isolation will not be the answer. It needs to be strongly backed up with additional funding in research and development to encourage more people to seek those patents, to go out and want to patent their ideas and inventions. Better tax incentives are certainly one way to get the private sector involved. Much more needs to be put into the education and training of our young people to make sure they have a good generation of young scientists coming through. I think that has been neglected also by the present government. It was only yesterday that I learnt something about bioprospecting and the opportunities in that area and the need for regulation as well. I saw the gathering of insects or plants and making it into a mash, breaking it down to the DNA, working out its make-up and chemistry and writing it down, using Australian plants or animals. When that is in written form, it can be reconstituted using synthetic material, so the actual knowledge is on a piece of paper or a floppy disc. Of course, there are export regulations and controls to stop taking animals, insects or plants out of Australia, but there is nothing to stop someone taking a piece of paper or sending an email. So we certainly need to be looking in this area as well.We certainly need to be using our processes, whether it is taxation or whatever, to encourage and help people to be innovative. That goes back to younger scientists coming through but it is not only scientists that develop things. We need to make sure that we have a positive proactive world. The world is about ideas. Wealth generation in today's world is ideas that need to be developed into services or goods. That is the way that countries are measuring their wealth.On innovation, they tell me that over this decade we are living in now we will be inventing and changing the way we are as much as we have done in the last 100 years. We have enormous change before us. We need to be proactive and we need to be encouraging R&D, which this government has just failed. It will go into the history books as being a failure in 2000-01 for its lack of innovation and of giving Australians opportunities. It is holding us back and we need to change that by changing this government. I support this new Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000. 10:50:0019925Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10— I have to say that some of the things that the member for Lyons just said in this debate on the Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000 bear very careful regard to the speech he made about the GMOs in the House of Representatives—a very good one. However, I have to say that today he has lapsed into error because the best thing a government can do to encourage innovation is get the hell out of the way and let the juices flow in the brains of the innovative folk of this country. We should let them get better access to capital, protect their private property rights, and stop putting government's hands in their pockets and plundering their income for taxes. We should stop that because that is exactly what would happen should the forces of socialism regain the Treasury bench here in this parliament. That, we will not allow to happen, let me tell you.Protection of private property is really at the core of innovation. There are two sides to this because if you have inadequate protection of a person's property, especially intellectual property, you will frighten away any investor from putting any money into it to develop it. On the other hand, if you have too much protection by way of patents, or too ferocious a regime of copyright protection, that stultifies the flow of capital from people who would like to develop other things that were, say, very close to that particular invention. They might be frightened away.I remember years ago in Japan it used to be said that the patent system there was somewhat inadequate when it came to foreign companies registering their inventions in Japan. For example, if you invented the bicycle and got a patent to protect that in Japan, the next thing you know Sumitomo or someone else would come along and patent a red bicycle, or someone would patent a blue bicycle. The protection afforded was very little, especially in the 1970s, with some of the agricultural chemicals that were brought into Japan by some of the large American companies. Suddenly there would be a Japanese chemical that looked suspiciously like it, and with a patent on it, thereby frustrating the opportunities for the real developer of the chemical, whoever that might have been.Likewise with brand names. In my adult life it has been interesting to see the labels on wine and other sorts of spirits being gradually changed. What was once a bottle of Australian champagne, before I was allowed to drink it—although I did so surreptitiously—is now not allowed to be called champagne. And I learnt the other day that port comes from the Portuguese town of Oporto and so now, according to this EU regime, the Controlleur d' Appellation, the French term for it, you are no longer allowed to call what we know as port, port. When I was a school student it was a pretty cheap sort of grog that we used to get hold of. `Plonk,' we called it. You are not allowed to call it port either. That is an example of how intellectual property is working these days. It goes in some strange directions.The member for Parramatta, who gave another excellent speech, as he always does, spoke about the human genome project, developing the DNA—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—You just destroyed the credibility of that.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—There is a worry that some of this gene technology will mean cloning Ross Cameron, and that frightens a few people. That aside, what we have done today in introducing this bill is not strike a hammer blow against socialism but perhaps just a little tap on the side of its head. It is another way of protecting private property, which is really the thing that you find the socialists worry most about. It goes back to Marx and all that sort of thing. Diminishing the security of title was something that the Keating government's native title legislative regime did. It directly reduced the likelihood of investment in mining and other sorts of rural development. Hence, as late as yesterday, it prompted the tragic resignation from the opposition front bench of our friend the member for Banks. He is such an entertaining gentleman sitting there. And what that is all about is private property. The Queensland government found the native title legislative regime of the Keating government to be affecting investment in mining in Queensland. So Peter Beattie said, `No, we cannot have that, we have got to have something more realistic.' He wanted something more like the coalition's policy, which is what that is code for. Of course, our dear friend Daryl found that he had to do the Kamikaze thing. He has gone, we have lost him.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—Madam Deputy Speaker, this has got nothing whatsoever to do with the bill.10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Member for Wentworth.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The honourable member has pointed out that perhaps I was getting a little enthusiastic and went off on a bit of a tangent. Returning to the bill—XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr Lieberman—You could move a condolence motion.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—This is not the time for condolence motions. We must not get into Daryl, as the member for Port Adelaide points out. We are talking about private property, and fair enough. A more flexible patent system will give more rights to the individual.The member for Parramatta made the interesting point that the pace of innovation really took off late last century and early this century. He talked about the Wright brothers and the development of flight and so forth. It set me thinking about what was really behind that innovation take-off. Much of it had to do with the development of the joint stock company. In about the middle of the previous century in Britain the notion of splitting shares into units and allowing individuals to purchase them and the collective ownership of property and investment became a reality. Open exchanges were then developed as newspapers began to publish the prices of various stocks. It happened with the tulips in Amsterdam and the South Sea Bubble, but I think it probably became a mass activity late last century and early this century. I think the great immigration flows to the United States probably had a lot to do with it also. That goes to what the member for Parramatta said about eccentricity and difference within society throwing up the kinds of folk who tinker away in their garages and invent things. They would no sooner stop inventing than stop breathing, as I think he quoted someone describing such people. This bill institutes a patent regime with a slightly lower inventive threshold, which gives us reasonably inexpensive and much faster access to comprehensive protection of intellectual property. It should do something to help individual Australian innovators who do not really have the capital to immediately engage a patent attorney to apply for a standard patent offering 20-year protection. It provides protection for eight years and it probably gives people an earlier opportunity to seek investment capital. Much has been said about the role of government in this process. The best thing that government can do is lie down and keep still. It should get out of the way and let individual folk access private capital—whether raising it publicly on the second board of the Stock Exchange or seeking venture capital. We then ask: what is the role of government? There is a notion that, if R&D spending were to flow from a department in Canberra, somehow or other more would be available. Not a lot of R&D spending is coming from the United States government, yet all the brightest young IT engineers in the world are going to Silicon Valley. They say `IT' stands for `India and Taiwan' these days because that is where most of the new software engineers are being produced. Of course we are trying to persuade them to live in Australia, enjoy our standard of living and contribute to innovation in this country. We will do that not by taking R&D spending out of the Treasury but by taking the government's hands out of people's pockets. Interest rates are one thing but, while our highest rate of income tax stays at 48 per cent, you are saying to people in Bangalore or Hsinchu in Taiwan, `Come and enjoy life in Australia; we'll take half your income from you.' How about that for an attractive offer? Of course they will say, `Don't be ridiculous; we would rather work in California where the tax rates are lower, there is more capital available and there is a sense that things should happen by way of innovation.' 3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—Tell us the difference between total tax rates in Australia and the United States.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The impression, Rod, is that it is better there. There is more capital and the total sum of attraction is higher because here we have—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—Tell us what the tax rate is.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—There are various tiers of it. It depends which state you live in. Why would it develop in California and not here in Australia where there are more—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPFB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—We are talking general principles here. There are more resources in terms of individuals closer, in a sense, to Australia who ought to be participating in this sort of activity and yet we are not able to attract them sufficiently. Tax is one part of it, I grant you, but it is also a sense of what a country or a particular jurisdiction is doing to encourage this kind of thing in a general sense. As the member for Parramatta said, we could do more to demonstrate that we want this sort of thing to happen here. Whether the government is to do something by way of taking people's money from them, establishing some guidelines and spending it, or whether it is going to stand back and let the natural processes prevail, that is the sort of road we have to take.I support this bill. It is a hammer blow to socialism and a good thing for the individuals tinkering in their backyards. I look forward to this government going further in the future to defend private property and fight back against the forces of socialism.11:01:0019927Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—in reply—In summing up the second reading debate on the Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000 I would like to thank the members who have contributed to the debate on this bill, including the member for Fraser, the member for Parramatta, the member for Lyons and the member for Wentworth. Each recognised in their comments the importance of the patent system in Australia and the vital role it plays in fostering innovation and providing new economic opportunities and driving economic growth in Australia. The bipartisan support this bill has received, and the recognition from all members of the positive benefits the innovation patent system will deliver to our small and medium business enterprises, are certainly very welcome indeed.The coalition is committed to fostering innovation and maintaining a strong and effective intellectual property system in Australia. Our commitment is reflected in the innovation summit held in Melbourne earlier this year and by the record $4.5 billion we have committed in funding for major science and innovation programs in the years 2000 and 2001. The Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000 is a key part of this process, building on the government's commitment to providing a patents system which meets the needs of all Australians and highlighting our ongoing efforts to improve the scope of intellectual property protection here in Australia. The government recognises the important role played by both large and small business enterprises in maintaining Australia's position as a strong innovator in the international marketplace. We also recognise that Australia's current intellectual property system may not provide effective or accessible intellectual property rights for those lower level inventions typically developed by small and medium business enterprises. This bill seeks to correct that imbalance by introducing the new innovation patent system.As I outlined in my second reading speech, the innovation patent system will share similarities with the second-tier patent systems introduced in over 48 other industrialised countries. Experience in these countries suggests that the second-tier patent systems are well used by local enterprises, particularly small and medium business enterprises, and help to foster local innovation. A major investment for many SMEs occurs in the development and testing of new products and improvements that, although not vastly different from existing technology, have significant commercial value. These inventions play an important part in the commercialisation and development of new and existing technology. However, they are often not seen to meet the inventive threshold requirements of the current patent system and there is no mechanism to prevent others from free riding on their investments. The innovation patent system has been designed to provide protection for these inventions by requiring a lower inventive threshold than is required for a standard patent. This will allow SMEs to protect and market their good ideas. It will also encourage them to continue to invest in innovation with the confidence that others cannot copy their improvements. The innovation patent system will provide a low cost, fast entry option into the patent system.The reduced cost of the innovation patent system will be offset by a shorter patent term, with innovation patents having a maximum term of eight years, in contrast to 20 years for a standard patent. This term also reflects the reduced contribution made to technology by lower level and incremental inventions. An innovation patent will be granted without substantive examination. This recognises the fact that only a small portion of granted patents proceed to court actions and that in many cases substantive examination of patents is an unnecessary and certainly a very costly procedure. The patent owner and the public can still ascertain the validity of an innovation patent by requesting examination of the patent. However, this process need only be undertaken where the validity of the patent is questioned or where there may have been an infringement of the patent.If Australia is to gain the maximum benefit from innovation, we require an intellectual property system that not only protects major developments, but also protects incremental inventions and smaller improvements in technology. The opposition's support for the bill recognises that the innovation patent system will provide this balance and enable both large and small business enterprises to profit from their investments in innovation.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 19929Billby leavetaken as a whole.11:08:0019929Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—by leave—I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 26, page 14 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute:26 Paragraph 54(6)(a)After “divisional application”, insert “for a standard patent provided for in section 79B”. (2) Schedule 1, page 14 (before line 11), before item 27, insert:26A Subsection 55(1)After “under section 54”, insert “or under subsection 62(3)”. (3) Schedule 1, item 34, page 15 (after line 29), at the end of section 62, add: (3) If: (a) a divisional application provided for in section 79B is made for an innovation patent; and (b) a notice is published in the Official Journal that the complete specification filed in respect of the divisional application is open to public inspection;the Commissioner must also publish in the Official Journal a notice that the complete specification filed in respect of the original application on which the divisional application is based is open to public inspection. (4) Schedule 1, item 42, page 17 (after line 15), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) The reference to a complete patent application first-mentioned in subsection (1) does not include a reference to a divisional application for an innovation patent provided for in section 79C. (5) Schedule 1, page 28 (after line 6), after item 57, insert:57A Subsection 114(2)Repeal the subsection. (6) Schedule 1, item 74, page 32 (line 3), omit “request” (second occurring), substitute “specification”.The major objective of the Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000 is to introduce the new innovation patent system. However, it has become apparent that the bill has several unintended effects with regard to the publication of innovation patents and the conversion of innovation patents to standard patents. The amendments correct these unintended effects and two other minor drafting errors in the bill.One of the objectives of the innovation patent system is to provide fast progression from application to granted patent. To meet this objective, innovation patents will be granted soon after filing and will generally only be published after grant. Post-grant publication will ensure that the publication process does not delay grant. An oversight during the drafting of the bill has resulted in a situation where innovation patents will, in some cases, be unintentionally published prior to grant. The first amendment corrects this unintended effect.The Patents Act allows applications to file a further application—a divisional application—for an invention described in an earlier application—the parent application. A technical requirement of the Patents Act is that once a divisional application is published, the parent application must also be published. This allows the public to ascertain that the divisional application properly relates to an invention described in the parent. However, the current wording of the bill does not necessitate the publication of the parent where a divisional application is an innovation patent. The second and third amendments correct this oversight. The fourth amendment closes a loophole that would have allowed the conversion of innovation patents to standard patents. It has always been the government's intention that innovation patents cannot be converted to standard patents. The remaining two amendments remove a redundant provision from the bill and make a technical correction in the wording of the bill. These amendments ensure that the innovation patent system will operate as intended and provide an effective system for the protection of lower level and incremental inventions. I seek leave to table the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Leave granted.