2000-09-043917REPS1996702000-09-04—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees19967199671996712:31:0019967Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled From phantom to force: towards a more efficient and effective army, together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed. 8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—This report on our Army comes from an inquiry held under unique circumstances. When the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade commenced this inquiry some 15 months ago, Australia's regional circumstances were different from those of today. During that period, Australia was engaged in military commitments not seen for a generation. Most of these commitments were being borne by the Army. These circumstances and the Army's role in them have inevitably impacted on our report. While justifiably proud of our Army, the evidence we received over the last 15 months has left us concerned for its future capability.Members of this House should be aware that the brigades within our Army have on average only 50 per cent of the soldiers they require for operations. If these brigades were fully staffed, they would still need a hefty injection of equipment for deployment in operations. In dollar terms, it is estimated that this injection would cost $4½ billion. While the performance of our Army over the last decade has been impressive, much of it has been and remains hollow. It could be characterised as a `phantom army'. From the evidence received by our committee and from talks with both reserve and regular soldiers, we believe that this situation must be improved. It is clear that partially staffed units with little equipment are a major source of dissatisfaction. These hollow units destroy morale, encourage separation from the service and probably inhibit recruitment. Most significantly, they do not deliver capability to the nation.This report is very much about improving the Army's capability. To do that we have not felt constrained by traditional concepts for structuring, equipment and staffing. We believe that the stakes are too high to approach the suitability of the Army in any other fashion. In practical terms, our report recommends the effective doubling of the Army's capability to respond to short warning contingencies by the creation of four capable, fully staffed and ready brigades. It also recommends increasing the Army's capability to respond to more significant threats by the development of a force expansion capability 30 per cent greater than the current force—that is, we believe that the Army must be able to expand to 12 brigades within a reasonable warning time. Finally, we recommend the reinvigoration of the Army's personnel structures by aligning the regular and reserve components into a single entity for the purposes of employment arrangements, training and operations.Our committee will circulate this report and then seek the views of the community on the recommendations we have made. In this report, we present a model for a future army. If this model is to be successful in increasing the capability and efficiency of the Army, it will need to be refined through consultation and discussion, and it will need to be broadly owned and supported by the community and by the Army. We believe that, as a consequence of this approach, we can help create a highly capable and efficient army. It will evolve from being a hollow phantom into a more efficient, effective and sustainable force.In conclusion, I would like to thank the many people who took time to contribute to this inquiry. This includes many private citizens, non-government organisations, academics and departmental staff. It also included serving soldiers and officers within both the regulars and the reserve. I believe their efforts have resulted in a significant contribution to the current national discussion on our defence policy and the future of our armed forces. I would also like to thank all members of the committee, in particular the Deputy Chairman, the member for Chifley Mr Roger Price, and the very efficient and effective secretariat headed up by Margaret Swieringa. The committee would also like to thank Lieutenant Colonel Leo Hogan and Lieutenant Colonel Michael Ward for their help. The committee expresses its deeply felt thanks to the secretariat. I commend this report to the House. 12:36:0019968Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I congratulate the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and endorse his remarks. When I proposed the terms of reference of the inquiry to the committee after its reformation following the last election, I had in mind the looming trouble in East Timor. I could not have imagined the outcome being such a radical report. Our recommendations are very broad and limited in number but focused. We resisted the temptation to get into the detail, but there is plenty in this report and its real impact is in its implications and implementation. It provides a realistic model upon which the Army can be radically restructured to meet our national security needs. The defence of Australia is not solely dependent on the ADF or, indeed, the Army. It starts with diplomacy and regional engagement. National security requires a formal and informal whole of government approach, and a national security council is recommended. Only this government could be relaxed and comfortable that Australia is still not reconciled with Indonesia, our largest and closest neighbour and our most important regional friend. An area of difficulty for the committee was dealing with concepts such as the defence of Australia, the planning anarchy that resulted from ASP 97, abandoning ten-year warning time and providing no warning time guidance and whether peacekeeping is or is not a force determinant. The report has identified Australia's area of critical strategic interest and calls upon Army to be able to mount concurrent operations of one brigade and one battalion of low- to mid-level intensity in coalition or under UN mandate, and be able to man, equip and sustain it. Our four brigade type formations would be able to do that, something that our current army cannot. We provide for a warning time of two years in which a serious threat would need to be met, providing a surge capability of a further eight brigades. Our serving men and women performed so well in East Timor, but even that effort was managed with great difficulty and it would have been unsustainable had the initial numbers been required to stay longer. The committee found that we have phantom brigades, phantom equipment and phantom dollars. The committee has blown away the sandcastles. It cuts out phantom brigades and boutique capability and requires uniform equipment provision. It provides a model to sustain our army into the future.Whilst we appreciate the contribution of reservists serving in East Timor, we reject the current fashion for slot theory in the utilisation of reserves which of itself demonstrates the failure of this government's reserve policy. The committee has removed all distinctions between reserve and regular units. A Ready Reserve type component could be reconstituted under our proposals. The committee has rejected technology edge for a capability edge. It's the punch you pack that counts, not whether you have the most glamorous glove. In fact, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain a technology edge in our region anyhow.`Totally integrated fighting force' is a concept used in the report which will become increasingly important. No single service can operate on its own. It is the way they operate together that delivers the biggest punch. The committee's desire to cost our proposals was hampered because Army did not appear to provide figures upon which the committee could rely. About the change process, we suggest that the Russell Hill mandarins and brass should get down and dirty and talk to all levels within Army rather than being overly reliant on chain of command and e-mails which are no substitute for face-to-face meetings. Implementation of the report will entail great political courage and leadership, if not will. I worry about Australia if the Minister for Defence does not sign up to the report. Then I worry, if he does sign up, will he cancel out at the last moment? I hope we do not have to have body bags to establish the veracity of this report. I wish to acknowledge the contribution of Lieutenant Colonel Leo Hogan, our military adviser, without whom this report could have not been written, and his predecessor, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Ward. I also thank Margaret Swieringa who made a seamless transition from Human Rights to Defence. I commend the report to all honourable members. I urge them to read it; our country's future may depend upon it.12:41:0019969Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Chapter 2 of this report begins with a quotation attributed to the philosopher George Santayana:Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The overall strength of this report, which I join the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Defence Subcommittee in commending to the House, is its realism and relevance. It achieves the intentions of the Defence Subcommittee because it bases its proposals for where we intend to go on the acute awareness of where we are and where we have come from. There is no doubt that this report is challenging. It challenges assumptions and it poses challenges to the policymakers. In particular, it challenges Army, the Australian Defence Force and the government to confront the issues it points to and deal with them to create an army that is relevant to our needs and flexible enough to meet emerging trends. And, instead of proposing a `behind closed doors' arrangement, it says that there needs to be a willingness to go and talk to the Australian people about the document and its implications. We are all stakeholders in the defence of this country and I for one am pleased to see this recognition of the fact. I hope that Defence listens carefully to the wider community and listens with equal care to the diverse voices within the Defence family. The Armed Forces Federation of Australia, as representative of the interests of ADF members, should be closely involved in negotiating change.The chairman and deputy chairman have already taken the House through the key issues addressed in the report. It looks in detail at the issues of restructuring, logistics and the force structure. The report defines the key issues of hollowness and the inability to function operationally and looks at the balance of capabilities and the stagnation of the structure in peacetime. But I would like to stress the importance of the recognition of the hollowness of the current army to consideration of this report's recommendations. I believe it is as important as recognising the changing strategic environment and the level of resources needed to make our army effective. It is a matter of which we in the Northern Territory are acutely aware. Not only do we have a hollow structure, but that structure is threatened by shortcomings in supply and logistics. I hasten to add that these shortcomings are not the fault of the commanders in the field. Rather, they are explicitly the fault of a dysfunctional system that fails to provide anywhere near the appropriate level of resources—financial, human and material. During a subcommittee visit to the Northern Territory recently, we became aware of such issues as, for example, the Army's only tank regiment having no ammunition for the next year's training needs; artillery short of 155 millimetre, with one regiment having only 1,300 rounds to fire over a 12-month period; soldiers voicing their opinion that Army is at the bottom of the food chain for resources and equipment; removal of the requirement for the army individual readiness notice for a 33-round shoot to save ammunition and an overall reduction annually on ammunition available for training; and three-man crews for tanks that need four-man crews. And the list goes on. There are also serious questions about the level of morale in the ADF generally and in Army in particular. Some of these relate to the above matters. But there is a significant threat to morale in the inability of Defence management to deal with ongoing personnel issues. I refer firstly to the arbitrary and unilateral decision to reduce the remote locality leave travel entitlement which was raised during the course of this inquiry. There are also very real fears that the application of fringe benefits tax reporting requirements will have a direct and negative impact on real income levels because of the potential to lift rounded-up income beyond the levels for family allowance and other income support to which all Australians are entitled. Members will be aware that I brought these matters to the attention of the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence two months ago. He said at the time that he understood these were serious issues and that he would investigate them. His investigation has resulted in a bureaucratic explanation of the application of normal departmental liability to RLLT and the reduction of offset entitlements.I understand the definition of NDL, and I am very clear on the fact that this has been a cost-cutting exercise, but I also understand that these arguments do not wash with the troops. It makes them angry to be offered such gratuitous statements to explain away their legitimate grievances. The issue here is not the real changes but the fact that the troops in the field feel misled. The ADF was asked in mid-1999 what they thought about the future of RLLT and their answer was a resounding, `Leave it alone.' Defence personnel executives came back in late 1999 and the typical response was, `Leave it as is because if we do not get a lump sum we will not be able to afford a holiday.' DPE reduced the entitlement by coming to a fare deal with Qantas and told the ADF about the new deal after it had begun to take effect. I might also point that ADF members who went to Timor and those who stayed behind in Northern Australia to support them did not take their leave at Christmas time and so they missed out on offsetting their RRLT at full value—a full fare Darwin-Adelaide economy return for those serving in Darwin. If they take their leave now they will only get a reduced amount because that has now become the normal departmental liability. Similarly, the ADF has now belatedly recognised that the FBT might be an issue. These are issues which need to be addressed urgently. I would like to acknowledge and thank the committee secretariat for their diligence and hard work. (Time expired)12:46:0019970Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—by leaveI would like to thank my colleagues from the Defence Subcommittee who have made a contribution to this debate on the report Towards a more efficient and effective army, but more importantly I thank them for their very diligent work on the inquiry and in the preparation of this report. I emphasise that this is a significant report. It will have a big impact on the debate. It is a report that the committee would like to think will have a big impact on the future role that the Army is going to play in defending this country. It is all about taking the Army into the next century. It is all about facing up to the current shortcomings, which the member for Chifley so effectively has outlined, adding to the points that the member for the Northern Territory and I have made. It is all about taking effective action. As we have titled the report, it is all about making our army more efficient and effective. We feel that it will be cost effective and affordable. The timing of these recommendations is significant. There is a window of opportunity, which will not be there beyond about the year 2007, to bring the Army up to the standard that all members of this House and indeed all Australians would expect. We are all very aware of the equipment requirements of the Navy and the Air Force towards the end of this decade and the likely budgetary impact that will have. Addressing these issues, we have made 12 very important recommendations. They are all about getting a better, tighter focus on defence. They are all about getting a proper national security policy. As we have pointed out, they address the issues of the regulars and the reserves and come up with what we believe is a very good solution that will address the concerns that have been raised. It is all about follow-up as well. Appendix G of the report proposes an Army capability enhancement project which is all about working through the recommendations of the report and putting them into place. We also talk about ongoing monitoring for the purposes of the parliament. Every six months a report comes back to the parliament so that all members are aware of what is happening. I recommend this report to all honourable members and to the wider Australian community. It not only is an eminently readable report but has a wealth of information. It also puts things in historical perspective. In the last century, while the Australian Army and the troops have done an outstanding job, I am not sure that the same can be said of some of the planning that has been done, particularly in preparation for earlier engagements. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for statements on the report has expired. Does the member for Wannon wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? 