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.Committees199301993019930Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Dr Nelson:That the House take note of the report.11:11:0019930Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Before the Main Committee adjourned yesterday I was making some comments on the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations entitled Age counts: an inquiry into issues specific to mature-age workers. The report discusses a number of issues facing people in their 40s and 50s in particular who suddenly and unexpectedly find themselves unemployed.At the end of my comments yesterday I was specifically discussing the problems that mature age unemployed find in trying to re-access employment and re-enter the workplace. For instance, blue-collar workers, because many of them are in manufacturing industry where restructuring is going on, can find themselves suddenly unemployed. Many of these people who have not had post-secondary educational qualifications find it very hard to re-access employment. The committee recommends, therefore, that local Job Network providers should be involved in special training arrangements for mature age unemployed to provide courses that will assist them in re-entering the work force.One of the areas in particular where a number of mature age unemployed need help is computer literacy and information technology. Many of them have not had to deal during their working lives with information technology, with computers, and yet the new jobs that they might want to access have those as basic and essential requirements. So the committee recommends that the government fund a national computer literacy training program for mature age workers to bring them up to speed on those computer literacy skills that will make them far more employable. I think it is an excellent recommendation. There is a lot going for it and it would certainly make it easier for a lot of those mature age workers to re-enter the work force.Another way of assisting the mature aged back into the work force would be to assist in other areas of retraining, including traineeships and apprenticeships. The committee therefore recommends that the government introduce a special training subsidy for mature age people undertaking formal apprenticeships and formal traineeships. Under this government's new apprenticeship system, there is no age restriction to accessing apprenticeships and traineeships, but employers seem to be reluctant to take on older trainees or apprentices. So a special training subsidy for those employers may well encourage them to give that opportunity to mature age unemployed wanting to take on an apprenticeship or a traineeship. One of the other problems in terms of trying to re-enter the employment market is the difficulty that many people have with respect to the cost of travelling to job interviews. I suppose that is not just a problem for mature age unemployed. The committee recommends that the government consider a transport reimbursement scheme for job seekers in outer metropolitan, rural and regional areas who are experiencing transport difficulties. It recommends that a trial be conducted by Centrelink in several locations. As a member representing such an area, I would certainly like to see such a trial include the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury areas, because I know that some of my constituents have trouble travelling—and have trouble with the cost of travelling—to job interviews.Another main area of the committee's report focused on the financial difficulties of the mature age unemployed. As I indicated in my comments yesterday, people in their 40s and 50s have often signed themselves up to fairly substantial, ongoing financial commitments—mortgage payments, children's education, et cetera. To suddenly find themselves unemployed can really create enormous strains. The committee has made a number of recommendations to try to ease this pain. Firstly, the committee recommends that greater assistance and incentive be given to those wanting to access part-time or casual work. Perhaps we could consider indexing the means test base. The committee recommends reducing the withdrawal rate for long-term mature age unemployed by 10 cents in the dollar. Secondly, the committee makes a number of recommendations regarding superannuation and access to superannuation. For instance, the committee recommends that the government reconsider its decision to include superannuation assets in eligibility assessments for Newstart payments for people over 55 who have received benefits for at least 39 weeks. If necessary, a ceiling could be placed on the amount of superannuation assets that are to be excluded. This would ease the financial pain a bit for those over 55 who really are trying to find employment and who cannot do so.Thirdly, the committee makes some recommendations regarding mature age unemployed being able to access their superannuation to meet mortgage payments. As I said, people of this age often have significant mortgage commitments and finding themselves unemployed at age 45, 50 or 55 can create enormous strains The last thing that people in this position want is to be forced to sell their house because they cannot meet their mortgage payments, even though in many cases they have a fairly large amount put aside in superannuation. So the committee recommends some easing of access to superannuation for these people so that they can meet their mortgage payments.The committee makes three specific recommendations in this regard. Firstly, it recommends that the government removes the 26-week waiting period before people on Newstart allowance benefits are able to access superannuation funds to meet their mortgage payments. The existence of mortgage commitments should be deemed to satisfy the financial hardship grounds for such access. Secondly, the committee explores the feasibility of allowing anyone over 45 to access their superannuation contributions for mortgage payment purposes in the immediate unemployment period up to a maximum of 26 weeks. Thirdly, the committee recommends that Centrelink publicise on the Internet and in other relevant publications that superannuation fund members who are receiving Newstart allowance benefits may access up to three months repayments and 12 months interest on the outstanding balance of a loan in order to make payments to save the family home from foreclosure. These recommendations would seem to me to be perfectly fair and reasonable for those people of a mature age who suddenly find themselves unable to meet their financial commitments and unable to meet their mortgage commitments because of their unemployment. Over recent decades, the toll of unemployment on those finding themselves unable to work has obviously been severe for people of all ages. Over the general business cycles when we have had recessions, including the last one back in 1991—the one that we supposedly had to have—along with the general process of industrial restructuring that has been going on in the country for decades, pressures have been placed on anyone who finds themselves unemployed. But as this committee's investigations have found, there are particular problems facing those of a mature age, in terms of discrimination, stereotypes in the work force, particular barriers making it harder for them to re-enter the work force, and particular financial hardships. This report makes a number of very worthwhile recommendations that would ease the pain and the financial, emotional and social suffering of the mature age unemployed, that would facilitate their re-entry into the work force and, for the community generally, would enable us to continue to use the rich resources provided by our mature age workers. It would be a terrible shame for our society, for our community and for our economy if the skills, the maturity, the experience and the work ethic of our mature age people were not able to be applied. That would be a terrible loss to our community. This committee makes some very valuable recommendations not only to assist those people to be reabsorbed into the work force for their own sake but also to allow the community generally to continue to benefit from the contribution that our experienced workers could make. We have certainly seen over the past four years under this government a steady ongoing decline in unemployment—from 8.6 per cent when we came into office down to 6.3 per cent now. Over 800,000 jobs have been created under the policies of this government.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—Not many full-time jobs.0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT—Most of them are full-time jobs. There is an obvious commitment to strong economic growth and to general policy directions that reduce unemployment and provide opportunities for all our unemployed. We need to continue those sound, strong economic policies that will provide opportunities for all our unemployed, but this report makes recommendations that will enable us to particularly target issues confronting mature age unemployment. I therefore commend the recommendations of this report to the committee and to the government.11:21:0019932Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Age counts report before us today concerns a long neglected segment of our community. They are the long-term, older unemployed people. I refer to the statements made by the member for Dickson, Mrs Cheryl Kernot, in this place on Monday, 14 August 2000 in defining an older unemployed person as `40 years of age and over', whilst the report before us defines mature age unemployment as `45 years or more'. The definition of long-term unemployed is `people unemployed for two years or more'. I refer to my own party's policy document titled `Reconstructing the Welfare System', an authoritative text prepared by the shadow minister for family and community services, the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan. At page 7 of the policy document, long-term unemployment is defined as `those out of work for longer than two years'.The honourable member for Dickson's speech on 14 August highlights the thrust of the report before us today: that they, the long-term, mature age unemployed, have been taking an unfair share of the consequences of economic restructuring in this country. I have taken this government to task in this place on several occasions on the utilitarian ethic that drives the government. The Australian Labor Party policy document highlights this evil ethic that has racked and ruined so many in Australia. The honourable member for Dickson's words are apt. They are timely, for what we have in this government's so-called reform of social welfare is nothing more than the bludgeoning of the politically and economically weakest of our society. This government has divided the community into new heights of disparity between rich and poor never before seen in our country. Utilitarian value judgments between deserving and undeserving social welfare recipients are now made along economically driven directives. Cost cutting is the real name behind this so-called reform. This is the real agenda behind the Liberal Party's Fightback and subsequent agenda setting by the government. This government has marked the agenda along United States lines of labour market deregulation, wage cutting and pathetically low minimum wage setting. As a direct result of this government's policies, the shadow minister's policy document notes that Australia's long-term unemployment has risen as a percentage of total unemployment from just over 20 per cent of total unemployed in 1990 to over 30 per cent in 1998. This is against a backdrop of falling long-term unemployed as a percentage of total unemployed in the economies of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and New Zealand. A further consequence is the rising dependence on social security in Australia. Now, one in four households, or 2.34 million households, in Australia live below the poverty line. Finally, the Gini coefficient—that is, the line of evenness of distribution of income through the economy—has demonstrated that we, as an economy, are becoming more unequal, with the coefficient of 0.446.These are just some of the indicators that show the ineluctable conclusions that Australia is becoming a society of haves and have-nots, a society driven by utility rather than by social justice. The policies of this government are a cynical reminder of majority politics. They pander to middle Australians, they ignore taxing the richer portions of our community, particularly the corporations, whilst they make for misery of the most vulnerable—the long-term and mature age unemployed.The report before us attempts to address these issues. It makes 38 recommendations, which on the whole are welcome. However, they are small in comparison with the ethical forces driving our economy. It will take more than the recommendations highlighted in the report to reduce the trend toward increased long-term mature age unemployment. It is the growing trend of utility based ethics that has led to this discrimination against mature workers. It is part of the entire economic system perpetrated by this government that discriminates against mature age workers.It is now a competition between young and old. Mature age workers cost more in pay and benefits; they are less flexible to retrain. Their expectations are higher. They are wiser; they can stand up for themselves more. Consequently, they are the first to go. They are retrenched before younger persons. Put simply, the economy cake gets bigger but they get a smaller slice, or no slice at all. The larger portion of the cake goes to those who already have, and hence those people get more. The injustice is manifest.I will not go through all the recommendations here. The report is in part a heart-wrenching confession of people suffering in silence severe economic hardship. People reaching the latter years of their life are being compelled to draw down on superannuation in advance of their retirement just to pay for day-to-day costs of living. By retirement, they are penniless and destitute. They become social security recipients and hence a further debt on our society. This is no fault of theirs. They made the effort to make provision for the future, in part by compulsory contribution but also by voluntary contribution.The recommendations speak of various issues: education, awareness campaigns and even a code of conduct feature in bringing the matter to a head. There are recommendations for training courses, computer literacy, skills and career guidance, traineeships and apprenticeships for mature age workers. There are recommendations for alternative work arrangements, including part-time and casual work options, new business opportunities and eligibility for Newstart and other administrative changes. These recommendations and proposed adjustments are all individually welcome. However, the root of the injustice of the plight of the mature age, long-term unemployed is the utilitarian driven directives of this government. In short, the fundamentals are wrong. The government has created an economic environment which denies long-term mature age unemployed people the level playing field they deserve. Indeed, the playing field is not even. Mature age and young employees are not equal. They have differing skills and attributes. Mature age employees have the benefits of experience, knowledge and wisdom. Young people have the benefits of age and flexibility. These are generalisations, but they are the sorts of factors that lead to the very discrimination I have referred to. Further, they are the very factors behind the increase in the long-term mature age unemployed. This government has judged the long-term mature age unemployed to be less valuable than younger employees. They have been scrapped long before their expected retirement date; they have been declared surplus to requirements.This ethic is based on the utility ethic of the greatest good for the greatest number. It is too bad that the mature age, long-term unemployed should fall on the side of the losers in our society. However, it is a reflection of the deliberate economic policies of this government that these are among the targeted members of society who have been singled out for discriminatory work relations which have, essentially, priced them out of the market. Cheaper, more pliable young workers are thought more suitable than experienced and more expensive alternatives.I have personally seen the effect on the Public Service during my tenure as an employee of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission. During that time I saw a spate of voluntary redundancy packages and forced retrenchments meted out to our Public Service. The effect is that we have witnessed a brain drain within our market that has truly diminished and weakened the intellectual capacity of the Commonwealth Public Service.The cost of such decimation of the ranks is not easily measurable. Further, we will not see the effects of such decimation for many years. Simply, the demise of public and private sector skills means that there have already been shortfalls in skill levels throughout so many public and private sectors. In some cases, entire professions in Australia have literally been wiped out. I could mention personal representations in my electorate office in respect of building trades and, in particular, the tiling industry. It has come to the point where skilled labourers must be encouraged to migrate to Australia, as we have simply run out.So too in the public sector: there has been a decimation of skill and experience in the administration of government in Australia, the like of which we have not seen before. A prudent public servant takes many years of experience to acquire a sufficient awareness of governance to be capable of serving as a true public servant. You cannot put an old head on young shoulders. It is true that it takes many years for a public servant to understand the policy implications of the rule of law, administrative law—including notions of procedural fairness—natural justice, privacy, responsible government and so forth. These are ethical issues that are the backbone of good governance. When these public servants walk out the door, they take their experience with them. This is what has happened in so many departments at federal, state and local government levels. This government, in its greed and utility driven wants for bottom line economic imperatives, sees it as more useful to employ a younger, inexperienced officer or to outsource for short-term contracts. The effect is that the ethic of good governance is never imparted. An entire culture is lost. This is the long-term cost of such short-sighted, financially and utility driven objectives. I say this in terms of the impacts of the report before us today. These recommendations are window-dressing. They do not address the fundamental inequities that have plagued the management of the long-term, mature age unemployed. The recommendations attempt to cover up a more fundamental inequality which is pervading the economy. I do not wish to go into the detail of the 38 recommendations made in this report other than to say that, yet again, the ambit of discussion in this parliament is typified by reductionism. The report reduces the issues to the banal, those piecemeal ameliorative measures that will blunt the hurt of the more fundamental factors which are the ultimate root of the problem. The report addresses problems that are by and large the creation of this government. The government has itself to blame for a market of its own making. This market envisions a world where mature, skilled workers are trashed because they are economically too expensive and politically expendable. The effect, as the shadow minister for family and community services so correctly notes, is the drain on national wealth.What is the national wealth to which the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan, refers? It is the skill and experience base I have been referring to during this entire speech. It is the entire infrastructure of that magical mix of experience and youth that is the hallmark of any successful economy, sport team or social endeavour. You do need both. You cannot run an economy with bias towards youth or maturity. The economy must be balanced. The government's policy has discriminated against the aged and, in doing so, introduced fundamental imbalances in the economy. These imbalances will come to plague Australia in the years to come. The Age counts report, while noble in its own reductionist way, does not address the fundamentals. National wealth requires an investment in people. This is not simply a cash throwing exercise. Fundamentals have been thrown into disarray. One particular fundamental assumption that is no longer an assumption is that a person has a job until they reach the age of 65. There is now no job security. A job for five years or even three years is considered long term. This trend affects all aspects of life including family building, house purchases and other fundamental family decision making. Whilst this government speaks so bravely about family and children, its economic policies reflect a contempt for the family, including the long-term, mature age unemployed who are discriminated against in being able to sustain a family. The opposition has articulated its own policy which is directed towards maintaining the national wealth of its people. Job security and reducing and ultimately eliminating poverty traps are at the heart of this policy. Again, I could go into a long litany of cost cutting which this government has undertaken in pursuing purported social welfare savings of over $5 billion during the 1998-99 budget. There are over 40 areas of cutbacks, too many to go into in any detail here. However, one trend is clear in the government's decisions. In terms of the government's direction they are targeting single parents, people with disabilities, long-term unemployed, and older unemployed. You see at a glance the consistency of the utilitarian ethic being played by this government. It is no accident that these four segments of our community are singled out for social attack. They are the ones who must pay for middle Australia's world of increasing share prices, affluence and hedonistic pursuits. These four groups are singled out to be the utilitarian losers who pay the unfair burden of the cost cuts whilst middle Australia enjoys the benefits. The alternative to this utility driven economics is a policy built on social justice. Social justice demands that each be given according to their due. This is the core of the opposition's policy response to this most inequitable government policy. Social justice notes the moral goods that are assailed by this government's policy. These include the right to work, the right to a fair income, and the right to the expectation that a person may live the latter years of their life with a degree of certainty. For too long the government relied on the legal administrative rule that government may make or unmake laws at will. This is an administrative right in the hands of government. This parliament can and does make laws which often backflip, saying `black' one day and `white' the next. This is both understood and necessary in any functional sovereign state. However, the policy shifts which this government has implemented have had severe deleterious effects on the future of mature workers in the work force. I include in the term `work force' those who are currently unemployed but who are actively seeking to work. Gap analysis is a term of art which has, as one definition, the policy loss of shifting from one set of laws to another; in short, what is lost or gained when laws are shifted. The laws relating to employment, industrial relations and training have all made their mark on the long-term and mature age unemployed. Again, it would take too long to go into any detail here. What are important are the ultimate reasons behind the conspicuous increase in long-term unemployed as a percentage of total unemployed. I put it to the parliament that the ultimate reason for this increase to 32 per cent is found in the gap analysis. The government's laws reflecting their implemented policy demonstrate the fruits of their policies. This is the measurable effect amongst many other non-quantifiable adverse effects such as the loss of skill base, wisdom and experience. The costs of national wealth and family insecurity are not liabilities on the balance sheet and are therefore selectively forgotten. This is the pervasive nature of ethics as this government presents them. This is the manner in which they dupe themselves into believing that an economic cost cutting exercise is preferable to the survival of a self-serving economy. The term `economic rationalism' has been used to describe what is really a policy of unbridled utility maximising pursuits of profit-driven public economies. It is truly not rationalist because its appeal to reason is predicated on the good it is maximising—that is, money. The government's blind pursuit of money has contaminated practically every policy, with other catastrophic consequences. The result has been to deny justice to those who are owed it. As the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan, notes, welfare reform is a case of invest now or pay later. It is exactly the same economic/ecological question of any social cost. `Eco' is the Greek prefix for the word `household' and is therefore the common prefix to both words, `economy' and `ecology'. It is no mistake. You cannot refer to a house simply by reference to the living room and bedrooms. To speak meaningfully about the house, you must also refer to the kitchen, bathroom and laundry. So it is with welfare policy. It cannot be presented in terms of its bottom line economic cost cuts. It must be understood properly in its broader context of social impact.Finally, this government must acknowledge the harm that it has caused by the relentless pursuit of its policy and further acknowledge the logical consequences of its actions. The opposition's policy document focuses clearly on the different policy platform of social justice, in sharp juxtaposition to the utilitarian approach of this government. We have highlighted the imperatives of the rights of rewarding work, the right of education and hence empowerment and flexibility of workers to shift their work environments. But, more importantly, the issue relates to the fundamentals, including the investment in children for the future, as well as the overhaul of the social welfare system, particularly in restoring the more than 40 social security net provisions which this government has either explicitly removed or reduced to impotence. (Time expired)11:36:0019937May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Losing your livelihood after a lifetime of continuous work is a major life trauma. The issue of mature age unemployment will only become more pressing as Australia's population ages. I am pleased that this government has had the foresight to recognise the challenges we face and has attempted to devise and recommend some solutions. As a new member of the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, I have not been as integrally involved in this inquiry as others. However, I would like to congratulate the entire committee for tackling a difficult subject and coming up with a set of practical and worthwhile recommendations in the report entitled Age Counts: an inquiry into issues specific to mature-age workers.So much of our self-confidence and the person we consider ourselves to be are tied up in the career or job to which we have chosen to dedicate our life. Prolonged periods of unemployment take a financial toll on older people, but they also take a personal toll on the person's family life and their feeling of self-worth. Mature age unemployment has particularly harsh effects because at this stage people generally consider themselves to be at the prime of their working lives. In fact, there is significant evidence that the psychological stress of losing a job at an older age leads to a high incidence of illness and, in the more extreme cases, even to early death. Mature age unemployment also impacts on the wider community because those who leave the work force unwillingly are often unable to save for their retirement. This lack of retirement income threatens to become a serious problem as our population ages, because it forces working taxpayers to foot the bill of increased income support and health costs for a burgeoning generation. According to ABS statistics, in 1997 almost half the men aged over 45 were unemployed as a result of retrenchment, redundancy or retirement. It represents a tremendous loss of human capital which gives an insight into the consequences of being underprepared to deal with the changing nature of work. Australia has embraced the technology revolution with relish and those over 45 have not been able to keep up. These people have not grown up with technology and have difficulty adapting to a world where computer skills are as essential as a drivers licence. Becoming computer literate involves a major commitment and many mature age workers are not prepared to invest that much time and energy into learning new skills during what they see as the final years of their working life.Age counts is a comprehensive report and its recommendations cover a wealth of areas. Although these issues need to be considered in totality, today I would like to focus on two specific areas: firstly, the devastating consequences of mature age unemployment; and, secondly, the remedy that many people in this position adopt—starting their own small business. In pure financial terms, the economic loss to the individual and their family of losing a job later in life is devastating. Even with income support, Treasury advice indicates that only about one-third of the net wages and superannuation is replaced. Older workers also tend to have greater ongoing financial commitments than younger people. In addition, many have dependent children to support through university education and aged parents to care for. Losing the income of the main breadwinner, which in older Australians is usually the male, can put an intolerable burden on family relationships. The report notes that a substantial number of relationship break-ups in the 40 years and over age group can be traced back to the male losing his job and his role as the main provider for the family.In addition to the wage income lost, the mature age unemployed have the additional stress of being cut off from gaining the retirement income they were depending on, such as superannuation. Although award superannuation and the superannuation guarantee levy have increased retirement savings, last year the average balance in superannuation guarantee accounts was still only $8,000 or $9,000. The earlier a person becomes unemployed the more dependent they will become on the age pension. At the broader level, mature age unemployment puts a strain on the Australian economy by reducing current and future tax revenue, increasing welfare payments such as the age pension, and increasing spending on health, education and other social services. The result is lower economic growth. A submission to the inquiry indicated that, if the proportion of 50- to 64-year-olds receiving income support remains at the same level as in 1997, a further 460,000 people will be receiving payments by the year 2011. This will cost in the order of $3.6 billion each year. In reality, we can expect the bill to be even higher, due to our rapidly ageing population. In contrast, the report notes that if these older people were to remain in the work force they would add to the national economic output and save taxpayers billions of dollars in welfare support.The loss of a job also entails the loss of the social and professional networks that come with it which limits the opportunity to find available jobs. In an attempt to avoid the feelings of dependency and financial inadequacy that come with unemployment, many mature age people attempt to start their own small business. It can be seen as an attempt by older people to buy themselves a job. Although the inclination is understandable, it is a risky strategy which can result in the person ending up in a worse financial position than they started with. The inquiry found that mature age people aged 55 or over are the group most likely to be self-employed. A recent survey found that, of 1,000 people who lost their jobs in 1998 to 1999, 33 per cent of those over 50 chose self-employment. But the Employment Strategies Council has estimated that only a tiny three per cent of small businesses are successful.The consequences of business failure can be even more crippling than the loss of employment for older people. Most have invested their retirement income or redundancy packages in the business and their financial security hinges on its success. The committee's report states that less than 50 per cent of mature age people starting a new business had received any training. One of the key findings of the report is to ensure older people facing loss of employment should be adequately counselled about the risks of starting a business and strategies which can increase their chance of success.The federal government has established a range of programs to help people setting up a new business. The New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, or NEIS, can be particularly useful to older people. Each year the NEIS program helps about 6,000 people with no previous business experience to get started. The committee was impressed with this program. I fully support the recommendation to expand the NEIS program to provide assistance to those people buying a franchise or an existing business. Although a more limited version of NEIS, called the self-employment development program, is available to those wishing to purchase an established business, it does not provide the full range of support services that NEIS does. However, the committee found that even successful schemes like NEIS must be tailored to the specific needs of mature age people which may involve more frequent face-to-face contact and assistance. Despite a wealth of government assistance and schemes designed to help fledgling small businesses, the committee found that there is a lack of awareness about their existence. A wealth of information is available through various web sites and the Business Entry Point, but mature age people often do not possess the computer skills needed to access it. In fact, in 1996 the business longitudinal survey found that less than seven per cent of micro-businesses made use of government programs compared with over 61 per cent of firms with 500 or more employees. This sort of information, combined with anecdotal evidence, has led the committee to recommend that the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business review the way it promotes government programs and disseminates information about the type of assistance available. It is a simple step but one that is clearly not being carried out effectively. My final point, which I will touch on briefly, involves older people's relationships with information technology. The committee found that mature age workers require specialised training to become computer literate if they are to participate fully in the work force of the new millennium. The federal government has invested in well-resourced programs to ensure that all school students are taught basic numeracy and literacy. Today computer literacy is almost as important as these other fundamental skills, and the government must institute similar literacy programs for mature age workers. In modern society it is increasingly difficult to function without a base level of computer skills. Without them, the mature age unemployed have difficulty finding work and, if they do, they are confined to low-paid jobs. Australia's ageing population makes it a necessity for our society to change its attitude towards the ageing. We must cultivate the recognition that older workers can be just as enthusiastic and motivated as younger ones. Employers need to acknowledge the unique skills that wisdom and life experience bring to a job. The federal government has taken the first steps towards addressing the unique challenges posed by mature age unemployment through this inquiry and now we must act upon the report and its recommendations.11:47:0019939Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the report Age counts. I want to make two key points. First, I want to talk a little about mature age unemployment in the Latrobe Valley; and, secondly, I want to comment on the McClure report and its implications for the mature age unemployed.I represent the Latrobe Valley—it is a key part of my constituency—and I must admit up-front that I feel very strongly about this issue. We hear quite a bit about the high levels of unemployment in the Latrobe Valley. I remind the House that the unemployment rate in that area is about 17 per cent in Moe, about 18 per cent in Morwell and about 11 per cent in Traralgon. Those are very high unemployment rates—especially when you compare the rates in those three towns, which are the three main towns in the Latrobe Valley, with unemployment rates in cities such as Sydney and Melbourne where, in some suburbs, unemployment has fallen to below one per cent. We have a structural unemployment problem in the Latrobe Valley. Much of the problem of mature age unemployment in the Latrobe Valley can be traced back to when the local power industry was deregulated and privatised. It is agreed by people on all sides of politics that that led to a reduction in the number of jobs in the power industry in the Latrobe Valley from 12,500 to about 2,500 over a period of five or six years. We lost a lot of jobs and many of those affected now constitute the mature age unemployed. I want to make the point that, in considering those issues which are specific to mature age workers, we must not forget those issues which are specific to the mature age unemployed. We have a lot of skills in the Latrobe Valley, especially in traditional industries