8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—I move: That the House take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 199711997112:50:0019971Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I present the committee's report entitled Building Australia's trade and investment relationship with South America, together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.RI4Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSER—This report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Building Australia's trade investment relations with South America, has been eagerly awaited by the countries of South America, Australian business chambers and businesses themselves. There is little doubt that South America is dynamic and developing, leading to a multitude of business opportunities. This was reinforced when members of the Trade Subcommittee visited eight South American countries in March-April this year. The members came away with the view that Australian business is really well placed to move into the market and capture market share. One's perceptions of South America as being a place that would not be attractive to Australian business are dispelled when this report is read. There are powerful reasons for the market to be looked at seriously by Australian exporting firms. With South America emerging as a region of considerable economic significance, there is great scope for Australian companies to do business there.The first focus on South America as a region of considerable potential for Australia was back in 1992. While Australia's trade and investment relationship has grown with South America, it has not been a high priority. Through the government's annual trade outcomes and objectives statements, there is now a focus on Chile, the Mercosur countries and Peru as important emerging markets for Australia. The direct air links with South America, established nearly two years ago, provide both the means and the catalyst for developing and improving business links. Time is of the essence. Australia's competitors, including New Zealand, are well and truly in the market. If Australia is serious about increasing its trade and investment relationship with South America then it must go beyond the promotional rhetoric and take positive action as its competitors are doing in the region. The committee's recommendations are focused on putting legs under the relationship, with the ultimate aim of improving Australia's export performance. The CER-Mercosur dialogue, the central mechanism for progressing Australia's trade and economic relationship with Mercosur, must be reinvigorated. It is necessary for the Australian government to pursue, as a priority, the development of an Australia-Mercosur free trade agreement to allow Australia to tap into the Mercosur common market of some 215 million people. Australia's competitors are reaping the benefits of such trade agreements, with Australia losing any competitive edge. Australia has to be in it to win it and energise trade initiatives and trade activities. Australia has a critical link that is of significant value to South American countries; it is our Asia link. Australia, as a bridge to Asia, is a concept that is big enough for the government to take seriously as an initiative, and the committee recommends that a strategy be developed to establish Australia as a bridge to Asia for the economies of South America.The committee, as did the Trade Subcommittee on its visit to South America, found that awareness—or, more correctly, lack of awareness—is the single biggest issue impacting on the relationship. In Australia there is little awareness of South America, including the nature and the size of the markets there, the scope of the opportunities, the complementarities with Australia and the move by the South American countries to be more competitive in the global economy. To raise awareness and provide a long-term focus on South America the committee sees it as vital for the Australian government to establish a body that has the capacity to deliver initiatives to build the relationship. The committee recommends that an Australia-South America foundation be established to initiate and support activities that promote substantial and enduring collaboration between Australia and the countries of South America, and serve Australia's long-term needs for the region.The committee found it an anomaly that, within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, South America and Canada are put together. The size and dynamism of the South American market warrant that it has its own focus and priority and that Canada is moved and made part of North America.In all, the committee made 30 recommendations to build Australia's trade and investment relationship with South America. Other initiatives include the formation of a South American working group, high-level visits to the region, additional resources for our mission in Caracas, an exchange program for young executives, the development of a program to capture the expertise and skills of Australia's retired work force, an increase in the Australian Tourist Commission's effort, double taxation agreements with more South American countries, Australian membership of the Inter-American Development Bank and the provision of a budget allocation by AusAID for development projects in South America in cooperation with the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.It is important that there be a significant focus at government level on the South American region, as this will encourage people to go to South America and trade in South America. This strategy has proved to be very successful in relation to Asia and the same commitment is required to reap the benefits in the markets of South America. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)12:55:0019972O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Mr Speaker, I enjoy this opportunity to support the tabling statement of the chairman, the member for Forrest, and advise you and other members of the parliament that, not only for myself but for other members of the Trade Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the inquiry was a valuable and rewarding experience. Awareness and finding out about something that you did not know about is rewarding in itself. We have become aware, through this activity, of the enormous potential that will open up for Australia in a future trading relationship with the South American countries. We have been aware, through our partnership over many years in the Cairns Group, of the potential of the area, but it has always been limited, in our thinking, to the agricultural partnership. What this subcommittee has learned and demonstrated unequivocally in its report is that the opportunities are across the complete range of activities that Australia would want to engage in in a trade relationship with any continent. I emphasise on behalf of the committee that we see this as a two-way street. There are many opportunities for South American countries and traders in Australia, just as opportunities exist for us in their region. I would like to emphasise two points in particular made by the chairman. One is that time is of the essence. We have been talking about the potential of this region for many years. The former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, as Minister for Trade, started to open it up with his own inquiry work. Previous to that, Labor trade ministers and primary industry ministers had identified the potential as well. But Australia has basically talked about it for the last eight years. We are saying time is of the essence. Our competitors are in there and they are developing strategies related to the whole region while we are still thinking about it. We make that point.I also think that the chairman makes a key point when he talks about the concept of the potential bridge to Asia. The South American countries see the future of growth in the Asia-Pacific region, and they want to be part of it. For the first time, they are starting to see Australia as a potential partner or bridge in that dialogue. We should be pitching ourselves specifically to it. I would like to make reference to three particular points that are made in the report about this. In section 2.37, we make the very clear and highlighted statement that:There is little doubt that South America is dynamic and developing, leading to a multitude of business opportunities. No-one should understate the potential. I also refer future readers to section 3.41, where we say:It is clear that if Australia is serious about increasing its trade and investment relationship with South America then it must go beyond the promotional rhetoric and take positive action as its competitors are doing in the region.With particular reference to Austrade, in section 5.56 we make a particular comment about the practice of fee for service, putting the view that, particularly in emerging markets, this needs to be re-examined to give the opportunities more potential. I would also like to make a comment about a personal hobbyhorse, and that is—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Forrest wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?19973Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.199731997313:00:0019973Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, I present the committee's report entitled A watching brief—the nature, scope and appropriateness of ASIO's public reporting activities, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be printed.MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—The Australian public entrusts ASIO with extensive powers in order to provide security intelligence for the safety of our country and its citizens. It is therefore vitally important that ASIO is subject to appropriate accountability mechanisms and is required to report, in a general way, to the Australian public on all its activities. Last year, the committee looked at a package of legislation which made changes to the administrative and legislative framework under which ASIO operates. As part of that review, we received evidence from a number of groups and individuals arguing that ASIO should be more open about its activities. Because of the short time frame in which we were required to look at the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, the committee could not at that time explore further the question of whether ASIO should be more open in its public reporting. We sought a further reference from the Attorney-General on this issue, and in February this year he asked us to undertake this inquiry into the nature, scope and appropriateness of ASIO's public reporting activities. Our inquiry looked at how ASIO currently reports to the Australian public, how this might be improved, and whether more information should be provided by ASIO. We received submissions from ASIO, the Attorney-General's Department, the National Archives of Australia, the Privacy Council of Australia and a number of other groups and individuals. We also held a public hearing in Canberra which included witnesses from interstate. While ASIO has perhaps not been as open as it could have been in the past, the committee found that ASIO's public reporting activities have improved substantially over the last decade. ASIO now produces an annual report, which is censored to exclude sensitive information, and a number of public information brochures, and in June this year it launched a comprehensive Internet site. In particular, the addition of the Internet site has greatly improved the amount of information available to the public about ASIO. It includes information about ASIO's role, the limitations on its activities, its accountability mechanisms, its history, and also employment with ASIO. However, the committee recognises that not all Australians have access to the Internet, and we have recommended that all the information on the Internet site be also available in hard copy format.Another area in which ASIO could improve its public reporting is in its communication with ethnic communities. ASIO currently does not produce any information in languages other than English. It was recently reported in newspapers that ASIO has approached a number of ethnic community leaders to help in identifying any potential overseas threats to the Olympic Games. In this situation, it is vitally important that community members understand the role of ASIO. We have therefore recommended that ASIO should produce general information about its role in a number of community languages. The languages should be chosen along generic guidelines—for example, the same languages in which the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, or Centrelink publishes information—so that inferences cannot be drawn about why ASIO is publishing information in some languages and not in others.Our final recommendation deals with frustrations that historical researchers have encountered when dealing with ASIO and the National Archives of Australia. At present, researchers do not have access to a list of ASIO files over 30 years old. This makes it difficult for them to pinpoint the particular files in which they are interested. We have recommended that ASIO release to the National Archives a list of all its files over 30 years old, excluding those in which the file name would reveal sensitive information. In summary, the committee found that ASIO's current public reporting activities are adequate. The total package of information available to the Australian community about ASIO exceeds that available to citizens in other countries about their domestic intelligence agencies. However, this is not to say that ASIO should be complacent about its public reporting activities. The committee's recommendations are aimed at ensuring that ASIO continues to look at how it can improve the way it communicates with the Australian public. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their hard work in producing this unanimous report, and Bronwen Jaggers, the secretary of the committee, and her staff as well. I commend the report to the House.13:05:0019974Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for an opportunity to support the presiding member's statement and the tabling of this report. There are a number of citizens of our great country who worry a little about the fact that we have an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation operating. But it has been very pleasing to serve on the Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation—which is the watchdog that parliament has to supervise ASIO's activities—and to be assured that since its initiatives 20 years ago to adopt a public face ASIO has made major progress in that regard. I am very pleased to support this report and commend it to the chamber.It is probably in some ways a sad reflection on the human condition that a proud democracy like Australia has to have a security intelligence organisation, but we have to accept the fact that because it is such a good democracy there are some elements of subversion that operate and we accept the reality that ASIO exists and operates across our community, keeping a watchful eye on such subversive activities. The Australian public therefore needs to come to understand that it is entrusting to ASIO extensive powers in order to provide security intelligence for the safety of our whole nation. It is therefore vitally important that ASIO is subject to appropriate accountability mechanisms and required to report in a general way to the Australian public on its activities.The terms of reference for the inquiry were to review the nature, scope and appropriateness of the way in which ASIO reports to the public on its activities. As the member for Fadden has said, the committee looked at ASIO's current methods of reporting to assess if they were adequate and it compared ASIO's reporting with that of other government intelligence agencies in Australia and overseas in some of our near neighbour countries. As the member for Fadden said in his concluding remarks, it is very satisfying to see the following, as referred to in paragraph 3.85 of the conclusions:It seems to us—the committee—that the total package of information available to the Australian community about ASIO's operations exceeds that available to citizens in other countries about their domestic intelligence agencies.The suggestions that we make reinforce what ASIO itself did in June this year in launching an Internet site. It is a very well developed and interesting site, and obviously ASIO has taken a considerable amount of time to prepare and develop it. As one who is using the Internet as a consultative tool, I know the Internet is something that develops and evolves, and we have made recommendations that ASIO continue to develop that site as it receives community feedback on the nature of the information that the community is seeking. Naturally, of course, it has to be a broad-brush approach as there are some elements of what ASIO investigates that must remain top secret, which, as I say, is a very sad reflection on our society.We have a wonderful, robust democracy in Australia—one of the best, as I have said in this chamber on many occasions, particularly last year when we had a referendum to decide the most fundamental question any nation can ask itself about who should be its head of state, about selecting someone to be an ultimate umpire when there is an impasse in this chamber or in the other place and parliament cannot make a decision in the nation's interests. Every person in Australia is entitled to have their say—and did so, as the principle of freedom of speech is enshrined in our Australian way. Everybody had their say. No matter how outrageous, they were entitled to say it and they were respected for having the courage to say it. We want to preserve that in our country and so we need an intelligence organisation to make sure that the subversive elements that want to operate to undermine such a robust democracy do not have their way. I am very pleased to support this report and I would encourage the House to add its support to it. I would like to thank the very hard-working members of the committee and its staff and also the presiding member for his worthwhile work. 13:10:0019975Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—by leave—I will pick up the point that my colleague the member for Mallee has just made in this debate on the report by the Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation about the requirement for a security organisation in Australia. I also commend his suggestion that members of this House and people beyond this House should read this particular report. Over the years ASIO has, rightly or wrongly, created an illusion about exactly what it does and the way in which it operates. It has been healthy that, in the last couple of years, we have had an opportunity to examine its operation and to expose the nature of the operations of ASIO. This report brings that out quite well, but I commend the House to take a look at the Internet site of ASIO, which is on the government site, and indeed at some of the connections that can be made through links on that particular site if members really want to learn the true nature and scope of ASIO.From time to time, most members of this House would have people coming into their office making all sorts of accusations about what ASIO is all about and what it does. I have been absolutely surprised, during the public hearings of the committee, to learn that people still believe that ASIO agents run around armed and that they act like modern-day 007s, which is really not correct. I hope that this report, in some respects, overcomes some of those misapprehensions about the operations of ASIO, which I believe is one of the finest security organisations in the world. True evidence of that will really come to light when we see the operations of the Olympic Games in the coming few weeks, because obviously for the last several years ASIO has had a very busy time indeed making sure that the best possible security arrangements can be in place for the Olympic Games. It is quite interesting going into the Internet sites of some of the other world security organisations. If you compare the ASIO web site with those of people like MI5, the CIA or the FBI, you see that the attitude of ASIO to the Australian public has really been an open one indeed and that there has been very little for the Australian public to be concerned about. It is a comprehensive report and I believe everyone should read it. I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.199761997613:13:0019976Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration I present the report of the committee entitled Not the