such as boilermaking, carpentry, fitting and turning, and the people carrying those skills are mostly those who are over 40 and have worked for many years in and around the industries in my constituency—namely, the power industry and the pulp and paper industry. Those people have a lot to give, a lot of skills and a lot of knowledge to pass on. Too often, though, we forget about those people. We rule them out of the equation and, too often, they are thrown on the scrap heap and forgotten about. We must never forget about these people because they do have so much to give, and so much knowledge to pass on to the younger generation. I speak to people right across my constituency who want to make a bigger contribution. They want to do more for their community. They have worked quite often in the one job in the one industry for a period of 25 or 30 years and they are still young men or women—mostly young men, I should point out, as they are mostly from traditional industries. They have worked for 25 or 30 years as a carpenter or as a boilermaker or as a tradesman in the different area, so they have a lot of knowledge and skills. And they are still less than 50 years old, so they have some years before they are really in a position to retire, or some years when they can still make a contribution before they feel that they should retire.The public policy challenge for places like the Latrobe Valley is: how do you engage with these people who have so much to give and who want to give? How do you get them to contribute towards the other side of the unemployment equation in places like the Latrobe Valley? How do you marry their need to do more and the skills that they have, to giving the young people who are unemployed in such significant numbers in our district—some 35 or 40 per cent—the skills they need so they can get a job and a start? So far, there really has been no genuine effort by the federal government to deal with this very serious issue. We must not forget that nearly all of the problems that we have in the Latrobe Valley now in terms of structural unemployment and mature age unemployment are a direct result of national competition policy. So it is a federal government responsibility, because national competition policy was, of course, a federal government initiative. We need to do something, and it is not as though doing something for the mature age unemployed in the Latrobe Valley would cost a lot. What is required is an approach which brings together local government, state government and the federal government, as well as all of the education, employment and skills training providers in the district, so that we can have a whole of region approach to this very significant issue. Thus far, there has not been the leadership provided by the federal government to do that. That is a shame. We do a disservice to those people who need that cooperation for them to achieve their potential, for them to be given the opportunity to provide for a skills transfer to the next generation.I note the member for McPherson in her contribution earlier made some good points about literacy and adult literacy. I want to pick up on what she had to say. So often we only hear about adult literacy, especially for those people who have come to us from countries where English is not spoken as the main language, and we only talk about adult literacy in the context of mutual obligation—that they must be do this, otherwise they will be kicked off the benefit that they receive from the government. We have to have a bigger vision of what we want to achieve when we talk about adult literacy. In an area such as mine, it is no good saying to someone who has been out of work for maybe five, six or seven years and who before that worked in the one job in the one industry, maybe as a boilermaker, a fitter or a carpenter, `You must do this adult literacy course or you will be kicked off unemployment benefit.' That is not the way to engage with that person, to encourage them to participate of their own free will. For adult literacy to mean anything, people have to want to gain it; they have to want to participate.What benefit can that boilermaker, fitter or machinist—whatever trade he was in—see from taking part in this compulsory literacy program? Nothing. He cannot see any benefit in it, other than that he will get to keep his payment. We have to find a way whereby we say to him, `If you do this, you have got a very good chance of getting a new job, getting some new skills, or at least you will get the opportunity to pass on the skills that you have to other people,' because so much of these people's lives in their 50s and early 60s is about helping the next generation. I find it very humbling when I speak to these people because they are so selfless. Often they are not concerned so much about themselves or getting a job; they are concerned about passing on the skills that they have to the next generation so that the next generation can get a job. So we have to have a better approach: engaging with them, instead of just trying to use the whip hand by saying, `You must do this literacy course, otherwise you will be off your benefit.' What we have to say is, `Why don't you do this literacy course? We will encourage you to do it. We will provide you with some incentives to do it. And, if you do it, you have got a better than average chance of getting a job. Or we will find a way for you to pass on the skills that you have, using your new literacy skills, to other people.' I think that is something which they would feel very good about.We must never lose sight of the need to encourage these people, who so often feel down about the fact that they are out of work, especially—I make the point again—people who come from non-English speaking backgrounds, where there is so much pride wrapped up in being the person who brings an income into the family. A lot of people feel that they are diminished as men if they cannot provide for their family. We must respect that and be sensitive to it. That is the new approach by the federal government which we need to see in its dealing with the serious issue of mature age unemployment in the Latrobe Valley.The second point I want to make in this debate is to talk about the implications of the McClure report in the context of mature age unemployment. I think it would be fair to say that bipartisan support has been provided for the report's recommendations. This is a good thing. The recommendations of the report, in their entirety, provide a sound basis for some genuine moving forward on issues which have in the past been almost intractable. So I welcome that.We need, however, to look very closely at the detail of the McClure report as it relates to those people who are mature age unemployed or who are on mature age allowance, to make sure that the recommendations of the report, when enacted, will not be of any disadvantage to those people, particularly people in that situation who are living in areas of very high unemployment such as the Latrobe Valley and other regions experiencing similar difficulties right across Australia. We need to be careful and watchful of the practical outcome of some of those recommendations. I would point out again that, in an area of very high unemployment such as the Latrobe Valley, if someone is required to apply for an unrealistic number of jobs or expected to get a job very quickly, that is just going to create an expectation which it is impossible to meet. What is going to happen when those people who are long-term unemployed do not meet that expectation? They are going to be punished by Centrelink. They are going to feel as though they are failures and that they have somehow not been able to complete the task set for them which people in other areas were able to complete. We need to be very sensitive to the requirements of the mature age unemployed and of those people who are on mature age allowance in particular regions, such as the Latrobe Valley that I represent, where there is such a high structural unemployment problem.I think most people would agree that the essence of the McClure report is good in moving people from welfare to work. That is what we want to see. There is a dignity in work, and the mature age unemployed in the Latrobe Valley have experienced the dignity of work. I would point out that there is a lot of sloppy talk around about people who are dole bludgers—people who are on the dole and who do not want to work. Hardly anyone in the Latrobe Valley would meet that phrase. The people in the Latrobe Valley came to the Latrobe Valley to work. That was the principle of migration to the Latrobe Valley. People came to work on the power station projects and related infrastructure projects in the district. They worked as soon as they arrived in Australia and the Latrobe Valley. I think it is a sad thing for people who have, in many cases, worked 25 or 30 years in that industry—and have really been fantastic contributors to the Latrobe Valley community—to feel as though they are dole bludgers because a few people use some sloppy talk when referring to people receiving unemployment benefits. I want to remind the mature age unemployed of the Latrobe Valley that we in the Latrobe Valley community do not think of them in that context. We recognise the enormous contribution that they have made. We see it every time we drive around the Latrobe Valley. We see the magnificent assets they have built with their labour. In conclusion, I welcome the contribution of the report, and I look forward to more discussion on this important public policy issue.RW5Zahra, Christian, MPDr NELSON—by leaveFirstly, I would like to both thank and recognise all of the members of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations who worked on the report Age counts. In particular, the member for Port Adelaide was extremely supportive throughout the process of the inquiry, as were the diligent, hardworking secretariat. We also received considerable assistance in the collection of data from the parliamentary library.Australia is a country in which we define ourselves through our work. Usually within a few moments of meeting someone, they ask you what sort of work you do. If you do work for which you are not paid—if it is full-time parenting or volunteer work and, in particular, if you are unemployed—you feel that you are a lesser part of Australian society than those people who do work that is paid. Work places us in a social context. It defines the framework of our lives and it gives each of us a sense of belonging and meaningful purpose. In that sense, I agree most strongly with the member for McMillan, who said that most people are not unemployed through choice. Most people who rely on income support, whether it is unemployment benefits, Newstart, disability support and so on, are not there because they wish to be.Being without a job is devastating, not only for your personal finances but also it exacts an extremely heavy social and human toll. Those of us who are privileged to be members of the parliament—and probably most, if not all of us, have had work before we came into the parliament—may not always know what it is like to not have a job. I think poets often describe it better than we do. Albert Camus said, `Without work, all life goes rotten'. Walter Greenwood described the living corpse of the unemployed in Love on the Dole. That may certainly be said of the many mature aged men and women whose lives touched this inquiry. Their often poignant and extremely moving stories underwrite what is emerging as a significant challenge for a nation whose population is ageing in the face of collapsing age dependency ratios. As our country moves from being an agrarian, labour intensive economy, one that has been built essentially on the exploitation of natural resources, to one that is dominated increasingly by a burgeoning, technology-driven set of industries in the services sector, many people over the age of 45 are finding themselves for the first time without work. For the first time in 20 or 30 years of having been continuously in the work force, they suddenly find themselves without a job and they feel that they are of no value to their families or, indeed, to society, which at times can be so cruel in the way it describes people who are unemployed. And certainly not all but, I would suggest to you, most, are not emotionally and technically prepared for what is a major life event.Losing your job in Australia, after 20 or 30 years continuously in the work force, is like losing a partner. It is like losing a limb or a breast. It is something which requires you to go through a process of grief, significant bereavement, and then a process perhaps of adjusting, not just financially but emotionally, to this major transition. The ABS reported in 1997 that almost half of the men over the age of 45 in this country were out of the work force, through retrenchment, redundancy or retirement. Although the unemployment rate for mature age people is lower than the general unemployment rate—4.2 per cent versus 6.3 per cent—the rate of long-term unemployment is much higher and represents the tip of an iceberg of quiet anguish. But pleasingly, since 1996, the number of long-term unemployed over the age of 45 has declined from 69,600 to 56,000 in June 2000.Central to the report's conclusions is the need for us to challenge and change the attitudes of society and employers to ageing. We live in a society that does not venerate and respect ageing. I think that there is much that Australians could learn, for example, from Asian immigrants, who place a very high value on senior members of the family and, indeed, on ageing. Skill, enthusiasm and adaptation to change are not the exclusive domain of the young. To the workplace must also be brought wisdom acquired through the passing of the years. It is rather interesting that the worst parts of the employment sector for age discrimination are the banking, finance and legal sector. The best part—that part of the economy which has the best age balance—is the IT sector, where you have got generally younger people who have grown up as a part of the Internet generation, who have ideas and skills in terms of computer technologies, but who lack wisdom, skill and experience in management and business development. The part of the economy which employs the most number of mature age people is health, education and community services of one sort or another.One of the more important recommendations in the report relates to the government developing, implementing and undertaking a national campaign to change the attitudes of our society towards ageing. Employers generally reflect those societal attitudes. It is rather interesting that we found in this inquiry evidence of systemic discrimination against older people. For example, in the decade to 1999, mature age workers were more likely to have been laid off or retrenched than people under the age of 45—51 per cent compared to 38 per cent.The Drake company last year conducted a survey of 500 chief executive officers and human resources managers. Sixty-two per cent said that they would recruit from the 31- to 40-year age group; 23 per cent said that they would recruit only from the 41- to 50-year age group; and not one said that they would recruit someone over the age of 50. Recently, the chief executive of a major Australian company told me that he had recommended to his board the appointment of a man to look after a major component of that company's activities. The board refused to even read his CV once they got to the second line which stated his age as being 60, yet in the view of the chief executive of the company this person was by far and away the best qualified to manage that particular part of the company's activities. The Queensland Office of Ageing and the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland in 1998 also conducted a survey of people in this age group. They found that 66 per cent, two-thirds, had experienced age discrimination and that one-third had been told that they were `too old' by the prospective employer.One of the other key recommendations in the report is that there be a code of conduct developed for employers—to be appropriate to the size and nature of the business—which provides best practice guidelines for employers in terms of retrenchment, redundancy and dismissal processes. Some employers deal with this extremely well. Most are appalling in their management of it. Too often, still, do we see employees simply go to gates that are locked on Friday night with their last pay cheque. Often, when I was practising medicine, the first I knew that someone had lost their job was that two months later the wife would turn up with psychological distress or, in some cases, evidence of domestic violence, or children presented with bedwetting. That rather poignant subtext of The Full Monty, of the man who loses his job and then is too ashamed to tell his family that he has lost it, I can sadly tell you is day-to-day reality for a number of Australians. In my relatively affluent electorate on the upper North Shore of Sydney I have known men to catch the train `to work' every day, having been unemployed for three months, too ashamed to tell anybody that they no longer have work. There surely is a better way in which we can manage retrenchment, redundancy and dismissal. If we can get early interventions, if we can say to employers, `Here are the agencies, government and non-government, available in your area, and here is a checklist of the things you ought to go through when you are dismissing somebody'—keeping in mind that often the employers themselves are in trouble—then that has to produce a better outcome for everybody. For example, the Business Council of Australia told us during the inquiry that the cost to society of a poorly managed work transition is between $50,000 and $150,000. In my previous life—when I had one, perhaps—I dealt with some of the more extreme elements of the medical profession and some of the worst aspects of it, when I was chairing the ethics and professional conduct committee in its processes. It is a bit like the doctor who simply says to the patient, `You've got cancer. You will be dead in three months.' Some employers treat their employees just like that. We saw people who had been frogmarched out of buildings and terrible things done. If we can deal with this issue more humanely, in a more orderly way and get people through that period—hopefully short—of unemployment and back into work, that is in everybody's interests.One of the key recommendations is the idea that we put significant effort into computer literacy and training for people over the age of 45. Probably we who are sitting in this room—I will include the member for Hinkler in this because I know how skilled he is in this area—grew up with computers. I must say that the first time I did see a computer was, I think, in the second year of my university degree. But among people over the age of 45 you have at least two generations of working age for whom computer training was not a fundamental part of their education. In the same way that the government has put significant political and economic effort into basic literacy and numeracy training for our children, recognising that it is essential for developing full potential, we need to start to put that kind of effort into computer literacy and training for people over the age of 45. Increasingly, you cannot function fully in modern society unless you know how to turn a computer on and also to have access to it.There are already a number of programs which are available to anybody who wants to go and learn to use a computer. But computer illiteracy, like illiteracy itself, is something about which people feel a sense of shame or deeply embarrassed. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you in particular have some experience of this and know what I am talking about. The Australian newspaper recently ran a series on the divide in Australia between extremes of wealth and poverty. There was a woman from Hobart, who was 62, who said, `I can't use a computer. I feel so ashamed to talk about it.' As the economic and social changes that are being worked into Australian society proceed, where we see people in some of our regions and country areas in particular who are at the epicentre of these changes, and as we see people being displaced from labour intensive industries who have never had to use a computer in the jobs in which they have been working—disproportionately represented in mining, agriculture and manufacturing, for example—what we ought to be doing is placing real emphasis in a national training program on those people to give them the skills that they need, in a rudimentary sense, to be a part of modern society and have reasonable confidence of finding another job. One of the other things that is equally important is the idea of longitudinal research, of governments having the courage, if not the wisdom, to invest in researching the impact of age balance in a work force. One of the myths that many employers carry is that an older person is less resilient, that they are less adaptive to change, that they are more likely to suffer occupational disease and injury, that they are more likely to be prone to absenteeism, that they are not likely to stay working for you for a longer period of time. In fact, all of the evidence that we saw, both scientific and anecdotal, internationally and less so domestically, defies that very myth. If you employ someone at the age of 55, that person is more likely to work for you for 10 years than someone who is 25, I can most certainly assure you. I commend the report to the executive of the government. I hope that both the opposition and the government are able to agree on a number of recommendations at least, and that some of the recommendations in this report become policy. Not for my sake—chairmen of all committees think their reports are wonderful, of course. It is for the sake of the people whose lives are documented in this report that I really do urge the government in earnest to consider its recommendations. And if they are not going to be recommended, I would certainly like to see some compelling evidence as to why that ought to be the case. Thanks very much.12:17:0019945Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I wish to associate myself with many of the remarks made by the previous speaker, Dr Nelson. Many of the things that he said this morning and many of the things the House of Representatives Employment, Education and Workplace Relations Committee said in its report, Age counts: an inquiry into issues specific to mature-age workers, are very worthwhile recommendations and warrant the government's closest consideration. In my remarks I want to pick up two aspects referred to by the committee in its report. The first concerns mature age people starting their own business, and I will make some remarks about that. The second, which I will comment on later, is the committee's recommendation concerning access to superannuation entitlements for people aged over 55.In the report, in the section `Establishing a small business—a high-risk option', the committee makes what strikes me as a very accurate statement:It is imperative that mature-age people considering starting their own business be adequately counselled concerning the opportunities and risks and what they should do to increase their chances of success. Training is vital to small businesses as many are competing for clients against medium and large organisations, whose staff are trained and experienced.Other members would be well aware of the difficulties of running a small business, the dangers and risks that it involves. I have today, through reading a report in the Herald Sun, become aware of the plight of one such mature age small business owner. Mr Rob Weatherald owns and runs the Euroa BP franchise and has done so for 12 years.This is very relevant to the report as he is in the position of being a small business owner who is facing the difficulties of engagement with a large and well-known multinational company, BP. Mr Weatherald has publicly raised the issue of temperature-caused shrinkage in petrol and the way BP and other oil companies profit from supplying fuel at higher temperatures, where the fuel subsequently shrinks in volume. The report in the Herald Sun today indicates that the transport company, Brady and Kibble, spends $60,000 a month on diesel at that country service station. But on 18 August the company's manager, Alan Kibble, received a letter from BP saying that the company could receive a 4.6c a litre discount at other service stations, so if it was prepared to take its business away from BP Euroa it could get a 4.6c a litre discount. Mr Kibble, whose 10-truck business is based in Euroa, said: I feel for Rob. BP is punishing him because he spoke out. I don't want to take the work off him, but I have got to look after myself.Mr Kibble also expressed concern that fuel prices would rise in the town because he would go elsewhere for fuel. He went on:... Everyone in Euroa will be disadvantaged. I've lived in Euroa all of my life and should be supporting the town, not taking businesses away.One of the Victorian Independent members of parliament, Russell Savage, is quoted in this article as saying:If you expose any questionable business practices in the oil industry it seems you have your petrol cut off or are discriminated against.I agree with Mr Savage. I think that this is taking on the same ugly appearance as the case of Mr Trevor Oliver, a former BP petrol station operator in Buangor, also in Victoria, who has lost his petrol business because he was prepared to blow the whistle on oil company price fixing. Some members may recall that after Easter this year Mr Oliver alleged that his distributor, Leahy Petroleum, had told him to raise pump prices by 7c for the Easter break. A media report at the time said:Late yesterday, prices in Melbourne rose from 74 cents per litre to about 84 cents, while prices in Ballarat had also risen by about 10 cents to about 86 cents. Mr Oliver, who owns a service station in Buangor near Ararat, yesterday said in a statement to [ACCC] investigators that his local distributor, which distributes BP petrol, had told him that prices would rise by about 10 cents per litre. `I don't have any choice, they just jack your price up before you buy it,' Mr Oliver said. `It happens every public holiday, it can't be just pure coincidence.'I think many motorists would recognise and be familiar with that. Companies claim this is demand and supply. Motorists, and obviously people like Mr Oliver who know something about these things, consider it to be price fixing. After he made these allegations public, Leahy Petroleum refused to supply him his fuel. Three months later he is still without supply and the ACCC, that praised him for breaking the culture of silence of price fixing, are still investigating the allegations. A newspaper report in April quoted the chairman of the ACCC, Professor Allan Fels, describing petrol station owner, Trevor Oliver, as courageous for breaking the `conspiracy of silence'.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—On a point of order, I do not quibble for a minute with the member's right to speak on this subject at some appropriate time but I think he might be on the wrong subject. This is a very long bow if it is relating to the matters before the chair.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am very surprised that the member for Hinkler wants to suppress a discussion about petrol pricing. But, as I indicated, there is a section in the report which indicates that mature age people considering starting their own businesses need to be adequately counselled concerning the risks involved, and the cases which I am drawing to the attention of the parliament emphasise examples of these risks. Indeed, it is a section of the report with which I completely agree.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—The honourable member has given an explanation. I accept his explanation and ask him to continue his remarks.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your ruling. Professor Fels said:It's extremely important that someone has had the courage to come forward and speak up about these petrol pricing practices; there has been a conspiracy of silence over the years, which has made the task of detecting unlawful behaviour quite difficult— Professor Fels went on to say:Frankly, the victims are scared, and when they come forward the commission will throw its full weight behind any investigation of alleged unlawful behaviour.In the same article, the RACV manager of government relations, David Cumming, was quoted as saying:... a climate of fear had existed within the petrol industry for many years, with operators receiving death threats if they tried to break away from price fixing.Unfortunately, in this case the ACCC could not do anything to help Mr Oliver. He is still not receiving any petrol from BP. I am delighted to say that there is a Victorian government initiative involving the establishment of a fuel cooperative in Buangor. I applaud this move, but the ACCC needs to get serious about these issues. I note that other petrol retailers have identified these problems before a Senate estimates committee. For example, Mr Harris said:Senator, if I could make a comment regarding pricing, for the last three years, probably more than three years, I have been purchasing my fuel on a franchise site, and I have been purchasing my fuel for more than I retail it for, so my wholesale purchase price is 100 per cent of the time dearer than I am retailing it for. Therefore, I have to rely on price support to retail my fuel. I do not call the shots. I am an independent business person, but when it comes to the retailing of my fuel, I am effectively under the control of the oil company regarding the price that I sell it for even as much as now.I call on BP to immediately cease any attempt to discriminate against Mr Weatherald and to immediately cease any attempt to wreck his business. This is Australia. This is not some Third World, tin-pot dictatorship, and we will not stand for thuggery by large oil companies against their franchisees. The right to free speech in this country does not contain some exclusion clause exempting service station owners. Indeed, it is absolutely in the public interest that we are able to find out what is going on in the area of petrol pricing and, for that matter, LPG pricing.I further call on the ACCC to get fair dinkum about its investigation of oil company price fixing—for example, the fuel grants scheme into which it is apparently conducting investigations now. The ACCC has been quite happy to name and shame in the cases of Video Ezy and other retailers; it has taken a kid gloves approach to the petrol companies.Thirdly, I call on the government to act to protect Mr Weatherald and other service station franchisees from oil company thuggery. Frankly, the government has exacerbated this problem with its deregulation of wholesale prices. The Treasurer said in 1998 that deregulation would `promote greater competition which would lower prices over time' and that it would `put downward pressure on petrol prices to the benefit of consumers'. Those claims have proven to be rubbish.What in fact needs to happen is for the government to pass Labor's bill to address the problem of the lack of wholesale competition in the petrol industry and the manipulation of petrol prices by the oil majors. Our private member's bill will address that lack of wholesale competition by giving service station franchisees a legislatively guaranteed right to shop around for up to 50 per cent of their petrol. That will increase competition at the wholesale level, curtail the influence the oil majors have over retail prices and produce lower retail prices for customers. The bill also provides the ACCC with enforcement powers, thus giving retailers the protection from retribution which they are entitled to and which they require.I said that I was going to refer to another aspect of the report as well, and that is the report's recommendations concerning the issue of mature age people who are forced to draw on their superannuation until they are eligible to receive income support. Recommendation 28 of the committee's report states: The committee recommends that the Government re-consider its decision to include superannuation assets in eligibility assessments for Newstart payments for people aged over 55, who hare received benefits for at least 39 weeks. If necessary, a ceiling could be set on the amount of superannuation assets that are able to be excluded.I welcome the call in this report by a number of coalition backbenchers for the government to reverse the changes that it made to the early release of superannuation rules back in 1997. In the Age counts report we see the recommendation that I have just read out that the government reconsider its decision to include superannuation assets in eligibility assessments for Newstart payments for people aged over 55. Labor has always opposed this harsh and unfair measure.Adjournment1994810000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Order! It being 12.30 p.m, I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.1994812:30:0019948McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that the matter I am going to speak about is a matter you would be very interested in too. Today I want to speak about a very special school in my electorate. I will be visiting the Wangee Park School tomorrow to officiate at the opening of the school's interactive sensory garden. Wangee Park School received a Centenary of Federation grant to develop this garden during 1999-2000. They have provided a computerised sound system, and a special sand and water table and some sensory frames have been designed and built especially to cater for the needs of disabled students and community members.The history of this garden goes back some six years when staff first attempted to take the sensory experience students were having in the classroom out into the outdoors. The community helped with the design and planning of the garden but it was not interactive for the students. The garden has been very useful, however. Many celebrations such as birthdays have been held there, and herbs growing in the garden have been used for cooking classes. Students have been taken on an individual basis around the garden to touch, smell and look at the different plants and mobiles in the garden. This Federation of Centenary grant will help make the garden interactive and thus more enjoyable and meaningful for the students.The computerised sensor system will react when students go around the garden. More mobiles and chimes have been installed and the sensory frames will enable students to interact using a combination of senses—touch, feel, smell, movement, sight and sound. The sensory table will allow children to experience water play, sand play and other tactile activities. Already three community groups are accessing the garden and sensory equipment at the school, as are other special needs students in the area. Tomorrow will be my first visit to the school. I am very much looking forward to it as I have heard so much about it and the high esteem in which it is held. Wangee Park School is a government school for children who have very severe intellectual and physical disabilities. Currently it has 26 enrolments in four classes with students ranging in age from four to 18 years. All the students have specialised educational programs which support their individual needs. Since it opened in 1985 the school has had a relatively stable staff with little change. The teachers under the leadership of the principal, Diana Humphreys, are a very caring and dedicated group of people. It is more than a job for them, and their dedication is reflected in the atmosphere of the school. I have been told by one of my staff, the Mayor of Canterbury, that there is a great feeling about the school. I am looking forward to experiencing that myself tomorrow when I visit. While it is a government school, it does supplement its basic level of resources through donations and fundraising, and it has already enhanced the facilities that are available not only to its own students but to the nearby community groups. There is a sensory room already established at the school, and the garden will supplement the experiences offered by the sensory room. Like me, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be wondering just what a sensory room and garden offer. The school has developed its sensory enrichment program in response to the special needs of its students. It focuses on the development of the sensory skills—that is, vision, hearing, touch, feel, taste and movement. The sensory program supports the students' general classroom programs which aim at developing their communication skills, their general functional skills, their social and interpersonal skills and, most importantly, their self-awareness and self-esteem.The school assists its students in many other ways. There is a school therapy team with physio, speech and occupational therapy assistance available. As far as possible, however, students enjoy the same important aspects of school life that students in other schools enjoyschool assemblies, music and drama activities, sport and access to library facilities. As I noted earlier, it is by all reports a most remarkable school, with a dedicated staff, a very supportive community and students who are being encouraged and nurtured.Tomorrow is a very special day for them with the opening of this garden and it will be for me. It will be a privilege for me and other members of the community who will be there for the opening of this garden to be able to both support the parents and the teachers in the work they are doing and show to the young people at the school how supportive we are of the education program that is there for them and their participation in that program.I would like to thank both the school and the people who were on the local Centenary of Federation committee for choosing this project and a couple of other projects that will be opening in my electorate in the next few weeks. I would like to thank particularly Kevin Stewart, the chairman of the committee, who put in a lot of time assessing the various applications that the committee received. I think this is one of the most important projects that the committee oversaw.1994912:35:0019949May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Over the last week or so we have seen the Labor Party pontificating on petrol prices in the hypocritical, political, opportunistic way that we all expect. A party which has no policies to offer has little alternative but to whinge, carp and try to score a couple of points in the media. As the Australian newspaper pointed out, the most puzzling part of this whole petrol issue is why the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, wants the whole of Australia to know what a complete fool he is. No Labor Party leader in the country has been more embarrassingly hypocritical about it than `petrol tax Pete'. He has been breathtaking. As we all know, the state governments receive every cent of the GST revenue, including any increase in revenue as a result of higher petrol prices. So as Mr Beattie grandstands on the issue, he is secretly counting the cash in his Treasury coffers. Of course, this is the same Premier who, just a month or so ago, tried to rip millions of dollars off Queensland motorists by slashing the state government petrol subsidy, thereby increasing petrol prices by more than 8c a litre. Now he has the nerve to try to blame the federal government for skyrocketing world oil prices. The fact is that the federal government does not see a skerrick of the money from higher petrol prices because the fuel excise remains the same, no matter what the price. The only winners from rising petrol prices are state governments like Mr Beattie's. One week ago, I publicly called on Mr Beattie to live up to his rhetoric and divert a percentage of his government's GST revenue towards topping up the fuel subsidy for the state's motorists. It is all very well to jump in front of the nearest TV camera and try to grab a headline, but if you do not have the courage of your convictions, then it is nothing but empty grandstanding from a self-confessed media tart.Of course, this challenge to replace his whingeing with action was met with a stony silence. To date, he still refuses to give up one brass razoo of the extra petrol tax he is getting. But all of Mr Beattie's brazen hypocrisy and empty point scoring pales in comparison to the whopper he came out with yesterday in the Gold Coast Bulletin. Mr Beattie tried to palm off the full cost of the most important road infrastructure program on the Gold Coast, the Tugun bypass—a road which he promised to deliver if elected—to the federal government. What could his justification possibly be for doing this, besides the obvious media headline? According to Mr Beattie, the federal government will get a revenue windfall from rising petrol prices. Never mind that every single cent of that revenue goes to the states. Never mind that Mr Beattie has already refused to use that money to ease the burden on motorists. And never mind that the Tugun bypass is a road which the state government has sole responsibility for building. In fact, Mr Beattie's ridiculous comments have unwittingly revealed that Gold Coast residents will never see the Tugun bypass under the current Labor administration. Mr Beattie's comments were a sly trick to create a loophole that will get him out of funding a road that he never had any intention of delivering. Instead of taking the blame for it himself, he tries to pass the buck to the federal government. This is despite the fact that he signed a heads of government agreement with the New South Wales government on 27 March this year which acknowledges that the bypass is solidly a state government project. However, because the federal government recognises how essential this road is for Gold Coast residents and for our local tourism industry, we agreed to bail the Queensland government out and contributed a multi-million dollar funding package to get construction under way. But not even this is enough for the Premier. Clearly, the only way that the Gold Coast will ever see the Tugun bypass is if the federal government steps in. So I have decided to act on Mr Beattie's suggestion about using increased petrol revenue to fund this road. I will be approaching the transport minister to ask him to withhold the extra petrol money that he would normally hand over to the Queensland government and instead divert it towards funding the Tugun bypass. Surely, Mr Beattie will have no problem with this solution, considering his vocal objections to any government reaping more money from petrol. Surely, he will agree with this solution if he really considers the Tugun bypass to be a priority project. In fact, Mr Beattie's latest political stunt is a cruel joke on the people of Currumbin. Their local member, Merri Rose, who also happens to be the Queensland tourism minister, has done nothing but stand by and watch it happen. But the people of the southern Gold Coast will not forget the Beattie Labor government's deceit and trickery when it comes to the next election. I can assure the Labor Party that I will make sure of that.1995012:39:0019950Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I or someone in my family have been members of the Royal Automobile Association of South Australia over a continuous period of at least 33 years. On most occasions that I have ever required assistance from the RAA—and fortunately they have been few—the service has been more than satisfactory.Recently, as the member for Port Adelaide, I received some brief correspondence from the RAA on GST and petrol. The RAA expressed great concern about the way the government has applied the GST and the resulting failure of the government to meet its promise that petrol prices would not rise. They also argued that, before the GST was introduced, motorists were paying 44.14c per litre in excise on unleaded fuel, with the Commonwealth retaining 35.79c and the states taking 8.35c. Under the GST, the RAA claimed the Commonwealth has increased its share of excise by 1.65c to 37.44c and the states are now receiving the GST instead of their fair share of the excise. The RAA further argued that, based on a fairly conservative regional price of 93c per litre, motorists were now paying 8.45c in GST as well as the 37.5c in excise. In other words, the RAA said that, before the GST, motorists were paying a total petrol tax of 44.14c; but now, under the GST, they are paying the increased total of 45.6c in petrol tax. They added that, even if the petrol retails at 89c per litre, the government still makes a gain of 1.4c a litre.The RAA, on behalf of its 600,000 members in South Australia, supports the application of pressure by its members to meet the government's promise that petrol prices would not rise as a result of the GST. The RAA also believes that the federal government should freeze indexation of petrol excise during the next 12 months—I think the member for Makin did something about that in her office in relation to a petition yesterday—to avoid a substantial increase as a result of the inflationary spike predicted under the GST. The government's response to that suggestion would be illuminating indeed.The correspondence from the RAA also stated that while collecting more tax from motorists—$858 million—the government has reduced road funding by $350 million. This is where I place a different emphasis to the RAA. I believe motorist organisations like the RAA and their associated interstate colleagues ought to have a far broader perspective on road funding, alternative forms of land transport and road safety to protect their valued membership. The RAA claims that, in addition to the $858 million the Commonwealth receives because of extra excise and indexation, the Commonwealth has also reduced road funding by $350 million. However, I find that far too limiting and simplistic an analysis which overlooks some important questions.If that total of $1,208 million was used to get long distance trucks and their multiple trailers off the road and onto rail, I would support that expenditure. Getting a proportion of those trucks and trailers off the road and onto rail would certainly assist road safety and road costs for their 600,000 members. The RAA rightly concerns itself with the road user costs of its membership, but it should also concern itself with the prohibitive costs of road trauma in this country. As far as road trauma is concerned, the costs could be estimated at up to $10 billion, and they could be as high as $20 billion in this country when you take into account road deaths, debilitating injuries, health costs, skyrocketing insurance and so on. Taking into account the matter of damage to roads and resultant road maintenance costs simply adds to the problem.The RAA must recognise that many of its members are deterred from exercising their rights on the roads for fear of what could happen. In fact, a number of people in my electorate will not go on the road any more because one of the access roads in my electorate now has the big trailers on it. There have been numerous very close calls and people are intimidated by the traffic and sometimes by the speed of those vehicles.In conclusion, I support the general thrust of the RAA claims on behalf of its members. However, I would be more encouraged in matters concerning land transport if the RAA and its interstate colleagues took a far more responsible and broader perspective on behalf of their members with regard to all the costs associated with road usage, including not only road funding but also the real costs of road trauma and the use of alternative forms of transport to make the roads in this country safer than they are. 1995212:44:0019952Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today to speak with regard to the Australian Sports Medal recipients in my electorate of Cook. The Australian Sports Medal is a new national honour, established by the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in recognition of outstanding achievement in sport. Awards to be made over the coming months are very timely, given the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games.The efforts of our grassroots giants in sport have helped Australia become a great sporting nation. They may be a coach, a club secretary or simply a parent who has donated years of effort in selling raffle tickets, organising the sausage sizzle or making sure that kids compete each week in clean uniforms. I would like to think that, when Australian athletes win Olympic gold, we remember our behind the scenes battlers in sports. The sports loving people of the Sutherland Shire are no different from those elsewhere. They are putting in week after week, year after year. One needs only to look at Seymour Shore Park any Saturday morning to get a feel for how sports loving my electorate is.This is a `people's medal' and I am pleased to commend the following 12 people in the Cook electorate who have recently received the award. Margaret Corbett has been involved in Sutherland Shire netball for 50 years and has coached thousands of young athletes in that time. The Sutherland Shire, in which my electorate is based, has the greatest number of netball teams in any Australian local government area. Andrew Ettingshausen, captain of the Pepsi Sharks rugby league team, is much loved in my electorate. He is a great role model for young people. He has been awarded a sports medal as a representative of the entire team, which does a great deal of unrecognised charity work and junior league development work in the Sutherland Shire.Bill Parsons, as head coach of the New South Wales Academy of Gymnastics, has trained more national gymnastic champions than any other coach in the sport. He received this medal for his contribution to gymnastics as a regional supervisor for the New South Wales Gymnastics Association for the area since 1982 and also as head coach at the New South Wales Academy of Gymnastics for 28 years. Stan Sherringham has been involved in Sutherland Shire athletics as an athlete, official, coach and administrator for some 61 years. John Moodie formed the Sutherland Boys Cricket Team and the Sutherland Bowls Club, and has been involved in junior baseball and rugby league. The teams and clubs he formed as a young sportsman still thrive today. Greg Welch is regarded as the best all-round triathlete in the world and the only one to win in all divisions—iron man, Olympic, world long distance and world duathlon—in international competition. Peter Hadfield holds the record as Australia's most successful decathlete. He won nine consecutive national titles and represented Australia in Olympics and Commonwealth Games, where he won a silver medal.Shirley Yardley has given tremendous support to soccer as secretary of the Miranda Magpies Soccer Club and member of the Sutherland Shire Junior Soccer Football Association. Ray Brennan has been a long-serving administrator of the Sylvania Youth Club, a manager and coach of the Sutherland Shire Junior Cricket Association and member of the Sydney Cricket Association Board.Patricia Wade has given 40 years of voluntary service to the coaching, promotion and administration of hockey in the Sutherland Shire. I had the pleasure of awarding her medal in person at a recent ceremony. Ron Siddons has been a member of the Australian Surf Lifesaving Association for 50 years, has served as an inspector at Maroubra and Cronulla beaches for the last 42 years and has founded a learn to swim school for handicapped children called the Rainbow Club. Ron Riley, a three-time Olympic competitor with two silver medals, supports local hockey and is SOCOG's planner for the sport. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet informs me that there will most likely be other recipients, nominated not through my office but through their representative bodies. I would like also to make special mention of the gentlemen who comprised the local Sports Medal committee. I understand they had a difficult time whittling down the list of nominees from 29 to meet the cap that was imposed for each electorate. Michael Tynan, through his company Tynan's Motors, is an important benefactor to sports in the shire. Phil Bates is recognised as a leading authority on sports in the shire, and his input was also much appreciated.I support all these people who have contributed so significantly to sport in my electorate for their long hours, Saturday morning after Saturday morning and on weekends generally, out there helping young people to perform to their utmost, including those who are never going to make it to the Olympics but just enjoy being out there and playing their sport.1995312:49:0019953Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise to express my anger at the way in which Telstra has again written off country people in my electorate. As you would be aware, Telstra has just recorded a $4 billion profit. Telstra CEO, Dr Ziggy Switkowski, is boasting that Telstra has again achieved double-digit growth in profits for its shareholders. But this enormous profit is achieved at the expense of country people. Yesterday, Telstra contractor Enetech sacked 100 employees from regional Victoria, including people from Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong and Wodonga. Telstra did not provide additional work for this company and has caused the sackings. Only Telstra could be so insensitive as to announce a record profit of almost $4 billion on the same day that it caused 100 regional Victorian workers to lose their jobs.I would like to refer to yet another loss of service for country people. I am referring to Telstra's scrapping of its former practice of delivering regional phone directories to people in country areas free of charge. Telstra's neglected clients in this case have no effective recourse to justice from the telecommunications ombudsman. My constituent Mr Keith Walton lives at Sedgwick, a rural area south of Bendigo. He has written to me protesting against Telstra's scrapping last year of its formerly free delivery of the Bendigo regional telephone directory to him and to people in his area. Residents of urban Bendigo still receive free home delivery of the directory. Mr Walton can now obtain the directory only if he goes in person to the Strathfieldsaye Post Office—which he says represents a round trip of some 40 kilometres. He says that it can represent a return trip of around 80 kilometres for some of his neighbours who live further afield. He finds it particularly annoying that this delivery service had existed in the past but has now been withdrawn from him and his neighbours. He feels that he is being victimised because he lives in the country. City people have not suffered a similar loss of service.The fact that Mr Walton has no recourse to justice has added insult to injury. He has written to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman requesting that it take up his complaint with Telstra. To his astonishment, this body—which is supposed to be the citizens' watchdog—has refused to receive his complaint, let alone act on it. In June this year, the TIO told him:The matter you have raised appears to be outside the jurisdiction of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The TIO is unable to deal with matters relating to the commercial activities of a company. The decision made by Telstra not to deliver telephone directories falls under this category. The TIO is not in a position to direct Telstra to change its policy in relation to this. That response from a toothless watchdog is a betrayal of its charter and is in direct conflict with its own constitution, which states that it is a function of the TIO to:... receive, investigate and facilitate resolution of complaints regarding the provision or supply (or the failure to provide or supply) of telecommunications services.Among these services, it specifically lists printed and electronic White Pages. This whole disgraceful story highlights once again how privatisation punishes and victimises country people. Telstra CEO, Dr Switkowski, brags of Telstra's double-digit increase in profits for his shareholders. This month, Dr Switkowski claimed:Customer service is the number one priority for the company and we have improved it this year and will continue to improve as we make the end to end experience for customers a good one.What nonsense! Telstra cannot afford to maintain the existing delivery of directories to country people once a year, yet it has thousands of dollars to maintain an Olympic Games slush fund to duchess the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and others with free Olympic Games tickets and other perks. It is little wonder that the privatisation of Telstra is on the nose in country Australia.1995412:53:0019954Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I rise to mention a very special gentleman from my electorate, Mr Horace Broadhurst, who unfortunately lost his fight for life last week. Mr Broadhurst made many valuable contributions to the art world within my electorate but he was also well known to New South Wales opera's Sydney audiences as a fine baritone. He also travelled to and performed in New Guinea, Darwin and many other parts of Australia. In my electorate he was well known for his artistic work and also for the many sculptures that he did for local communities. Mr Broadhurst was a truly talented man. He said that he was going to teach me all his talents when I had finished with politics, and the saddest thing is that I will not be able to learn those many talents from anyone else. He was a very special man and I regret not taking up his offer a long time ago. I am interested in the art world, but I could never paint as well as he could so he was going to teach me the finer points. His wife, who is also very talented, will carry on within our community, making sure that his pupils are well looked after. I would like to pay my special respects to this special gentleman for the many contributions he made to my community. He will be greatly missed. I would not be a true Queenslander if I did not take the time in the House today to mention the superb efforts of the Broncos in winning the ARL Grand Final last Sunday. They certainly displayed discipline and teamship, and proved that they are the best players in Australia. I would also like to pay tribute to Wayne Bennett, a gentleman whom I know. He is one of the best coaches in Australia, and at the same time is a very likeable gentleman. I would like also to thank Kevin Walters and Michael Hancock for their contributions to the sport. They have taken time to come into my electorate and talk to our local rugby league clubs, to our young people, to motivate them and pass on their many talents. Out of that, Tonie Carroll from my electorate went on to become a very good player, and I believe he has many years of good playing ahead of him. He is definitely putting on a very good display. I would like to go back to Michael Hancock, because he is the only player who has