Hilton—Immigration Detention Centres: Inspection report, together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The Joint Standing Committee on Migration has responsibility to parliament to monitor the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs portfolio. This responsibility extends to inspecting and monitoring detention centres established under the Migration Act. During its latest inquiry, the committee inspected one of the `people smuggling' boats. It also witnessed a boat with suspected unlawful non-citizens on board being towed to a detention site by the Royal Australian Navy and the subsequent processing of the passengers. Committee members were therefore able to see for themselves the conditions under which the `boat people' had arrived and to appreciate the labour intensive nature of the initial arrival processing. The committee did not formally meet with or talk to people detained at centres under the Migration Act. It is important to note that this report focuses on the infrastructure and services at each of the detention establishments. The committee's report covers management, staffing and security at the centres. It also examines the physical amenities and the interpreting, health, education, recreation and cultural services available to the detainees. The committee's inspections took place from November 1999 to May 2000. During this time, increasing numbers of people were arriving illegally on Australian territory by boat. In the year just past, a record total of 4,174 people had arrived this way, compared with 3,071 in the previous five years.The committee visited the new centres established at Curtin and Woomera to accommodate the increased number of arrivals. In addition, it inspected the facility on Christmas Island used to accommodate illegal arrivals temporarily prior to their transfer to the mainland centres. On the mainland, the committee also inspected Maribyrnong, Perth, Port Hedland and Villawood. These are permanent, long-established and relatively large premises which the committee had previously visited and reported on in 1998. In Darwin and Broome the committee inspected the arrangements for the accommodation of small numbers of illegal fishers held temporarily under the Migration Act. The diversity of the detention centres meant that the committee's recommendations were equally diverse. At both Woomera and Curtin the committee considered that there had been a creditable response to the demands of establishing new centres in isolated areas. At the time of their visit, the committee considered that the medical facilities should be expanded at both sites.Christmas Island does not receive many illegal entrants. However, prior to their transfer to the mainland, their presence can have a considerable impact on the limited resources of the small local community. The committee has recommended that stocks of equipment be established to cushion the demands made on the island's resources. The committee recommended that the perimeter security at Maribyrnong be upgraded so that the recreational areas could be reopened, thus easing pressure on the other communal areas. Perth detention centre is small, and it was considered to be overcrowded. The committee therefore recommended that it be used only for short-term detention and that there should be more toilet and washing facilities. The influx of boat people had brought Port Hedland close to capacity, but the committee did not consider that it was overcrowded. The committee recommended that the centre be better screened to minimise photographic intrusion on the detainees' privacy. Upgrading of Villawood had been announced when the committee visited in 1998. The committee noted that this had not yet occurred. In view of the volatility of the numbers of illegal arrivals, the committee recommended that the redevelopment of Villawood detention centre proceed. In Darwin and Broome, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority uses the provisions of the migration legislation to detain fishers who have infringed Australia's borders. The range and nature of the facilities provided are therefore different from those of other centres which the committee inspected. The committee was concerned with the standard of the facilities and the poor security of the Broome Centre. At this point I would like to extend my thanks to the committee secretariat: Ms Gould, Mr Dyer and Ms Herd. I thank them very much for the help that they gave me during the committee hearings. I also thank the other members of the committee; I note that the member for Fowler is about to follow me, and I thank her and the other members for the support they gave me on the committee. I intend to continue my remarks following the contributions of other speakers.13:19:0019977Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—During the Joint Standing Committee on Migration's inquiry, I had the opportunity to inspect all of the facilities with the exception of Woomera. This involved travel to places as far away as Christmas Island as well as to the fringes of my own electorate, Villawood. So it is fitting for me to say that the report reminds me of a travel brochure—the type that describes facilities in a way which is factual, but when you see them in real life they are far from desirable, like the ocean views that you can get only a glimpse of between the tall buildings in front of your hotel window. So when the report declares in its overall conclusion that `facilities provided for the detainees are adequate', as with the words in the travel brochure it all depends on your interpretation.If you were rating the centres with a system of stars like hotels, you would not give half a star to the best of them, let alone the worst. The report is appropriately titled Not the Hilton, and the detention centres are certainly not the Hilton. In some cases—and I would refer to Christmas Island in particular—the facilities could only be described as grossly inadequate. While I know that Christmas Island is expected to meet short-term stays only and only on an occasional basis, it does warrant the urgent provision of accommodation and hygiene facilities. The proposed multipurpose recreation facility for use by the local community when not required for detainees should be given a high priority.My overall impressions of the detention centres left me in no doubt about the government's objectives in maintaining its detention centre strategy. Its objective, like that of Basil Fawlty, is to ensure that no guest ever returns to a facility and that none of their family and friends wish to go there either. Instead of detention centres, you could call them deterrent centres. The isolation and extreme climate of centres in Western Australia and at Woomera no doubt leave a grim picture of Australia in the minds of detainees. When you consider the issue of staff continuity in places such as Curtin, where staff are on a six-week contract, and the issue of portable buildings, you have to question the economy of maintaining centres in remote locations. The isolation may also be a factor in the recent disturbances at remote centres.I cannot omit to mention that over 90 per cent of detainees in these centres will be granted at least temporary protection visas, and I have no doubt that the great majority will become permanent residents and ultimately Australian citizens. When they look back at their time in detention centres, I wonder how they will see their treatment. Will they see an understanding and tolerant government which is sensitive to their plight and which willingly provides basic accommodation while their status is confirmed? Or will they see their detention as punishment for being an unauthorised arrival? Will they see detention centres as part of a deliberate strategy of having harsh conditions to deter unauthorised arrivals?I wish to add my thanks to the committee staff who so efficiently organised our visits to some of the most remote parts of Australia in the course of this inquiry. Thanks also to the inquiry secretary, Stephen Dyer, and the committee secretary, Gillian Gould. Their briefings and up-to-date research on this issue have been most helpful. I particularly wish to thank the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Jim McKiernan, for his advice and assistance during this inquiry. Few people have the knowledge and experience that Jim has on this issue. It is a difficult issue. When you see the faces of hundreds of troubled people—men, women and children—locked behind barbed wire, waiting for a decision that means everything to their future, you cannot help but be moved by their plight. Jim has helped me to see this issue with compassion and understanding, but also from a realistic point of view. 13:23:0019978Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—by leave—I would like to resume in completion of my comments on this report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration entitled Not the Hilton—Immigration detention centres: Inspection report. When I ceased speaking before I was talking about Darwin and Broome, where we detain fishers who have infringed Australia's waters in their desire to catch more fish. We have, on previous occasions, examined the facilities at Broome. Actually, they were at Willie Creek. To our disappointment the committee found that these facilities had not improved in that time. The fishermen are allowed to stay on their boats, but they came ashore to the beach. It was of great concern to the committee that there were building sites at Willie Creek that could cause problems for anybody who fell into them or knocked into them. We were told that the fishers preferred to remain on their boats and were permitted to do so, but we were concerned about the obvious safety risks. We recommended that this issue be addressed immediately and that DIMA and AFMA monitor the operation more closely. In the longer term, the committee recommends that AFMA examine the desirability of a new facility at Broome and assess the costs and benefits of centralising the Darwin and Broome detention centres.In Darwin, the detained fishers remain on their boats, which are moored in a quarantine area in the harbour. The committee inspected the site of the proposed on-shore facility. The committee notes that this facility, while in an ideal location, would not be suitable as it is presently proposed as a structure for the detention of suspected unlawful non-citizens. However, the committee felt that the immigration department and Fisheries should have a look at that centre to see if there is an opportunity for a joint facility there.Although each of the detention centres is unique, the committee was able to reach some broad conclusions in the course of its inspections. Overall we found that detention administration is appropriate and professional, that the facilities provided for the detainees are adequate and that the cultural sensitivities of the detainees are being accommodated. There has been some recent criticism in the press and I repudiate that criticism. These detention centres are set up to the highest standards. Yes, people do not have their own rooms and their own bathrooms—but it is a detention centre. The facilities are clean, the food is good and security is good. People who come to Australia illegally live in very good conditions while they are in detention. The question of detention is, of course, another question totally and is not the subject of this report. In short, I would like to say on behalf of the committee and the committee's report that Australia is taking seriously its responsibility to look after those in care and to look after them to the best of its ability. I commend this report to the House.13:27:0019979Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I am pleased that there are a number of specific recommendations in this report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration entitled Not the Hilton—Immigration detention centres: Inspection report that urge action to fix up some of the worst excesses of the detention centres, but I am not pleased that the report did not go into the issues in a sufficient manner, especially the history of these detention centres. I refer, for example, to the riot that occurred in the Maribyrnong detention centre in July last year and the fact that there is a recommendation to simply fix up the security rather than to actually change the Maribyrnong detention centre. That is wrong.It is not satisfactory, despite what the honourable member for Hindmarsh says, that people do not have their own rooms. Imagine being in detention not just for a short period of time but for many months, very often 18 months—more than a year—in a situation in which there is no privacy whatsoever. Even in prison a person can have some privacy for themselves for part of the day. These people who are in these detention centres have no privacy and their fundamental human rights are not being looked at. Somebody goes in there and says, `This looks all right for a couple of days or for a week.' You can live in a room for three or four days or for a week, but what about living in a place for months and months, even years, while you await the outcome of the situation? The committee has recognised that there is a need for speeding up of processes. There is a need for more interviews of refugee claimants. Recently at the Villawood centre, not once but twice, people went on a hunger strike. The reason for that hunger strike was partly that the Villawood administration had failed even to talk to the refugee claimants about what was happening to them and about access to people outside, including legal representatives. Other people who want to assist the refugee claimants have been completely denied access. Most of these centres have only one or two telephones and 100 people trying to make phone calls.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Hindmarsh wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?19979Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills19979R114819979Bill presented by Mr Albanese.13:30:0019979Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am very pleased to be reintroducing my private member's bill, the Aviation Noise Ombudsman Bill 2000, into this House. This bill is aimed at establishing an Australian Aviation Noise Ombudsman who would be empowered to hear complaints from the community affected by aircraft noise. The ombudsman would also be empowered to examine any proposed changes to aircraft routes, breaches of curfews or the cap on movements. This legislation is modelled on similar legislation which has been in operation in the United States for nearly four years and has been extremely successful. Last year, as a guest of the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council, the former US Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, Mr William Albee, visited Australia and met with a number of communities who suffer from aircraft noise, in order to promote this as a partial solution to at least ensuring that there is proper accountability over the issue of aircraft noise.I first introduced this bill into the House of Representatives on 20 September 1999. It is unfortunate that this bill lapsed and that it needed to be reintroduced into the House. The reason is that the government does not seem to want to hear the truth about how their policies regarding various airports around Australia have failed. The government has failed to support this mechanism which is one of accountability. It is unfortunate that members such as the member for Hindmarsh in Adelaide, members in Brisbane and members from around Coolangatta and Perth—the four airports where there seem to be most problems—have failed to speak up in support of this bill and have failed to ensure that the government has a proper debate. A majority of members of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, a body established and appointed by this government, owe their allegiance to government political parties. With the exception of the aircraft representatives, they have unanimously supported this bill. It is yet another example of the political representatives of this government having two faces—one when they are in their community and another when they are in parliament. The Liberal Party representatives on that committee have all supported this bill in the forum but have failed to ensure that this government debates and carries this bill. The inquiry earlier this year into the precision radar monitoring system at Sydney airport is a very clear example of why we need an aircraft noise ombudsman. The PRM inquiry into Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and the unnecessary delay in announcing whether a second airport will be constructed in Sydney are causing great frustration in my electorate of Grayndler and throughout Sydney. My electorate is perhaps the worst affected by aircraft noise from Sydney airport, given that the parallel runways to the north point directly at the most densely populated area of Australia. Over the next months, Sydney airport will be inundated with planes carrying athletes, officials and spectators to the Olympic Games. Over 300,000 people live within a radius of 10 kilometres of Sydney airport. Their lives will be seriously affected by the increase in noise over their heads. This will give residents a taste of what is predicted to occur in years to come with the expanding demand for air travel.I want to give a practical example of a constituent of mine who would benefit from being able to go to an aviation noise ombudsman. Patricia Campbell lives in Tempe in my electorate, less than one kilometre from the runway of Kingsford Smith airport—not from the terminals but from the runway—yet this government says that her residence falls outside the contour for aircraft noise insulation. It is not surprising that the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services has not paid a visit to the area around Kingsford Smith airport in St Peters, Tempe and Sydenham, unlike, to his credit, the previous transport minister, John Sharp, and the previous chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, Joe Hockey. At least they were prepared to come down and see what it was like to live that distance from the airport. This minister would not have a clue.Patricia spends all day every day at home as a full-time carer for her aged mother who needs constant care. She is literally bombarded by aircraft noise from 6 a.m., waking her up on queue as the 747s line up to come into Sydney airport, until 11 p.m., seven days a week, 12 months of the year. The only time Patricia gets away from the noise is during respite care which she ends up spending at her psychologist because the aircraft noise has brought her to the verge of a nervous breakdown. I have written to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services on her behalf, but to no avail. There has been no response from this minister. In this instance, an aviation noise ombudsman would look at the complaint in an objective and impartial way. That is the Australian way. It is an absurdity to have the current situation where, if you have a problem caused by aircraft noise as a result of the administration of Airservices Australia, the complaint body is Airservices Australia itself. We need an independent umpire to determine these matters.In Patricia's case, if it were in place, the Aviation Noise Ombudsman would have the power to refer the matter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for determination. Aircraft noise insulation continues to be a major issue for constituents seeking assistance from my office, particularly since the election of this government in 1996. Since that time, we have seen a huge reduction in homes entitled to be insulated—homes that had been granted funding for insulation by the previous Labor government. As part of the announcement of the minister for transport on noise sharing measures, he removed the entitlement that had been given in writing to those residents.This government continues to ignore the needs of residents in the inner western suburbs of Sydney as it refuses to take a realistic approach towards insulation of properties. In January this year the Minister for Transport and Regional Services announced a further allocation of funding for approximately another 600 homes in Petersham and Stanmore. That announcement was quite telling. Unlike previous occasions, the minister acknowledged that there were things called hills in Sydney and that some people were more affected due to the natural contours around Sydney airport. If he visited the area, he would know that. I invite him once again to visit the area and to see what the problems are. It was also a clear indication that the government's noise sharing modes and long-term operating plan are simply not functioning. After a consultative process in which the member for Lowe, me, the member for Barton, the member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Watson all participated, we were told there would be a sharing of noise. It simply has not happened. The government must acknowledge the need to revert to the original SANIP boundary for the noise amelioration program. The aircraft noise complaints line, run by Airservices Australia, continues to field hundreds of calls each month about the failure of noise sharing, about flight path deviations and about breaches of the curfew. Recently we had the startling, indeed scary, news that a power cut caused the air traffic control system to shut down. The planes might not land in Red Hill, where the minister lives in Canberra, but they do land in my electorate and the electorate of the member for Lowe, and we are concerned about this. To top this off, the PRM trials currently being undertaken are causing a massive increase in flights over the suburbs just north of the airport. In spite of the fact that the Sydney Airport Community Forum unanimously adopted a position that there should be meetings in the inner west of Sydney, the public meetings were held nowhere near where people were worst affected—they were held on the North Shore of Sydney, which shows the bias of this government. It is not just at Sydney airport that there is a problem, although the final comment on that is that, on 23 June, the Sydney airport cap was broken. The cap was introduced as a result of a private member's bill I introduced in this House, yet there were 87 movements at Sydney airport in one hour. I hope that is not a sign of things to come.These are all examples of how an aviation noise ombudsman could help people in the community who suffer from increasing levels of aircraft noise, which certainly is not just a problem in my electorate and not just at Sydney airport. This bill is to be seconded today by the member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd. The member for Griffith has been a longstanding and tireless campaigner for his constituents, who are badly affected by the noise from Brisbane airport. I am pleased to see my colleague Craig Emerson in the House. He supports the bill and the member for Lilley also supports the bill.The Perth airport continues to create major problems with the expansion of air travel. As part of an invitation from the member for Swan, Kim Wilkie, I met with local government representatives from the City of Canning and the City of Belmont, who expressed their desire for this bill to be carried. Stephen Smith, as the member for Perth, has also organised meetings on this issue with local residents, who all demand that this bill be carried. The Coolangatta airport, in the federal electorate of Richmond, has seen a significant increase in aircraft noise. When I introduced the bill last year, I called upon the member for Richmond to come out in support of this bill. He has failed to do so. In spite of that, the state member for Tweed, Neville Newell, is standing up for the residents of Richmond. I have tabled in this House a petition from more than 500 residents from the electorate of Richmond, arguing that this bill has to be debated and determined in this House.I also ask why the member for Hindmarsh has been so silent on this bill, given the fact that her constituents are affected so badly by Adelaide airport. Steve Georganas, a local community activist from Adelaide who has been endorsed as the ALP candidate for Hindmarsh, has been very active in organising and supporting those residents in that community who are concerned about aircraft noise at Adelaide airport. The good news for them is that, after the next election, they will have a local member who will stand up for their interests. Right across Australia—Adelaide, Perth, Coolangatta, Brisbane, Sydney airport and increasingly Melbourne airport and other airports as well where this will be an issue—there are concerns which point to the need for an Aviation Noise Ombudsman. I am pleased that the member for Bradfield, who is the chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum—which has the unanimous support of all of the community representatives—is in the chamber today. Why is it that this government has to be dragged kicking and screaming to make an appointment which would simply bring some accountability to the operation of airports around Australia? As aircraft travel continues to grow, this issue will affect a lot of the regional airports as well. I know that Coffs Harbour, in the electorate of Cowper, is becoming increasingly affected by aircraft noise with the expansion of tourism there. I am very pleased that the member for Griffith, who holds a Brisbane based seat, is seconding this bill. It shows that this bill is not just about Sydney airport but about the proper functioning of aviation policy in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.Bill read a first time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In accordance with sessional order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Statements by Members199821998213:45:0019982Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I am pleased to announce that the Olympic torch will enter the city of Blacktown at about 5.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 September. The Blacktown City Council has arranged special viewpoints for Blacktown residents in the following areas: at Minchinbury Reserve, the torch will arrive at 7 a.m.; at Kareela Reserve East, the torch will arrive at 8 a.m.; at Alpha Park Blacktown, the torch will arrive at 9 a.m.; and, at Seven Hills North Public School, the torch will arrive at 9.50 a.m.One of the torch carriers will be Julia Blair, who has been a school assistant at Maryong South Public School for 26 years. Julia has run gymnastics clubs for children for 26 years and 12 of these clubs are for disabled children. Julia and her husband, Terry, are among the most highly qualified gymnastics coaches for disabled children in New South Wales. On weekends, Mr and Mrs Blair can often be found at the Blacktown Police Boys Club and on Sundays they are at Homebush, running classes. This is amazing because it is all done on top of regular visits to Concord Hospital to treat Mr Blair's serious medical condition. Mrs Blair says that the torch run is special to her family and friends. I wish Mrs Blair and the torchbearers good luck for the run on the 13th, and I wish all the athletes the best of luck for a successful 2000 Olympic Games.1998213:46:0019982Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—One of the beauties and privileges of representing the electorate of Barker is its many wonderful wine growing areas. Of course, I represent such areas as Kangaroo Island, the southern Fleurieu Peninsula, Langhorne Creek, Padthaway, Wrattonbully, Limestone Coast and Mount Benson, and I also have the Coonawarra in my electorate. Mr Speaker, I know that you yourself represent some very fine wine growing areas but I do not think that anyone can possibly hope to reach the quality represented by the Coonawarra area in my electorate. I would like to congratulate the wineries that entered the recent Jimmy Watson Trophy. It is no news to many members here that Punters Corner, a fairly new and quite small winery in the Coonawarra area, received the Jimmy Watson Trophy this year for a 1999 Shiraz. It is a small winery and the grapes are produced by the winemaker, Peter Bissell, from the Balnaves Winery, which in fact won the Australasian wine of the year in 1998. So, again, the Coonawarra shows that it is the benchmark for red wine, especially here in Australia. They are a wonderful group. They have a competitive cooperation and, in fact, they make donations in the order of $300,000 per year. 1998313:48:0019983Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise today to correct the record for one of my constituents, Damian O'Connor, the Assistant General Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the ALP. On 17 August, in the matter of public importance debate, the member for Gippsland, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, badly maligned my constituent. He said:There is a Damien O'Connor—the same name as the Left's assistant secretary in New South Wales—with a George Street, Redfern address. He owns 400 Telstra shares.Mr Speaker, Damian O'Connor, the assistant secretary, lives in Newtown in my electorate, so he has been maligned as someone who was involved in buying Telstra shares, not that that is the business of the minister for the arts, in my view. The minister for the arts at the same time also maligned whoever Damien O'Connor of George Street, Redfern is, whose private holdings it is absolutely no business of a minister to come into this parliament and speak about. The spelling of Damian is actually different in both cases. The assistant general secretary of the New South Wales branch has a very proud record as an opponent of privatisation and, indeed, he was one of the leaders of the campaign that stopped electricity privatisation in New South Wales due to the fact that the rank and file of the New South Wales branch of the ALP were heeded on that issue. The minister should apologise to both. (Time expired)1998313:49:0019983Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My 90-second statement is not about the naming and criticism of any one individual whose life might have been seriously affected by gambling. Most people who gamble do not have a problem. Sadly, though, many others do. We should express concern about the vice and its often destructive and corrosive impact on its participants, swept up in an addiction like that of nicotine, heroin or alcohol. But this parliament should never be used to identify, criticise or pass judgment upon any individual Australian, whether they be the richest or the poorest. If we want to have a discussion in this parliament about an obscenity in relation to gambling, we ought to have a discussion about the decision made by the Liverpool council last year to sell the RSL Memorial Swimming Complex to the Canterbury Bankstown Leagues Club to build a $100 million hotel complex, into which would go at least 1,000 poker machines. That is an obscenity that will have a corrosive impact on the working men and women of Australia who put their low income dollars and their pension cheques, and all the things they struggle with so much hard work to get, into poker machines, which have now become the bread and butter of New South Wales Treasury.1998313:51:0019983Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise today to commend a wonderful festival that took place on Saturday in my electorate of Chisholm, in the Box Hill area, the 10th anniversary of the Moon Festival. I would like to commend the Taiwanese Business Association for having the foresight to hold the festival within the suburbs. Too many of these events go into the city, because we do not recognise that the suburbs are regions as well. Most of the people whom we represent in this parliament actually live in the suburbs and it is wonderful that the Taiwanese Business Association put on the festival, which attracts trade and tourism, in my electorate. This is wonderful. I would also like to commend the Whitehorse City Council for contributing to the event and the numerous sponsors who took out advertising and set up stalls. It was a great day, and it is wonderful that in our multiculturally diverse society we get to celebrate, by having these festivals in our land, the diverse history and cultures represented. I would also like to commend the entire Chinese community within the Box Hill area, who contribute so much to the growth of the area and to maintaining their culture and heritage. I think it is wonderful and we should see more of it. 1998413:52:0019984St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise to bring the attention of honourable members to the leadership, progressiveness and ingenuity of members of the community of Barraba in developing a new business to the benefit of their country community. Barraba Beef Co. is a wholesale-retail butcher shop and export standard boning room which began from scratch in an abandoned building in the New England town of Barraba. Finance for the company was raised from local shareholder contributions, including contributions from land-holders and business people who wanted to invest in the future of Barraba and to promote a quality local product. Barraba Beef Co. began this year and now employs three full-time employees and one part-time employee. It is managed by Mr Bill McKid, a progressive and positive community member who is to be commended for his foresight and commitment in developing the concept of the Barraba Beef Co. I am informed by the never-say-die Mayor of Barraba, Councillor Shirley Close—who is also a great advocate and supporter of the Barraba Beef enterprise—that initial planning for Barraba Beef Co. began just two years ago. Now we see a real, viable business which employs young people and adds immense value and confidence to the Barraba community and to the wider area.I maintain that the way forward for the future of country Australia is for country communities to take control of their own destinies. I commend and congratulate the community of Barraba and the investors, management and staff of Barraba Beef Co. on doing just that.1998413:53:0019984Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—Just recently the Ipswich branch of the Queensland Cancer Fund held the Relay for Life fundraising event at the East Ipswich Hockey Field. I want to put on the record the great support that this event had. It was launched by the former member for Oxley and former Governor-General Bill Hayden and his wife, Dallas. The event was pretty special for my electorate. The Mayor of Ipswich also came along, which showed how important the event was for the area. The Relay for Life is a 24-hour event with people walking or running laps in order to raise funds for cancer research. The first lap is covered by those who have survived cancer themselves. I want to congratulate all those people who took part in this wonderful event, and I especially want to put on the record the fantastic work of the organising committee. Gaye Campbell, Laurie Walsh, Leanne Johnson and Michelle Mennie all volunteered their time for over 12 months to put this event together. Their hard work paid off, because they raised over $20,000 on the day. I also want to congratulate the winning team, the IGA-Streets sponsored team, which covered 866 laps—430 kilometres—in a 24-hour period. In some way, we are all touched by cancer, whether it is through family, friends or acquaintances. The Relay for Life and the Queensland Cancer Fund should be congratulated for the work they are doing. (Time expired)1998413:55:0019984Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I would like to take this opportunity to refute the comments made in this House last Thursday evening by the member for Port Adelaide. I would have thought that the member, with all his years of experience, would know that no member of the public, particularly a member of parliament, is able to—to quote the member—`orchestrate a front page story' in any newspaper. Thankfully, we do live in a democracy and our editors are free to print an editorial front page as they see fit. The member for Port Adelaide, rather than using his adjournment time for the benefit of his constituents, chose to waste his constituents' time by getting stuck into the member for Makin, boots and all, on a complete non-issue—and, in doing all of that, pretending to be a gentleman, of all things, offering his time to allow me to speak when I was not present in the chamber. How hypocritical, and especially because at the time, during his very generous offer, a number of South Australians and I were meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, on a very important matter concerning all South Australians and their future livelihoods. Perhaps the member for Port Adelaide would do better to use the time available in adjournment debates to serve his constituents; or is it that the member for Port Adelaide is unable to generate his own publicity and needs to attack the member for Makin in her absence in order to gain some media attention?Opposition members—Where were you?0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—I just said. Maybe he should look to working more in his own electorate instead of offering to let me speak in my absence. (Time expired)1998513:57:0019985Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I wish to speak about the extravagant destruction of the touch football field on the Senate side of Parliament House, through its conversion to a venue for cocktail parties, at a cost of three-quarters of a million dollars. In 1986, the Hawke government refused to put in a bowling green that was then proposed by the Joint House Department. The former finance minister, being a staunch advocate of a level playing field, allowed it to be used as a touch football field but he would not cop the expense of a bowling green. It was used at lunchtimes for touch football, with league legends like Bustlin' Russell Barton, Jiggin' Mark Jessop, Swervin' Tim Sweeney, Motorin' Ben Mitchell, Gallopin' Stan Grant, and the irrepressible Arthur `High Flyin' Hill. There were also politicians, like Warren Snowdon and even then opposition leader Professor John Hewson who, no matter how badly his team was being beaten, would always find it within himself to Fightback! In this cold building of the new Parliament House, touch football has created a sense of camaraderie amongst politicians, staff, Liberal and Labor, Senate and House of Reps, journalists and cameramen, and allows them to let off a bit of steam and drop the political facade. That has been destroyed by the extravagant expense of a new venue for the cocktail circuit here in Canberra. We do not need a new destination for the cocktail circuit. What is needed by the working people around Parliament House—the staff and the workers of this place—is a sense of conviviality and a place where they can get together—(Time expired)1998513:58:0019985Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I would like to read a letter which I have received from a constituent, and it is self-explanatory. It is from Dudley Mitchell of Kingswood:Dear Andrew,I am writing to express my appreciation of the remarkable achievements of Telstra in the bush. Our daughter, Heather, lives in Machins Beach, just north of Cairns in Queensland. It is a community of about 400 homes. This was one of the areas that took the full force of Cyclone Steve on 28 February 2000. Heather was petrified by the noise of the wind, rain and tree branches hitting their house. She phoned us at 7 p.m. that night, at the height of the cyclone, to tell us of their plight. We phoned from here in Adelaide at midnight and again at daybreak to find out about the devastation. We exchanged many phone calls during the following days. Machins Beach was cut off from Cairns by floodwater. There was no electricity, water or sewerage for four days. Above all, the telephones still worked. One must surely say, `It does work in the bush'. 