survived since the inception of the Broncos back in 1988. He has announced his retirement and he is going to be sadly missed in the game. He was always there and always played as a team person. I would also like to mention Darren Lockyer. He is another young fellow who I have seen come up through the ranks. He is only 23 and I know he is going to really excel in the future, although I do not think he could do much better than to win the Churchill Medal. I would like to congratulate him on that top effort and urge him to keep up the good work. I look forward to supporting the team for many years to come and to them winning the grand final again next year.In the couple of minutes I have left I would also like to agree with the member for McPherson that our state Premier, Mr Beattie, should be called, as she called him, `Petrol tax Pete.' We all know that the world price of petrol dictates whether the price goes up or down. I find his comments very hypocritical since he is the beneficiary of the price increase—the higher the price of petrol goes up, the more that goes back into the state coffers. He has been saying about petrol prices that the federal government should freeze the CPI indexation. If we do that, he is telling us not to give pensioners an increase in their pensions, because that is where the money from this excise goes. It goes to health, hospitals and education but, more importantly, to helping people out in our community who are on public benefits. If we index that then we have to index pensions. I am going to ask him right here and now: is that what he is telling us to do? I ask him to put the extra money that he is making back into the health and education system within Queensland, to put his money where his mouth is and leave the pensioners alone and put the money back into the state's needs.1995512:57:0019955Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—One of the great dilemmas of government these days relates to being able to tackle the vexed problem of unemployment. If you look at capitalism, stretching back to when it originated in the Netherlands in the 1600s, it has probably always been true that capitalism has been challenged by `small l' liberals all through those 400 years, whether they are on the left of politics, the centre left or the centre right. Nevertheless, capitalism has always been made accountable. But that is probably not true of the last 10 or 20 years when capitalism has been reigning unfettered and unchallenged. This morning people were taking note of a report called Age counts, dealing with the vexed problem of mature age unemployment. Tim Colebatch in the Age the other week pointed out, after reading the McClure report, that 22 per cent of working age Australians receive social security benefits. When I get up in this parliament and I say that 700,000 people are unemployed, no-one challenges me, because that is right. When I get up and say that 700,000 people are underemployed, no-one challenges me, but I do not know whether that is right. The real problem is that no-one else does either. When I get up in this House and say that 700,000 people in this country are hidden unemployed as well, no-one challenges me. I do not know whether that is true either. That is the real problem: data about unemployment in this country is simply non-existent. If we continue to go on instituting false solutions to this vexed problem we will simply harm people. Many people have said that the mature aged have been devastated by their loss of positions, and that is certainly true. The way we treat mature aged people who have lost their jobs in this country is simply terrible. The discrimination is simply unforgivable.Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing19956The following answers to questions were circulated:19956(Question No. 1282)128219956Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 March 2000: (1) Has the Australian Defence Force (ADF) identified some 80 separate personnel allowances and entitlements that are potentially affected by the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST); if so, what are the details of these allowances and entitlements. (2) As a result of the introduction of the GST, what is the estimated increase in (a) rents paid by personnel for subsidised housing and (b) the cost of subsidised meals in service messes. (3) Is the ADF committed to the principle that personnel should not be financially disadvantaged by the impost of the GST; if so, what measures will be taken to address the negative impacts of the GST. (4) What is the estimated annual cost to the Budget of making appropriate adjustments to personnel allowances and entitlements to offset increased costs arising from the GST.19956Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Defence has identified approximately 80 different allowances and entitlements paid to civilian and military personnel. The introduction of the GST, and any consequential increase in the cost of goods and services, will have no affect on the purchasing power of Defence personnel. Most allowances paid to Defence personnel attract income tax. The buying power of these allowances will not be affected by the introduction of the GST. Defence personnel will benefit from considerable income tax cuts and consequently will receive an increase in the `after tax' amount of these allowances. This will cover any increase in the cost of goods and services. In addition, all allowance rates are reviewed on an annual or biannual basis. These reviews will take into account the total impact of the New Tax System, including the abolition of wholesale sales tax, on the purchasing power of allowances. Recently, travelling allowance rates have been reviewed. The new rates include an adjustment for the anticipated impact of the GST. Where allowances are paid to enable personnel to purchase specific goods and services, the rate of these allowances will be amended by application of the Australian Bureau of Statistics GST-inclusive CPI. (2) (a) None. (b) Subsidised meal charges have been adjusted to take into account movements in the food component of the CPI and the impact of the GST. Increases in meal charges range from 6.25% to 8.45%. (3) Defence is committed to the principle that personnel should not be financially disadvantaged by the impact of the GST. Defence has conducted a comprehensive review of personnel entitlements and allowances to determine the impact of the New Tax System. The review has found that the GST will not impact negatively on personnel entitlements. In addition, a Defence booklet providing personnel with information about the treatment of Defence allowances and entitlements under the New Tax System has been distributed to all personnel. (4) None.19956(Question No. 1580)158019956McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 30 May 2000: (1) Could he update his answer to question No. 6 (Hansard, 30 November 1998, page 995) on the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in respect of its last meeting held in Melbourne in March 2000. (2) When and where will the next meeting be held.19956Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Commonwealth's written report, placed before the 24 March 2000 meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, included the following human rights issues: . the Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; . the Optional Protocol to the Torture Convention; . the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; . possible optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; . the ILO Convention on the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour; . complaints under International Communications procedures; and . reporting under International Communications procedures.Other matters included: . Disability Discrimination Legislation and Disability Standards; . the reform of the Human Rights Equal Opportunity Commission; . cooperative arrangements with the States; . the SCAG Working Group on Human Rights; . the Non-Government Organisations Forum on domestic human rights; . the Decade of Human Rights Education; . the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report on the Convention on the Rights of the Child; . Age Discrimination; . the National Action Plan on human rights; . legal reform in HIV/AIDS (Fourth National Strategy); . the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) report, “Pregnant & Productive: It's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant”; and . the HREOC inquiry on the access of disabled and older Australians to electronic commerce and on-line services.Victoria also placed mandatory sentencing laws and Aboriginal justice issues on the agenda. (b) The Commonwealth's items were placed on the agenda in the context of its Human Rights paper. This paper serves to inform States and Territories about the activities of the Commonwealth in the human rights area. Matters raised in the paper were noted by State and Territory Attorneys-General. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General noted the views expressed by various Ministers on mandatory sentencing. Ministers noted the Officers' paper on Aboriginal justice issues and reported on progress in implementing Aboriginal justice plans. Ministers also gave instructions relating to the settling of an agenda for the proposed joint meeting with the Ministerial Council for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. (2) The next meeting is scheduled to be held in Brisbane on 27/28 July 2000.19957(Question No. 1621)162119957Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 June 2000: (1) What are the major conditions of service that apply to the RAAF's Ground Defence Reserve Group. (2) What is the Group's (a) target strength nationally and (b) current number of serving personnel. (3) What changes, if any, have been made to the conditions of service for the Group since 1996. (4) Are any personnel attached to the Group currently deployed overseas; if so, (a) how many and (b) in what countries.19957Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Members of the Ground Defence Reserve Group are: . to render five years of RAAF Reserve service, with nine months being full-time and the remainder part-time; . to provide 32 days of service per annum, and are able to serve up to a maximum of 50 days per annum; and . able to qualify for an annual proficiency bonus of up to $1,500.00. (2) (a) 298. (b) 150 part-time and five commenced training 20 June 2000. A further 14 started training on 27 June 2000. (3) The Ground Defence Reserve Group was established in 1997, with the first intake of recruits being in January 1998. There have been no changes in conditions of service since. (4) (a) 1. (b) East Timor, working with the United Nations.19958(Question No. 1625)162519958Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 June 2000: (1) What diplomatic initiatives involving the nations of the South Pacific has the Australian Government carried out in the light of the attempted coups in Fiji and the Solomon Islands. (2) Will the Government consider immediately organising a meeting of the Security Committee of the South Pacific Forum in order to discuss developments in Fiji and the Solomon Islands and determine a coordinated response from the South Pacific Forum.19958Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) Australia's diplomatic missions in the Pacific have consulted closely with host country governments on the situation in Fiji and Solomon Islands, and Australia's reaction to the crisis, and encouraged Pacific Island governments to respond in similarly strong terms. Our Pacific posts have also approached host governments seeking their cooperation to deny George Speight and his supporters entry to countries of the region, should they decide to travel outside Fiji. (2) The annual meeting of the Forum Regional Security Committee (FRSC), which was to have taken place in Suva from 13 to 15 June, was held in Port Vila, Vanuatu from 13 to 15 July 2000. Reference points for the meeting were the crises in Fiji and the Solomon Islands and the report of a study on enhancing Pacific security undertaken by Professsor Ron Crocombe, a University of the South Pacific academic based in the Cook Islands. The meeting identified a range of options to address security concerns in the region, including preventive diplomacy measures, which would build on the 1997 Aitutaki Declaration on Regional Security Cooperation. These options have been forwarded to the Leaders' meeting of the South Pacific Forum in Kiribati in October and may also be considered by other Forum ministerial meetings in the interim.19958(Question No. 1628)162819958Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 8 June 2000: (1) In each State and Territory how many cases of business insolvency leading to possible loss of employee entitlements has been reported to his Department since he announced the Employment Entitlements Support Scheme. (2) How many employees are involved in each case. (3) What is the name of each business and the amounts of potential loss that has been reported to his Department since he announced the Scheme. (4) What payments have been made in each case referred to in part (3). (5) What is the total sum paid by the Commonwealth to employees under the Scheme.19958Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme (the Scheme) was announced on 8 February 2000, and as at 4 August 2000, employees of 189 companies had made claims for assistance under the Scheme. The cases were reported in the following States and Territories: New South Wales63South Australia18Victoria55Tasmania4Queensland31Northern Territory1Western Australia14Australian Capital Territory3 (2) and (3) Details of the number of employees involved and the amounts of potential loss are not included as these are yet to be confirmed or are not known in many cases. Similarly, details of company names are not included because the insolvency of each company or whether each company owes employee entitlements has not been confirmed in all cases. (4) Table 1 gives details of payments that have been made under the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme. (5) The sum of payments made by the Commonwealth for employees under the Scheme is $747,151 as at 4 August 2000.Table 1: Employee Entitlements Support Scheme payments made as at 4 August 2000StateLegal nameTrading asEESS paymentsNSWBivene Pty Ltd$1,459Multilift Systems$893National Textiles P/L$165,983Scone Fresh Meats P/L$227,248VictoriaBedico Trading P/LFabric Dyeworks$152,353HDM Corp$2,615QldMultilift Systems$3,067SARevitt Cabinets Pty Ltd Revitt Kitchens$88,218Jamelky Pty LtdGladstone Gaol$423TasmaniaTasmanian Sandstone P/L Buckland Quarry$11,165WANewspar Pty LtdComfortware Footwear$93,727Total$747,151 19959(Question No. 1629)162919959Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice on 8 June 2000: (1) Under what scheme did the Commonwealth make payments to National Textile Workers who lost their entitlements due to the insolvency of that company. (2) What criteria were used to assess eligibility for this assistance. (3) For each State and Territory how many workers who have lost their employee entitlements through company insolvency have received assistance on the same terms as National Textiles.19960Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Commonwealth payments to the employees of National Textiles to contribute to their employee entitlements have been drawn from the Regional Assistance Program and the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme. (2) To the extent that the payments were drawn from the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme, the criteria used were those applied to applicants under the Scheme. These are that the employees were lawfully employed in Australia; that they are not an “excluded employee” within the meaning of the Operational Arrangements for the Scheme; that their employment was terminated by their employer or insolvency practitioner in lieu of their employer on or since 1 January 2000, because the employer has become insolvent or has otherwise been under external administration, and there has been a Commencement of Employer Insolvency (whether before or after the termination); and that they are owed certain employee entitlements by their former employer. The decision to provide an additional payment from the National Projects component of the Regional Assistance Programme was made in a manner consistent with the case by case basis by which such projects are considered. In this case, the Government had regard to the circumstances of the textile industry and the company's location in a disadvantaged regional area. (3) As at 4 August 2000, in addition to the employees of National Textiles, safety net payments had been made for 214 claimants under the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme. By State, these claimants were located as follows: New South Wales86Victoria50Queensland1Tasmania14South Australia37Western Australia26 However, other than the payments that the New South Wales Government made to the employees of National Textiles, no state government has matched any of the monetary assistance provided to these former employees by the Federal Government under the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme. The Federal Government has continued to call on state governments to demonstrate that they have not turned their backs on workers, and to participate in the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme. The Howard Government is the first to take serious steps towards addressing this problem. Labor languished in Government for 13 years, without implementing a satisfactory solution. The onus is on employers to pay their employees' entitlements, and the Howard Government has successfully amended the corporations laws to strengthen this requirement. However, there should also be a safety net in place, and the wider community should share the responsibility for this.19960(Question No. 1630)163019960Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 June 2000: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 945 (Hansard, 6 March 2000, page 14011), concerning a challenge by a local authority in the UK to Ministers who were using public funds to publicise what the applicant authority claimed was a misleading and political case for a controversial tax, did he state that the issue was not of sufficient interest for him to request the Australian Government Solicitor to produce a Legal Briefing paper on the matter. (2) In light of the Government's expenditure to publicise the GST, does he still consider that the issue is not of sufficient significance for him to request the Australian Government Solicitor to produce a Legal Briefing paper on the matter.19960Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In my answer to question No. 945 (Hansard, 6 March 2000, page 13845), I indicated that I did not think this issue was of sufficient significance for me to request the Australian Government Solicitor to produce a Legal Briefing paper on the matter.I have not altered my opinion on this question.19961(Question No. 1650)165019961Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 2000: (1) Has Australia previously played a prominent role in UN Social Development Conferences and have Australian Ministers always represented Australia at this forum. (2) Does the Government have a commitment to the resolution of outstanding social issues including massive poverty, low life expectancy, the high prevalence of diseases such as tuberculosis and AIDS, the crisis concerning refugees and the prevalence of discrimination based on ethnicity and gender in many of the poorer countries of the world. (3) If so, why has Australia decided not to have any ministerial representation at the UN World Summit