1998513:59:0019985Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I understand that the member for Makin made a promise in the Adelaide Advertiser last week that she was going to make a speech defying her Prime Minister and her Deputy Prime Minister on petrol prices. She got herself onto the speakers list and then conveniently got herself off. I heard her 90-second statement just a while ago, and we are still waiting for her speech. Stand up to the Prime Minister, stand up to the Deputy Prime Minister. We would be very interested to hear it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Port Adelaide will address his remarks through the chair. Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded. Ministerial Arrangements1998614:00:0019986Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Finance and the Administration, the Hon. John Fahey, will be absent from question time today. Mr Fahey will be participating in Olympic related events in his electorate and the Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice199861998614:00:0019986Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Why did Australia's Embassy in Burma refuse to join Britain and the US in seeking access to Aung San Suu Kyi during the nine days she was blockaded on the roadside near Rangoon? Minister, unlike Kofi Annan, Mary Robinson, Madeleine Albright and Robin Cook, why did you stay silent and not publicly criticise the Burmese military until your belated effort at lunchtime today? Will you explain to the House your justification for proceeding with another human rights seminar this month involving officials hand-picked by Burma's military? Minister, why have you done so much to snuggle up to the Burmese military, and don't your actions undermine international pressure on the regime in Rangoon?19986Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—First of all, let me tell the House that at the end of last week the Australian Ambassador to Burma made representations directly to the Burmese Deputy Foreign Minister expressing Australia's deep concern about the attitude of the Burmese authorities to Aung San Suu Kyi. The Australian government is not silent over human rights abuses in Burma. The Australian government has repeatedly criticised, directly to the Burmese authorities and publicly, human rights abuses in Burma. It makes no attempt whatsoever to `snuggle up' to anybody in Burma. The Australian government's position is that it is appalled by the standards of human rights in Burma and it certainly deplores the way Aung San Suu Kyi has been treated over a very long period of time—over a decade—including at the present time and during the last week. The Australian government is quite happy to join with other countries in deploring that treatment.The honourable member asks whether we should conduct human rights training courses with Burma. I appreciate him asking the question. We have two choices. One is to go down the Labor path and do nothing. Your policy is to do nothing—absolutely nothing—and you think doing nothing would improve human rights in Burma. What is interesting is that the Australian Labor Party—for all its professed concern about human rights, which, as we know, is mock concern—condemns the government for taking a proactive measure to try to encourage an improvement in human rights in Burma. We have no economic motives. Burma is not some enormous market that Australia is trying to penetrate. We do not have any ulterior motives. We have the sincere and honourable motive of trying to improve human rights in Burma.In the last decade—and the Labor Party was in power for a lot of that time—I can point to only two positive things in Burma that have happened in the area of human rights. The first is that middle level officials have been prepared to engage in discussions with Monash University, acting on behalf of the Australian government, on human rights standards and international human rights norms. The second positive thing that has happened is that Burmese authorities announced at a recent meeting of the Asia Pacific Forum on Human Rights—which was established by this government—in Rotorua in New Zealand that Burma would be prepared to establish an independent national human rights commission consistent with the Paris principles. Whether they do or whether they do not, we will wait and see. But in 10 years they are the only two positive things that have happened on Burma and we are proud to say that we have made a contribution, albeit a very small one, to taking forward human rights in Burma rather than doing what the Labor Party is proposing to do, which is absolutely nothing. 1998614:05:0019986May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Reconciliation. Would the minister comment on the recent observations made by the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee on the government's approach to reconciliation?19987Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the member for McPherson for the question on the issue of the recent report of the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee. First, I simply observe that this report demonstrates the need for reform of the United Nations treaty implementation process. It does so because, quite different from many other reports that we have seen recently, it did acknowledge the government's efforts to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage. It did so in acknowledging the allocation of increased funding of $2.3 billion in the recent budget—that is in real terms more than in any previous budget of any federal government. It also acknowledged the need to work in partnership with indigenous communities in initiatives aimed at providing greater access to indigenous peoples to culturally appropriate health services and through the reconciliation process.The committee also noted that parliament itself had expressed a commitment to reconciliation and its deep and sincere regret for past policies that have negatively affected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The committee also recognised the important work of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the proposals outlined in the document of which we are all very much aware. The government sees these comments—particularly as the committee encourages us to continue to pursue these efforts to address what are acknowledged situations of disadvantage—as an endorsement that it is a practical approach to Aboriginal reconciliation. It is a very important matter, one which this parliament has recognised and one where I think we all agree that we should continue in this way. I want to assure the House that the government intends to address positively and constructively the disadvantage that does face our indigenous people. We are proud of our record, particularly in relation to health, education, housing and employment. We recognise that there is a need as part of a continuing process to work on these matters, and we will have the item of reconciliation listed on the next meeting agenda for COAG. Of course, reconciliation is a matter positively pursued by both the Prime Minister and me. This is in stark contrast with what we see on the other side of the House where, unfortunately, the Labor Party do not even seem to be able to agree on how to progress these issues, let alone on who should progress them. The depth of division within the ALP I think can best be demonstrated by the resignation of the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs on a matter of principle as he saw it. Unfortunately there seems to be a battle in the Labor Party about the portfolio, but it is not the normal sort of battle that we see; it is one where nobody seems to want the portfolio responsibility. I must say I agree very much with the comments of the former minister for Aboriginal affairs, Gerry Hand, when he said today, `I think it is one of the greatest privileges that you can have, to work in the area of Aboriginal— 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, unfortunately I cannot raise a point of order on inaccuracy—because you are wrong—but I do raise a point of order on relevance because these matters which he is now addressing are not relevant to the question, nor to his area of portfolio responsibility.10000Mr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is right that in fact the matter is not relevant to the minister's portfolio responsibility. He was asked a question about the government's response to the UN report, and I would ask him to address that question. I will listen closely to his answer.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Mr Speaker, thank you very much for your guidance. Let me say, of course, that the committee was commenting on issues relating to indigenous peoples, and the committee was making it very clear that the policies of the government were worthy of endorsement, as it did, and I think the committee by implication was making it very clear that indigenous people ought not be used and abused, that people should not see the portfolio as a poisoned chalice. I think the former member, one of our colleagues, when he said that they would do us all a favour—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I think members of the House and the former member are vitally interested in who was the one that said, in relation to this issue, that if you were given the portfolio responsibilities it was like having the job of cleaning in the Titanic.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that he was asked a specific question without, I might say, the usual additives about any other alternatives. The question is simply about the UN. And he might like to explain what various UN committees have had to say about their position on reconciliation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I listened very closely to the minister's response following the first point of order, and in fact he had said nothing at the point at which the Leader of the Opposition intervened that would have justified intervention, as the Leader of the Opposition will discover when he checks the Hansard record. I will listen closely to the minister's answer. I was in fact monitoring it because I had already given him instructions, and he had said nothing that would justify that intervention.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—This issue is one that is important to us all in this House.Mr McMullan interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I have sat through many addresses and many speeches in this House now over some years. If I had to observe about those people who had no commitment and demonstrated by their own actions a total disinterest I could well describe it in the terms which you have just used in relation to me. It would be clear to the Labor Party, and the Leader of the Opposition, that if he had any sensitivity about these issues he would be one who would be standing up here and very much regretting what has been said. The comments by those members of the Labor Party who have demonstrated that when the Right says to the Left—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister is now drifting from the question itself. He will come back to the question.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Let me again make it very clear, Mr Speaker, and I would not want in any way to infringe your rulings: this is an issue where those who have been making the sorts of speeches that I have heard month after month are clearly walking away from any commitment to our indigenous people. When you are fighting over the portfolio—which you are, not to be involved—this is an area in which the Leader of the Opposition ought to show some leadership and apologise for what has happened. Distinguished Visitors1998814:13:0019988SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon representatives of the Standing Committee on Civil Law from the Swedish parliament led by the Chairman of that committee, Ms Tanja Linderborg. On behalf of all members of the parliament, I extend to our Swedish colleagues a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice199881998814:14:0019988Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, did you or your department advocate in October last year that Australia withdraw from the individual complaints process of the International Convention Against Torture?19988Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—Let me thank the honourable member for Bowman for his question. I have been looking forward to a question from the honourable member for Bowman in relation to immigration and multicultural affairs issues. The question relates to an issue I addressed when he was absent from the House last Thursday. I made it very clear that there are people in Australia who are held in detention for unreasonably long periods of time. One of the reasons they are held in detention for unreasonably long periods of time is that they are advised that there are ways and means by which they can delay removal. One of the ways in which people delay their removal from Australia is—after they have exhausted consideration of refugee claims, after they have had an opportunity to go before the Refugee Review Tribunal, after they have been to the courts—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is possible the minister misheard in the hubbub the question that was asked of him, because he is completely irrelevant to it. The question was: did he or his department advocate last October that Australia withdraw from the individual complaints process of the International Convention Against Torture? That was the question. 0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Let me just put the matter in perspective. The individual complaints mechanism in relation to the convention dealing with torture is a mechanism that is available when all other avenues of potential appeal in relation to removal from Australia have been exhausted. It is important that members know that not only have they been through the refugee process, that they have been before the courts, but that they can also apply under section 417 of the Migration Act for consideration of my discretion if they have claims under the torture convention. So anybody who has claims relating to torture has the opportunity for those matters to be put clearly before me and for them to be considered before removal. The torture convention is now being used by people to effect a delay of up to 18 months to two years while people remain in detention in Australia, while the system is abused. We have some 18 people now pursuing those claims. They have never been used, except in one case, with any efficacy at all. In the one case where it was used we now know that it was not efficacious. We know that the person who was making the allegations had no credibility. He was clearly in another country, in another place—not the place where he was making assertions that he was being tortured. Honourable members opposite may care to know that both Holland and Canada have refused to accept advice from the individual complaints mechanism and have removed nationals making these complaints because the complaints mechanisms are being abused to keep people who would otherwise be unlawful within their borders. What we said the other day was that so far as this government is concerned if people are making manifestly unfounded claims and we are asked by the complaints mechanism to withhold removal we will no longer automatically accept that recommendation. 1998914:19:0019989Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Today the Prime Minister is flying to New York for the United Nations Millennium Summit. Could the minister inform the House whether Australia will raise in the UN the need to reform the UN human rights treaty system? Is the minister aware of any alternative views? 19989Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question and recognise his very longstanding interest in the United Nations and the effectiveness of the United Nations committee system. The Prime Minister is indeed on his way today to the UN Millennium Summit. Naturally enough, through both the Millennium Summit and the General Assembly, which will take place after it, Australia will be continuing to raise its view that the United Nations treaty committee system needs to be substantially improved. This criticism from Australia of the effectiveness of the United Nations treaty committee system and the need for reform of the committee system is supported by many. It is supported by Mary Robinson, for example, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and it is supported by many of the member states of the United Nations. It is the government's view that the credibility of the treaty system depends on its effectiveness. If the system is weak, as it currently is, its very weakness undermines the efforts of the committees to improve human rights around the world. We would like to see the committee systems operate effectively and have credibility, not be ineffective and incredible. The problem at the moment is that their credibility has been very much undermined by some of the approaches that some of the committees have taken at certain times. As the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs made clear, the latest United Nations committee report on Australia is more considered than reports from the other committees. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that this is a committee which makes recommendations—some of which are factually erroneous, I am advised—on how the Australian industrial relations system should work and how we should be operating our public hospitals. It is the view of this government, if not of the opposition, that these are matters that we should determine here in our own country. It is reminiscent of CEDAW, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which produced a report on Ireland which criticised the influence of Catholicism in Ireland and an earlier report which criticised Belarus for reinstating Mother's Day. I do not think there is anything wrong with Mother's Day myself. Yesterday was Father's Day, and my own children were very generous to me. I am sure they will reciprocate later in the year when Mother's Day arrives. Opposition member interjecting—4G4Mr DOWNER—No, I did not get breakfast in bed. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In terms of relevance, it could be argued that the chair has also been generous to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. 4G4Mr DOWNER—I think you have a good point, Mr Speaker. Some of the debate here really does stretch credibility. I notice that the chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Mr Don Henry, suggested that rainforests in the Amazon and the Congo are now under greater threat because of the government's decision to campaign for reform of the United Nations Human Rights Committee system. It is a sad day when NGOs in this country take positions like that. On this side of the House, we ultimately believe that an international agency should not be dictating Australian policies, that ultimately this very chamber here, the Senate and the Australian parliaments all around the Commonwealth are responsible for our democratic processes, for the policies of this country. That responsibility does not rest overseas. I think there is a stark contrast between our position on that, which is a very clear and unequivocal position, and the position of the Australian Labor Party, which is as clear as mud. 1999014:22:0019990Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—On the question of clear positions, I would like to ask a further question of the minister for immigration. Do you now confirm that your departmental secretary wrote to his counterpart in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on 25 October last year, advocating withdrawal of Australia from the individual complaints process of the convention against torture? Isn't it a fact that the department of foreign affairs responded in December last year:Withdrawal would damage our credibility and undermine our UN reform efforts.Why did you, a member of Amnesty International, collaborate in such a divisive course of action?19990Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler! The member for Lalor! The minister has the call.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The one issue here—R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The one issue here is what approach we should take in relation to CAT and the individual complaints mechanism. I outlined earlier the position that the government has taken in relation to that matter.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a copy of the letter to the secretary of his department from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.Leave not granted. 1999014:27:0019990Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the Acting Prime Minister advise the House of support the government is providing to indigenous communities to help them tackle the social problems they face.19991Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I note that just last Friday he announced a $150,000 grant for indigenous employment in Eurobodalla in his electorate under STEP, the trainee program known as the structural training employment program. That and the other examples that I have talked about myself in this place, such as the Aboriginal Employment Strategy, which has been very handsomely supported by the minister directly behind me out of his portfolio and which is now proving to be a very practical example of reconciliation and community building at the local level, leads me to inform the House that four community justice programs are now being started in the north-west of New South Wales as a further advancement of practical reconciliation. The initial steps to implement these programs have now been taken in Bourke, Walgett, Condobolin and Brewarrina. This particular scheme is all about indigenous people taking responsibility for programs and seeking solutions to their own problems. It is about self-dignity and self-worth. The proposal was put to me by an indigenous leader. I saw the value of it and we have been able to now assist in putting it together. It is a partnership with the Unity of First People of Australia and Chubb Security; it will give indigenous people accredited training as community justice leaders. They will work in addressing a range of problems—alcoholism, aimlessness, parental and community disrespect and theft. It is a 12-month paid trainee program. It includes 12 courses—community justice, community offender management, principles and practices of security officers, paramedic training, occupational health and safety and so forth, communication, performance management, personal development and other such concepts. It will be largely focused and pulled together at a two-day meeting in Walgett in November of this year to further progress social economic and social disadvantage questions for Aboriginal communities in those areas. This sort of approach stands in stark contrast to the ALP's attitude. Their attitude, for all of the chest beating and all of the self-congratulatory noise we hear from the other side, really has been exposed in the last couple of days for what it really is. It can only be said, I think, that responsibility for Aboriginal affairs on the other side is obviously a job that no-one in the ALP wants. The member for Fremantle, newly reinstated—or about to be reinstated—to Labor's frontbench, does not want the job. Labor's Left, again, despite this chest beating over the years on indigenous issues, does not want the job.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Who said that?4K4Mr ANDERSON—One of yours. `A poisoned chalice' was one description trotted out from Labor's ranks this morning. Then we had the most disgraceful exposure of all, with one Labor Party member describing responsibility for Aboriginal affairs as `like being the toilet cleaner on the Titanic'. That is what we heard. That is a shameful, hurtful and outright disgusting comment. It really is. It is appalling.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—The Leader of the Opposition says `name the person'. Well, I notice a former colleague of his says that he ought to out whoever was responsible for it. No wonder the person did not want to be identified—did not want to be named—because they would be universally condemned for it. I think a very important point has to be made here, and that is that if the Leader of the Opposition had any real leadership qualities, if he had any real pretence to being a suitable alternative prime minister, if he had any real standing in this matter, he would have come to the dispatch box at question time today, sought your indulgence, and repudiated those comments and told the House what action he was taking against the person involved.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I absolutely—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made a request, to which I have not as yet had the opportunity to respond.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I asked for your indulgence. I was invited by the Acting Prime Minister—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have not in any sense ruled the Leader of the Opposition out of order. He would, after almost two years of my speakership, have become accustomed to me actually requiring the House to be in order before people are recognised. He has sought indulgence. I will hear him but of course I will withdraw it if I feel he is in any sense abusing it.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—A number of quotes have been entered into of unnamed individuals saying what I admit are extremely hurtful terms. I utterly repudiate them. If I found any member of my party—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition need only be concerned about rulings from the chair, as I am sure he is well aware.BV5Adams, Dick, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons is not aiding my opportunity to listen to either the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else who may want the chair's attention. 1999214:33:0019992Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Is it not the case that the joint press release issued by you, the Attorney-General and the foreign minister on 29 August stated:Cabinet decided Australia's strategic engagement with the—UN—treaty committee system should be dependent on the extent to which effective reform occurs.Will you repudiate your advocacy of withdrawal from the convention against torture and give the House a categorical assurance that you will no longer pursue watering down any of Australia's commitment to this critical human rights protection? Or is this something you are keeping in the bottom drawer for another day when the government needs another political diversion?19992Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—In relation to the Leader of the Opposition's question, let me just again affirm that the view of the government is that the torture convention should not be abused by asylum seekers seeking to use it as a way of delaying their removal from Australia. What we have said, and it was made clear in the statement last week, is that if it is being abused by people who are intent on remaining in Australia when they ought to be lawfully removed we will no longer accede to requests to delay removal. There is nothing unreasonable about that approach. As I said earlier, it is an approach taken by the Dutch; it is an approach taken by the Canadians. We now have 18 requests, and when you have the opposition out there railing, as they have, about the length of time that people are in detention, I am surprised that anybody would be advocating that people should be able to abuse the torture convention by using the individual complaints mechanism to maintain themselves in Australia when there is no substantial issue to be addressed.1999214:35:0019992Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the level of support for the new tax system. Is there support for major changes which would roll back the goods and services tax, and how does this policy of rolling back the GST compare with policy approaches in other areas?19992Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Robertson for his question. Before I come to it, I think the House would want me to pay tribute to the Essendon Football Club for the premiership win on the weekend. I think all members would congratulate Kevin Sheedy, captain James Hird, chairman Graeme McMahon and chief executive officer Peter Jackson on a fabulous result. I am joined by the member for Melbourne in that tribute.Mr Sidebottom interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—And to Melbourne, too, who fought out the grand final. I have previously reported to the House on the level of success in the implementation of the new taxation system. I think, from all of the evidence which is now coming back, the business community is coping well. We have seen a lift in confidence from the business community as Australia sorts out its new taxation system. We have also seen that small business have made one thing absolutely clear, and that is that they have no interest whatsoever in any so-called roll-back of the goods and services tax, with the business Yellow Pages indicating recently 65 to 25 against roll-back. Interestingly enough, the last time I heard the Leader of the Opposition mention the word `roll-back' in this parliament was in June. We go through his transcripts every day trying to find any mention of this wonderful policy of roll-back which he seems so proud of that he buries it almost on a daily basis. The government's tax reform mandate was obtained at the last federal election. It was the unprincipled refusal of the Labor Party to accept the electorate's verdict which meant that they took the cheap and opportunistic road of voting against tax reform in this country, even though they always intended to keep the goods and services tax if they were ever re-elected. Then, of course, they engaged in this stunt of roll-back without ever mentioning what they would roll it back to or when or how or how much or how they would pay for it. They became an opposition whose central opportunism betrayed a lack of principle. That lack of principle now permeates the whole of the opposition. We saw the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs resigning last week—and being congratulated by the Leader of the Opposition for his principle in refusing to serve in a shadow cabinet led by the Leader of the Opposition! The Deputy Prime Minister has referred to the lack of principle in filling the Aboriginal affairs portfolio. As AM reported this morning, we have a prominent Left figure complaining that the Right is constantly trying to do over the Left in caucus on Aboriginal issues. He says— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer might come to the tax system.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am asked about principle permeating policy, Mr Speaker. The Left said:If the glimmer twins are such experts on indigenous affairs, they should put their hands up for this office of Aboriginal Affairs.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer was asked a question about the new tax system and roll-back and he will come to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, we are certainly supporting either of the glimmer twins for Aboriginal affairs. The opposition will sort out the kind of imbroglio it now has itself in over Aboriginal affairs only if it gets honest on the central economic issue of this parliament, if it comes clean and it says its opposition to tax reform was only ever opportunistic, if it comes clean and it says roll-back is now a failed policy which has no prospect whatsoever of being introduced and if it comes forward and apologises to the parliament for wasting the last two years by opposing a reform which it knew was in Australia's interest and which it had every intention of keeping. I said last week this would have to be the weakest opposition in economic terms that Australia has ever seen, with the weakest leadership. Until it can come clean on those central issues and while it is permeated by opportunism, Mr Speaker, you will see repeats of these policy failures over and over and over again.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the Leader of the Opposition wants the call, he will not defy the chair.1999314:41:0019993Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to Minister Ruddock's plan to withdraw from the individual complaints process of the convention on torture. Didn't your department state last December that such a course of action would demonstrate `a lack of commitment to human rights'? Isn't it a fact that your department also stated that since there have been only seven cases brought against Australia withdrawal would be regarded as `a disproportionate response'? Will you continue to back your department on this matter or cave in to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs?19994Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I would have thought what the government was going to do in relation to United Nations committees was pretty obvious from the press release that was issued last Tuesday and from the statements made by the three ministers at that very fine press conference. I do not have a lot to add to that.1999414:42:0019994Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The Prime Minister recently launched the Voluntary Service to Indigenous Communities Foundation. Would the minister outline to the House progress with respect to this important initiative and could he also indicate if there are any alternative policies in this area? 19994Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Hindmarsh for her question. I am pleased to be able to advise the House that the Voluntary Service to Indigenous Communities Foundation is under way. It has been launched by the Prime Minister. It is an innovation in terms of delivery of assistance to indigenous communities around Australia. It relies upon those communities making contact with the foundation, which will effectively have a database—a bank, if you like—of skilled people from the broader Australian community who are willing to give their time to assist those indigenous communities. There is a toll free number which is available. If anybody is interested in volunteering their services, we would be very keen to pass on that number to them.The foundation is hoping to implement 12 projects around Australia to fine-tune the program to get it under way. We are hopeful that, not just in the short term but more importantly in the long term, this particular program will provide real assistance to indigenous communities by transferring skills generally available in the Australian community to those communities most disadvantaged. I do want to acknowledge the support that I have had, as the employment minister, within the cabinet for the introduction of these policies. The cabinet does in fact have a team of people—senior people—associated and responsible on a day-to-day basis for dealing with these very practical issues facing indigenous communities. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation is, of course, well known in this regard. My colleague the Minister for Health and Aged Care, in respect of health programs, has a strong personal commitment to this area as a leading member of the cabinet. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has done a lot to expose those areas where we need to do more for indigenous communities in respect of literacy and numeracy. The Deputy Prime Minister, for example, in his Regional Affairs portfolio and also as a local member has given a lot of support and momentum to providing practical solutions to real problems on the ground. In fact, the program going on in Moree can be a bit of an example of a program that we might make more generally available.It is an interesting contrast that on this side of the House, within the government, we have senior people who have a commitment to this issue, who on a daily basis are attempting to improve the lot of Australia's most disadvantaged people. I am asked if there are any alternative policies; you would be hard pressed to find an alternative policy when you cannot even find a shadow minister with the responsibility for the policy. It is very interesting to see the Leader of the Opposition when he is under a bit of pressure. The Leader of the Opposition was up in the House today saying, `On indulgence—this is not happening; this is not a reality,' yet we have a leading member of his frontbench who knows it is a problem. The member for Dickson has been out today saying—Government members—Oh!WI4Mr REITH—She does not think it is a non-existent problem; she thinks there actually is a problem. She says:I just think that it is a bit unseemly that we look as though we're not treating the Aboriginal affairs portfolio with the dignity and the importance that it deserves.She is not getting up and saying that this is not a reality. She says:I am disappointed—83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. How is it faintly relevant to the question which the minister was asked? If he could restrain himself from a moment's thuggery, he could reflect on it. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister was asked a question about voluntary service in indigenous communities and was then asked about alternative policies. It was with regard to the question on alternative policies in the indigenous area that I allowed him to continue. WI4Mr REITH—I was quoting the member for Dickson, who said:I am disappointed—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—I thought that what she said was pretty fair and reasonable. She said: I am disappointed for Aboriginal people who might feel they don't matter in the factional game.That is a fair comment. The fact of the matter is that no-one in the Labor Party wants this particular job. Gerry Hand was quite right to say—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—You're another one who has knocked it back, I suppose!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on the same point of order that I raised previously. Firstly, it is fundamentally wrong but, secondly, it is neither relevant to the question nor within the portfolio responsibility. He will find out soon that what he is asserting is wrong, but it is also out of order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has made his point and will resume his seat. I have already ruled on the point of order of relevance raised by the Manager of Opposition Business.WI4Mr REITH—It is a disgrace that the Australian Labor Party has a series of people who have rejected one of the most important portfolios—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise again on a point of order going to relevance. I realise that you ruled on the member for Griffith's point of order. I thought he had a case but I accept that it was arguable. But what the minister is now saying does not in any way relate to the question he was asked or anything for which he can conceivably be responsible—even if it were true, which it is not.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—When he reviews the Hansard, the Manager of Opposition Business will find himself—while I understand his point of order—in much the same position as the Leader of the Opposition. I was listening closely to the minister's reply. He had scarcely finished a sentence before the point of order was made. I will once again listen to the minister, but I was listening to him when the Manager of Opposition Business took his second point of order.WI4Mr REITH—We on this side of the House consider this a very significant matter. Whether or not there is any alternative policy from the Labor Party on the issue of the disadvantage of indigenous Australians ought to be a matter of concern to everybody in this House, and it is now a matter of public record that we have members of the Labor Party who refuse to touch this issue because they consider it a poisoned chalice. This is a classic example of weak leadership by the Leader of the Opposition. He has the factional heavies doing all the talking behind closed doors, and all he can do is stand up and say, `It's not happening, it's not real; this is not our party.' The fact of the matter is that this is your party; this is the party of people like Gerry Hand who say that this is totally unacceptable. This is the party—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to standing order 75. The standing order says:No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member thereof ...Is it in order for the minister to speak like a savage dog in this House?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley knows perfectly well that that was a frivolous point of order, and I warn him. The chair was interrupted for a point of order. Insofar as the chair is aware, the minister has not concluded his answer. I invite him to wind his answer up.WI4Mr REITH—You know there is a sensitivity when you get half a dozen points of order raised against you. They can deny the existence of this as much as they like, but the fact is that, as the parliament sits today, the Labor Party has no shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs. There will be literally tens of thousands of Aboriginal people who today would share the comments and the reflections of Geoff Clark, the chairman of ATSIC, who noted that this reflects a lack of interest in this particular policy area on behalf of the Labor Party. He is quite right to draw that conclusion. The comments of the member for Dickson just affirm the reality that the factions run the Labor Party. When it comes to a good factional stoush, they like nothing more—and to hell with the interests of people who are disadvantaged. Last week we saw— 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I persist with the point of order on relevance because there is not one about lies. He is telling lies, but they are irrelevant lies.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is not facilitating the House with that sort of language, as he is well aware.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—You are concerned about my language in relation to what he has been saying?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is now defying the chair.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I am not meaning to do that, but I am amazed.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have asked the minister to conclude his answer. I am not aware of any point of order raised by the Manager of Opposition Business. If there was one, it has not been facilitated by the language he has used.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I thought I was making clear that I persist with the point of order on relevance. Since you asked him to wind up, something he has totally ignored, he has not commented in any way on any matter that relates to any element of the question which he was asked, nor could it be the slightest bit relevant to anything for which he has ministerial responsibility—not one word.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the Manager of Opposition Business had a valid point of order, I would have sat the minister down. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. During the course of that point of order the Manager of Opposition Business used unparliamentary language and I would ask you to ask him to withdraw.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business did use language that would be unacceptable from either side of the House and I ask him to withdraw it.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—The truth of the matter will emerge. I am happy to withdraw.WI4Mr REITH—In conclusion, the words of Geoff Clark put it well. He said, `I would have thought that was a pretty low sort of blow.' It is a low sort of blow for Aboriginal people. We have the member for Perth, the member for Lilley, Senator Bolkus, the member for Jagajaga and the member for Dobell. Not one of them is prepared to stand up for the interests of these people. It says a lot about the Labor Party.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.1999614:56:0019996Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, didn't the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade state last December that the course of action you and your department proposed would demonstrate a lack of commitment to human rights? Is it not also a fact that that department stated to your department that, since there had been only seven cases brought against Australia, withdrawal would be regarded as a disproportionate response? Do you accept the view of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the action you propose and, in accepting it, refuse to persist with your view?19996Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Let me make it very clear that, in relation to the acceptance or otherwise of article 22 of the torture convention, the judgment about whether or not there is a commitment to human rights ought to be made against the fact that Belgium, Ireland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America are not parties to the complaints mechanism. 1999714:57:0019997Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of comments questioning the reasons for the National Catholic Education Commission's support for Commonwealth reforms to funding for non-government schools? Are these comments accurate?19997Kemp, 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 Curtin for her question. Last Friday the former education spokesperson for the Labor Party, the member for Werriwa, launched a scurrilous attack on the National Catholic Education Commission for no better reason than that the Catholic church supports the government's fairer, more equitable funding system for non-government schools. The member for Werriwa accused the National Catholic Education Commission and the Catholic church of entering into a deal with the coalition to go quiet on the GST in return for additional school funding. This was a most disgraceful attack, it was a complete falsehood and we can assume from the fact that there has not been a single word from the Leader of the Opposition that he agrees with this attack, he agrees with what the member for Werriwa has said, because he has made absolutely no public statement disassociating himself from this disgraceful falsehood.I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that his silence on this matter has been very visible to the wider community. Dr Peter Tannock, head of the National Catholic Education Commission, which represents about 1,700 schools and over 650,000 students, said:It is outrageous. It is disgraceful that he should make an allegation like that ... just a joke and a bad one. What this shows is that the Labor Party's education policy is now being highjacked by members on the back bench and in the Senate because there is no spokesman worth listening to on the front bench. The member for Dobell has fled from the House yet again in question time. His seat is very often vacant in question time and it is vacant now. In the Senate, we have Senator Kim Carr trying to wage his one man class war. In the House of Representatives, we have the spokesman for Senator Kim Carr, the member for Dobell, providing a pale shadow of him, and we have the member for Werriwa dragging up outrageous and false allegations for base political purposes. Through it all, the Leader of the Opposition sits absolutely mute. There is a shambles behind him in the shadow education portfolio. He cannot find anyone who cares enough about social justice to fill the shadow Aboriginal affairs portfolio. He sits there mute with chaos behind him on the front bench and on the back bench. In this shadow portfolio, he does not have the personal strength and integrity to stand up for the truth and to refute the outrageous allegations of the member for Werriwa.The government's policy for funding government schools has support right across the non-government sector. The Executive Director of the National Council of Independent Schools Associations said:The new funding arrangements will enhance educational choice for all families and provide improved equity to school funding arrangements.Peter Crimmins, the Executive Officer of the Australian Association of Christian Schools said:Choice in schooling is now a reality for working class Australian families.1999715:01:0019997O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Are you aware of concerns that, as a result of South Africa leaving the International Wool Secretariat which later became the Woolmark Co., the wool grower funded Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation will incur a debt of more than $100 million? Does this debt result from a contract or agreement signed by your government? If so, who signed the contract or agreement? How will such a debt affect plans to restructure AWRAP by 1 January 2001? 19998Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of those general concerns. I think the figure is much exaggerated. There are discussions going on between the relevant Australian wool industry representatives and those in South Africa as they seek to resolve the matter. I am certainly unaware of any contract or anything of that nature being entered into by this government. I will seek further information on that, but I think I can assure the House that there is no basis to that particular concern. I will have that confirmed for you.1999815:03:0019998Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister outline to the House the problems the Australian sugar industry is facing? What is the federal government doing to help this vital Australian industry?19998Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question and also for his efforts, along with the honourable member for Dawson and other representatives of sugar industry areas in Queensland and New South Wales, for their representations on behalf of sugar farmers and the particular concerns confronting that vital Australian industry. The sugar industry produces about $1.5 billion worth of exports every year. It is particularly important to many of our northern communities because every $1 earned by sugar farmers engenders a further $3 in community wealth. It is also especially important because basically all of that wealth returns to regional communities and therefore provides a significant boost to so many of our regional towns and centres. The honourable member for Hinkler has the distinction of having the only city in Australia—Bundaberg—which has the entire sugar industry from beginning through to the end product located in the one regional city.The industry has been confronted with some particular difficulties: historic low world prices, low sugar content, cyclones and flooding. More recently, the outbreak of orange rust in the most important variety, rat plagues and all of these sorts of things have severely affected the viability of many of Australia's cane farmers. On Thursday, the Prime Minister announced to this House that the government would be providing substantial assistance to Australian sugar producers. Last Friday, I was able to provide more details about that assistance. It includes interest rate subsidies to help farmers replant their crops. That is a very important task because it is essential that we get rid of the orange rust prone variety as quickly as possible. There will also be subsidies on interest rates and assistance with income support to help those families who are victims of sugar farmers' low incomes. There will be help with financial counselling. Also, through the FarmBis program, there will be farm management and skills training for the industry. That is very real and practical assistance to farmers at a time of particular need.Centrelink will be administering this program under the leadership of the Minister for Community Services and are already putting in place the necessary mechanisms so that farmers can access this assistance quickly. There has been tremendous support for this package. Cane farmers, the industry itself and, indeed, editorial writers and others have all warmly welcomed this package. We have actually received praise from none other than the Premier of Queensland, Mr Beattie, who said:I just say to John Howard, `Well done.'You do not very often get that sort of praise from Premier Beattie, particularly in view of the appalling response of the Queensland Labor Party and the Queensland Labor government to the plight of the sugar farmers. All they were prepared to offer was $10 million worth of loans, which effectively is less than $1 million in assistance. They valued the Queensland cane farmers at about $170 each. When the Queensland government came out with its quite miserable offer of less than $1 million, the shadow minister described that as worthwhile assistance and said that it should be congratulated on providing that level of assistance. It is interesting to note that when this government came out with a package totalling $83 million in outlays—but in fact amounting to about $400 million worth of loan assistance—the shadow minister thought that was inadequate and fell well short of what was required. So $1 million from the Labor Party is all you can expect of it, but $83 million—supporting $400 million worth of loans—was inadequate from our side. I understand that the opposition has a job vacancy on the other side—a post that nobody wants to fill. Obviously the honourable member for Corio has lost all credibility in agriculture, so perhaps he is one the Leader of the Opposition might like to consider for the post. Perhaps he can do a better job there.1999915:09:0019999Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I ask whether you recall the Prime Minister telling Paul Bongiorno, Michelle Grattan and Alan Wood on Meet the Press on 2 July:... nothing is as formidable as field evidence. I mean, it beats everything, it's like a football match. The result always beats the prediction, doesn't it?Acting Prime Minister, did you see last week's `field evidence' on the introduction of the GST showing a 17 per cent fall in building approvals for private houses in July, the lowest level on record; a nine per cent fall in retail trade for July, the biggest fall in over 20 years, including a 30 per cent fall for department stores and 28 per cent for clothing and soft goods retailing; and the sharpest ever quarterly fall in business conditions for manufacturers, including a reading of minus 32 for country New South Wales? In the light of that field evidence, how can you claim the GST was introduced without pain for the Australian community?19999Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I can only assume that the opposition is feeling somewhat inadequate in terms of its record on economic management compared with ours. The simple reality is that the Australian economy has been performing extremely well and that the fundamentals for business investment and conditions in this country remain extremely strong. There is no escaping that reality. There is strong export growth, a pick-up in business investment and robust consumer spending, supported by high and very strong consumer sentiment. That will continue to be supported by tax cuts and by strong employment growth.Employment growth is something the opposition rarely talk about, because the performance under this side of the House has been vastly superior to theirs. Not only is unemployment at levels that you were not able to generate—that, historically speaking, we have not seen for a very long time in this country—but the real value of those wages has been rising. The interest rates in this country remain historically low. When I came into this place, a small businessman or a farmer who borrowed in this country was paying two or more times than his equivalent in America paid. Now it is roughly the same—if anything, in recent times it has been slightly lower. The small business variable overdraft interest rate has been, on average, five percentage points lower under us than it was under Labor. It is still less than half of that which applied at the start of the 1990s when the Leader of the Opposition proclaimed that he had a role in the economic management of this country.The benefits of tax reform for business are not disputed by anybody. There was one begrudging concession from Labor before they came to support the GST which, of course, we all know they now do. They are committed to the goods and services tax and the attendant reforms, or at least we are told that they are no longer committed to and we hear nothing more of roll-back. But we did hear the shadow minister for trade acknowledge that the removal of the embedded taxes on exports in this country would help Australia's economic performance. Business costs have been reduced by between $7 billion and $8 billion as a result of the removal of a range of inefficient and distorting indirect taxes. The company tax rate is being reduced this year to 34 per cent and will fall to 30 per cent next year. Small businesses are also benefiting from reductions in capital gains tax and continued access to accelerated depreciation. The fact of the matter is that, by any indicator, the Australian economy is performing well. It is in sound hands. Investors in this country, I am sure, would draw only one conclusion from any casual observation of the Australian scene at the moment, and that is that they certainly would not want you running the show again. 