on Social Development to be held on 26 to 30 June 2000. (4) What is the reason for the reduction in Australia's formerly prominent participation in these UN conferences.19961Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There have been two UN Social Development Conferences, the World Summit for Social Development at Copenhagen in 1995, and the five year follow up to this Summit at Geneva in June 2000. Then Prime Minister, Paul Keating represented Australia at the Copenhagen Summit. Australia has continued to play a prominent role. In August 1999 Australia submitted a comprehensive report on its implementation of the outcome of the Copenhagen Summit. In the lead up to the 2000 Geneva Summit, Australia actively participated in the relevant preparatory meetings. Australia was represented by the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations at Geneva, Mr Les Luck, at the Geneva Summit this year. (2) The Australian Government maintains a strong focus on poverty alleviation in the Australian aid program and invests significantly in the areas of health, education and gender equity. It also provides humanitarian and emergency assistance to those exposed to human suffering and material destruction as a result of disasters and emergencies. In 2000-01, expenditure on social infrastructure and services is estimated to be around $646.3 million, representing about 40% of total aid program expenditure. This figure includes spending on education and training, health and population programs, water supply and sanitation, government and civil society. The high prevalence of disease in developing countries is a major concern to the Australian government. In 2000-01, the Government estimates expenditure of $170 million of direct health assistance to developing countries. Australia's health aid targets those groups most at risk and focuses on improving basic health care and services through simple, cost effective methods of prevention and treatment. In 2000-01, 25% of all health aid is expected to be spent on infectious disease and STD control. The Australian Government considers that improving outcomes for women is essential to achieve poverty alleviation. The aid program provides assistance to increase women's access to education, health care and economic resources; to encourage women's participation and leadership in decision-making at all levels; to promote human rights of women and to eliminate discrimination against women. The aid program is also giving increased attention to activities that address violence against women. In 2000-01, Australia will spend an estimated $40 million on activities in which the promotion of gender equity is the main objective. A further $380 million is expected to be spent on activities in which gender equity considerations are significant. The Australian aid program also provides considerable support for humanitarian assistance. In 1999-00, Australia responded to the humanitarian crisis in East Timor by providing an additional $60 million. Australia's contribution to emergency and humanitarian programs in 2000-01 is estimated to be $107.2 million. This includes support for refugees, internally displaced people and other vulnerable groups, as well as for landmine action programs, sanitation and resettlement assistance and human rights monitoring. (3) The Australian Government did not believe Ministerial participation at the meeting in Geneva from 26 June to 1 July 2000 would have represented optimal use of the Government's resources, especially during a sitting week when important issues of national governance needed to be addressed. Australia's interests were comprehensively promoted by the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations at Geneva, Mr Les Luck. (4) Australia has not reduced its level of participation in the issues addressed by the UN Social Development Conferences. Australia was more than adequately represented at the Geneva Summit - which was a 5 year review of the initial Summit at Copenhagen - by Ambassador Luck.. 19962(Question No. 1666)166619962Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 June 2000: (1) What positive outcomes were achieved from Mr Downer's visits to Solomon Islands and Fiji. (2) What role will Australia take in the resolution of these crises. (3) Were there any undertakings as to Australia's role made as a consequence of these visits. (4) Will Mr Downer make a comprehensive statement to the House in relation to his visits to Solomon Islands and Fiji. (5) Will Mr Downer arrange for the House to have a full debate on the crisis in the Solomon Islands and Fiji.19962Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My visits to Solomon Islands and Fiji, as a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group delegation, enabled me to convey to leaders in the respective countries the need for democratic and constitutional settlements to both crises. (2) Australia has consistently urged all the parties, in both Fiji and Solomon Islands, to identify peaceful and constitutional means of addressing their respective concerns. I have made Australia's abhorrence of unconstitutional actions plain to all concerned, and have warned the various parties of the risk of international disapprobation, including smart sanctions, if they persisted in operating outside the rule of law. (3) Yes, in the case of Solomon Islands I advised that Australia would provide further generous assistance to underpin a peace process, if a democratic resolution of the political crisis was achieved and if a ceasefire between the militant factions was negotiated. I made it clear to those I met in Solomon Islands and Fiji that, without a swift return to democratic government and the rule of law, Australia's support and friendship could not be taken for granted. (4) The Government's policy on both crises has been stated in detail to the House by the Prime Minister, the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr Moore, and by myself, in comprehensive responses to a range of questions and in statements on 29, 30 and 31 May, and on 6, 7 and 8 June. To date, and for the supplementary information of Parliamentarians, I have also issued 8 media releases on the situation in Fiji in recent weeks and another 8 on the situation in Solomon Islands. (5) A full debate in the House on the crisis in Solomon Islands and Fiji has already taken place. It began on 19 June and concluded on 26 June 2000.19962(Question No. 1671)167119962Irwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin83ZFowlerALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 22 June 2000: (1) What organisations are contracted to provide job network services to unemployed persons, living in the electoral division of Fowler. (2) Where are the services located.19962Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The organisations contracted to provide Job Network services to unemployed persons living in the electoral division of Fowler are given in the attached table. (2) See the table referred to in (1)19962(Question No. 1672)167219962Irwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin83ZFowlerALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 22 June 2000: (1) What organisations are contracted to provide work for the dole positions to unemployed persons living in the electoral division of Fowler. (2) Where are the positions located. (3) How many persons are engaged on each project.19963Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following projects are funded under Work for the Dole 2000. Under this round, Community Work Coordinators (CWCs) are contracted to work with community and government organisations, to develop and make available Work for the Dole activities. CWCs can also manage projects themselves. CWCSponsorLocation of ProjectNumber of Funded placesH&H Accredited Training Australasia IncH& H Accredited TrainingVarious locations in Miller12H&H Accredited Training Australasia IncH& H Accredited TrainingVarious locations in Miller40Mission AustraliaMission Employment CabramattaCabramatta30Uniting Church in Australia (NSW)Fairfield/Cabramatta Police and Youth ClubCabramatta23Uniting Church in Australia (NSW)Anglicare Migrant ServicesCabramatta3Mission AustraliaMission Australia FairfieldVarious locations in the Fairfield/Liverpool region32H&H AccreditedTraining Australasia IncH& H Accredited TrainingMiller20The following organisations have a contract with the Commonwealth to provide Work for the Dole positions in the electorate of Fowler, which remains active from previous rounds of the Work for the Dole Programme. SponsorLocationNo of placesMission AustraliaChipping Norton Lakes30Mission AustraliaCabramatta60 (2) and (3) See details in table (1)19963(Question No. 1674)167419963Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 26 June 2000: (1) On his forthcoming visit to Britain, will he ask his British counterpart, culture Secretary Chris Smith, for the return of all Aboriginal remains from British museums and other institutions; if so, on what grounds will he argue for the return of the remains. (2) Is he able to say whether there is British legislation through which the return of the Aboriginal remains would be facilitated. (3) Would those laws also facilitate the repatriation of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece. (4) Will he raise with his British counterpart the failure of the British Government to become a party to the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris, 1970). (5) Is he able to say whether British museums will not repatriate items unless a government-to-government agreement is in place; if so, will he pursue such an agreement.19964McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The return of Indigenous human remains is a complex and sensitive issue. While I have responsibility for collections held in Australian museums, the return of Indigenous human remains held in collections overseas are the responsibility of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. The Prime Minister raised the issue of the return of Indigenous human remains in his discussions with Prime Minister Tony Blair during Australia Week in Britain. The Prime Ministers issued the following joint statement on 4 July 2000 outlining their governments' approach to this issue: “The Australian and British governments agree to increase efforts to repatriate human remains to Australian Indigenous communities. In doing this, the governments recognise the special connection that Indigenous people have with ancestral remains, particularly where there are living descendants. The Australian government appreciates the efforts already made by the British government and institutions in relation to assisting the return of human remains of significance to Australian Indigenous communities. We agree that the way ahead in this area is a co-operative approach between our governments. Our governments recognise that there is a range of significant issues to be addressed in order to facilitate the repatriation of Indigenous human remains. Addressing these issues requires a co-ordinated long-term approach by governments involving Indigenous communities and collecting institutions. Consultation will be undertaken with Indigenous organisations as part of developing any new co-operative arrangements. Significant efforts have already been undertaken by individuals and particular organisations in this area. More research is required to identify Indigenous human remains held in British collections. Extensive consultation must also be undertaken to determine the relevant traditional custodians, their aspirations regarding the treatment of the remains and a means for addressing these. The governments agree to encourage the development of protocols for the sharing of information between British and Australian institutions and Indigenous people. In this respect we welcome the initiative of the British Natural History Museum which has catalogued the 450 Indigenous human remains in its collection and provided this information to the Australian government. We endorse the repatriation of Indigenous human remains wherever possible and appropriate from both public and private collections. We note that several British institutions have already negotiated agreements with Indigenous communities for the release of significant remains. In particular, Edinburgh University, following extensive consultation with the Australian government and Indigenous organisations, has recently completed repatriation of a large collection of remains. Our governments look forward to continuing to address this issue in a co-operative and constructive spirit.” (2), (3) and (5) I understand that there are legislative constraints in Britain on the return of collection items, including human remains, from certain government funded institutions. There have been cases of repatriation of Indigenous human remains from British institutions in circumstances in which the legislative constraints do not apply, such as the recent repatriation of the large Edinburgh University collection. (4) The Australian Government does not advise the British Government about its decisions in relation to international conventions.19964(Question No. 1684)168419964Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, 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) 2003-04.19965Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) to (e) None (2) Transaction has been defined as a financial payment or benefit that has been made to an individual member of the public that is not contractual in nature or of an employer/employee relationship. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) to (f) Not applicable. (5) (a) to (f) Not applicable.19965(Question No. 1708)170819965Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 28 June 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to allegations contained in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 June 2000 which states that Sydney's aircraft noise-sharing plan is under threat of collapse in the wake of claims by international pilots that the use of the east-west runway should be curtailed because of potentially dangerous cross winds. (2) Has the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Association (IFALPA) put a `red star' on Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport (KSA) because the east-west runway is allowed to be used in cross winds of up to 25 knots. (3) Is the IFALPA threatening to put a further`black star' on KSA if the airport is further upgraded to permit the east-west runway to be used in conditions of up to 25 knots. (4) Do international rules for operating aircraft permit aircraft movement in 25 knot cross winds, whereas a 15 knot limit is set for noise abatement purposes. (5) If the standard put forward by the IFALPA is accepted, should the third runway be governed by the same rules. (6) Is the third runway at KSA approximately 100m shorter than the east-west runway. (7) If the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) must becompromised in favour of the safety findings,has KSA exceeded its environmental sustainable development threshold. (8) Is the environmental sustainability of KSA predicated on the LTOP. (9) Must a finding that the operational plan of KSA is unsafe be measured by his gazetted LTOP. (10) Notwithstanding the findings on safety by the IFALPA, is he bound to his gazetted LTOP and that this responsibility is not mitigated by the belated findings of alleged aircraft safety after the gazettal of the LTOP. (11) Did he consider the matters raised by the IFALPA when the LTOP was proclaimed.19965Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Association (IFALPA) wrote to me on 12 June 2000 in relation to a number of concerns with Sydney Airport. The letter indicated that it believes that in light of its concerns it `...has no option but to designate Sydney Airport as Class 2 Serious Deficiency Red Star...'. (3) In its letter to me, IFALPA stated that if no action is taken on the matters raised a Class 3 Critical Deficiency Black Star will be applied to Sydney Airport. (4) I am advised that International rules do not prescribe crosswind limits other than the limit to which each aircraft is certificated. There exists an international recommendation that noise abatement procedures should not be required in adverse weather conditions, such as crosswinds exceeding 15 knots. However, it is common for international airports to operate in crosswinds exceeding 15 knots. (5) In response to the IFALPA letter, I wrote to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on 20 June 2000 asking that it examine the issues raised by IFALPA. The implications of making changes to crosswind limits, including whether they should be applied to all or only specified runways, are matters being covered as part of this review. (6) I am advised that the physical length of the east-west runway is 2529 metres. The length of the third runway is 2438 metres. (7), (8) and (9) The question of the extent to which noise sharing would be affected by any change in the crosswind limitations is now being examined by Airservices Australia. (10) The Government remains committed to noise sharing at Sydney Airport but safety is our first priority. (11) The crosswind limit on runways at Sydney Airport has been 25 knots since 1989. LTOP,which was introduced in 1997, was predicated on no long term change being made to that crosswind limit.19966(Question No. 1730)173019966Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 June 2000: (1) Following the Report of the Independent Review Panel for the End of War List for Vietnam what action has the Government taken to revise (a) the quota system for operational awards, (b) the process for recommending operational awards including the desirability of an Independent Assessment Panel within Defence and (c) the Order of Wearing of Australian Honours and Awards. (2) If the Government has not reviewed these matters since the Report, will he undertake to do so; if not, why not.19966Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The quota system for gallantry and distinguished awards for operational service was referred by the Government to the Interdepartmental Committee on Honours and Awards to Defence Force Personnel (IDC) following the report of the Independent Review Panel of the End of War List Vietnam. The IDC recommended quotas be retained. (b) As a result of the IDC recommendation, the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) considers that a practical result can be produced by using quotas as a basis from which to start when assessing operational lists, but the quota should not limit the number of awards that may be conferred. Consequently, there is no limit on the number of nominations which may be submitted to headquarters, Australian Defence Force, from an operational area. This contrasts with the policy in place during the Vietnam conflict. The success of any nomination under this revised procedure then lies in the strength of the citation when assessed against the relevant medals regulations. Prior to the CDF making his final decision, recommendations will be assessed by Single Service committees. This system was used for the first operational list from East Timor in February 2000 and is considered to have been successful in its application. (c) The Order of Wearing of Australian Honours and Awards (Order of Wearing) was also referred by the Government to the IDC. It was the view of the IDC that the Order of Wearing is important and should be maintained in its current form. The IDC was unable to establish what purpose would be served by further clarification in the document of its purpose. The document already clearly states its purpose. (2) Under the circumstances detailed at part (1), no further reviews are considered necessary.