2000015:13:0020000Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is to the Minister Representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Minister, the coalition government introduced the historic telecommunications customer service guarantee after 13 years of inaction by Labor. Will the minister inform the House of any recent reports on the effectiveness of the customer service guarantee in safeguarding the rights of consumers?20000McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question and for his advocacy on behalf of his constituents. All members of the House will be very pleased to know that the Australian Communications Authority released a report late last week on the level of Telstra's performance over the year June 1999-2000. It found that Telstra's performance in connecting new telephone services in both regional and urban areas has `improved significantly'. In major rural areas, Telstra's performance rose by 27 percentage points to 83 per cent, and in urban areas its performance in providing new services improved by 22 percentage points to 85 per cent. Consequently, we can conclude that the success of the government's customer service guarantee—which Labor failed to introduce over some 13 years of full public ownership of Telecom or Telstra—shows that legislated service standards and requirements are far more important than government ownership in protecting consumers' rights and service standards. From the first two partial sales of Telstra, the government has been able to inject some $2½ billion into telecommunications and into the Natural Heritage Trust Fund to improve rural and regional areas. I was fascinated by the comment from the Leader of the Opposition during a doorstop interview in the middle of last week when he was asked a question about Telstra's profit. His final words were—and remember that this is a Beazley `transcript a day' quote, as the Prime Minister told us recently:And when you look at the appalling way the Commonwealth has wasted the product of the first couple of tranches of Telstra's privatisation, you could only but agree with us, I suspect.Waste them? What programs have the government invested in that you think we have frittered away? What: the rural transaction centres, Networking the Nation, the untimed calls in extended zones or the building of additional rural networks?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPXH4Mr McGAURAN—The Leader of the Opposition is once again trying to walk both sides of the street. He claims that the government has wasted its investment in the Natural Heritage Trust and in Networking the Nation. He should tell us specifically what programs he opposes or believes are not worth investing in. I notice that in his final sentence he said `the government has wasted the privatisation', and he walked away from the interview. He did not stay to answer the obvious question: `Will you tell us which of these programs you believe is a wasted investment?' Is it extending SBS to 1.2 million more Australians in regional areas than previously? What about the $25 million to provide mobile phone coverage along the main highways? The list goes on and on. We have a whole series of improvements in rural and regional Australia that the Leader of the Opposition claims are wasted. He should stand and defend his ground, not run away from it. 2000015:17:0020000Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Do you recall promising the House on 25 November last year that:... we will reduce the cost of excise on fuel by an amount equivalent to the GST. For private motoring then, the GST is imposed and the private motorist pays the same price for petrol that they would otherwise have paid.Acting Prime Minister, if you have kept this promise, why is the private motorist filling up at Traralgon today paying 47.2c a litre in tax, 3c a litre more tax than they were paying on 30 June?20000Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and I note the sudden concern about, and interest in, the issues confronting rural and regional Australians. Rural and regional Australians well remember, of course, that the ALP's only policy for rural and regional Australia is to make it so expensive out there that nobody can live there. We have worked through this issue ad nauseam, and there are several points to make. The first is that there is very real volatility in petrol pricing at the moment and petrol prices are unacceptably high as a result of what is happening globally. We have all acknowledged that in this place. Indeed just last week I referred to the way in which we are seeing some very high spikes in some places—for example, in my own home area in two towns just an hour apart we saw a price of $1.11 in one and around a dollar at the other. At the same time we saw in Mosman in Sydney a price of $1.08. We really have been through this ad nauseam and there is little to be gained by the further pursuit of this matter by a side of politics that has used fuel excise as a milch cow. They thought nothing of increasing fuel excise not only in line with indexation but also as a discretionary measure to balance their failed budget—the battlers' fuel went up by 7½c in the breaking of their 1993 post-election commitment that they would not raise taxes. In fact if you take a graph line through where fuel excise would be if you were still in government—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order that goes to relevance. Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister would ask the member for Makin, and sign her petition—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat. That is a frivolous point of order and the member for Port Adelaide is warned. The minister was asked a question about fuel excise. He was responding to it and is entirely in order.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I conclude this matter simply by saying that we all regret—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I rise—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind the member for Paterson that frivolous points of order are out of order and that the minister, since resuming his seat, has in fact not concluded even one sentence. Does the member for Paterson wish to pursue a point of order?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Yes, Mr Speaker. In your ruling on the previous point of order you stated that the question was about excise. The question was not about excise; the question was about total tax on petrol prices.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will resume his seat.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Let me illustrate the point I was about to make by referring to the member for Paterson and asking him this simple question, rhetorically, of course, Mr Speaker: has he informed his rural constituents that, had his people still been in power— UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is warned.4K4Mr ANDERSON—had excise continued to increase at the rate it did when Labor were in government, motorists in his electorate would now be paying in excess of 50c a litre.2000115:21:0020001Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Maribyrnong is warned.4K6Mr CAUSLEY—I refer the minister to the recent devastating forest fires that have occurred in the United States. Can the minister outline the approximate areas and localities of the fires and the extent of the damage? What lessons can be learned from this situation, particularly as it relates to Australia's CAR reserve system?CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke is warned.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—It was reported by the Associated Press on 18 August that 85 major wildfires were burning from Washington to Texas in the United States and that over four million acres of forests had been burned out. Eight firefighters have been killed, and, in one fire alone, 48,000 acres were destroyed, 200 homes were destroyed and damage was estimated at $1 billion.The interesting thing is the concern arising from many well-known and well-respected green activists in terms of the management of the reserve system that exists in the United States and which, of course, is similar in many ways to our CAR reserve system. A comment is recorded from a Mr Rex Wahl, a biologist and well-known activist, who says that he has unholstered his chainsaw in response to these fire events. Having previously opposed any form of tree removal, Mr Wahl now advocates controlled harvesting in reserve areas to reduce fire fuel loads and to give other trees the chance to meet their full potential. The article refers to the state of many American reserve forests as, to use a word in the article, `cadaverous' and says that, after a century of fire suppression, as many as 850 spindly trees per acre clog the forest and more than half stand dead, starved of sunlight and strangled by insects that bore into them. All of these circumstances, as reported in that article, are totally consistent with the advice coming to this parliament from people such as Scientists for Sustainability, led by Professor of Botany at Melbourne University, Peter Attiwill, who plead that we go back to our reserves—not to change their area and retain them but to ensure that they too have the form of disturbance that is so necessary for their ecological integrity and which historically has been provided by fire.The biologists and botanists will tell you that in fact a fire is okay. An entire forest can be wiped out, or you could have a harvesting event, or you can have a thinning proposal. The point I want to make is that these US fires—and the response of green activists—show that locking up a forest and throwing away the key is in fact bad policy and inconsistent with forest ecology.Honourable member—You have to destroy the forest to save it.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—That interjection, `You have to destroy the forest to save it,' is interesting. No, you don't. Nevertheless, the minister for conservation in Queensland made that exact remark to me when he said, `We are going to wipe out half our forests to save the other half.' That sounds pretty dumb to me, and I thank the member for his interjection.In closing, it is interesting to note that the same article raises the issue of indigenous fire practices, as practised by the Indian people in America in chasing game. That, of course, has also been practised here in Australia by the Aboriginal people through history. It has been a major contributor to the ecology and environment of our forests, but it appears that from here on in any of that history will only be able to be spoken from this side of the House, as the other side is not going to have a minister. 4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker200022000215:27:0020002Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, on 20 June, I asked you to follow up question No. 1441 on the Notice Paper, which first appeared on 13 April 2000 to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. It is now 4 September and I would be grateful if you would put a rocket under the minister.20002SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Lowe, as the standing orders provide.2000215:27:0020002Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Mr Speaker, under section 150 of the standing orders, will you write to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs regarding unanswered question No. 1648 on the Notice Paper of 19 June and question No. 1656 to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the following day, which also remains unanswered.2000215:28:0020002Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, could you please write to the relevant ministers regarding their tardy responses to question Nos 1284, 1285, 1546 and 1786 on the Notice Paper. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Could I interrupt the member and say: I will follow that matter up, and I should have indicated to the member for Melbourne Ports that, of course, I will do the same in his instance.K26Mr LATHAM—The second matter also concerns the Notice Paper. I mentioned to you informally some time ago that ministers are getting into a bad habit of not answering questions on notice but referring members to other sources of information. For instance, in this term of parliament I have been referred to documents of the United Nations, the Internet and a press release by the Governor-General. Recently you had a controversy regarding the identification of members who were seeking information through the library. I put to you respectfully that you might find that members are getting very frustrated about their inability to get reliable and detailed information on the Notice Paper. That is why they are going to other sources such as the Parliamentary Library. Could you please examine this practice by ministers and ask the executive government to provide detailed answers on the Notice Paper.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—You should ask Keating, your hero.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—He writes your speeches.K26Mr LATHAM—You should stop your son writing yours. 83LGillard, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lalor is not assisting either the member for Werriwa or the chair. The member for Werriwa has the call.K26Mr LATHAM—It is a serious matter, Mr Speaker. The minister down there is one of the prime offenders, of course. I ask you to examine this so that parliamentary standards can be restored.20003SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take up the issue raised by the member for Werriwa. The chair of course has no power other than that given to it under the standing orders to determine the way in which questions on notice are answered, but I will follow the matter up. So far as the earlier matter referred to by the member for Werriwa is concerned—the matter that the member for Grayndler had brought to my attention—I have indicated to the member for Grayndler that I am endeavouring to report back to him by the end of this week and, if appropriate, to the House with a report on that matter. Personal Explanations2000315:30:0020003Mr BEAZLEY,MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Mr BEAZLEY,MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.PE4Mr BEAZLEY,MPMr BEAZLEY—Across the table during question time, it was suggested to me by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and then more indirectly by others that I was in some way or another responsible for that comment that is alleged to have been made by a Labor Party member in relation to the value—4G4Downer, Alexander, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Mr BEAZLEY,MPMr BEAZLEY—They are compounding; that is all right. This comment—allegedly made by a member of the Labor Party—concerns the portfolio of Aboriginal affairs being less well regarded as a portfolio than the position of a toilet cleaner on the Titanic. I notice that that particular comment was recorded as being anonymous. It is a sentiment, if it was said, that I repudiate completely. And if it could be credibly said that any member of my parliamentary party said it, I would ensure—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition is aware that in a personal explanation he must indicate where he has been personally misrepresented. Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The Leader of the House! The Manager of Opposition Business! The member for Lalor, the member for Prospect and others are very anxious to instruct the chair as to how its job ought to be done. They did not have the advantage of hearing, as I did, the comment made by the Manager of Opposition Business, which I chose to ignore—which I would have thought was a very balanced approach for the chair to take.Questions to the Speaker200042000415:32:0020004Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Mr Speaker, I ask you to write to the Treasurer seeking an answer to question No. 1290 on the Notice Paper of 3 April 2000.20004SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up that matter as the standing orders provide.200041The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:200042283SBurkeTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We therefore, the individual, undersigned Members of the Church of the Ascension Anglican Church, Burwood, Victoria 3151, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.22Ms Burke83SMs Burke (from 22 citizens).2000415284G4DownerTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:This petition of certain residents of the State of South Australia draws to the attention of the House that Telstra Corporation Limited intends to erect a telecommunications tower at a prominent site in Coromandel Valley, South Australia. By definition this tower is not an allowed low-impact facility under Part 1 of Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997, and it is also a non-compliant structure under the regulations governing the Hills Face Zone in South Australia.Your petitioners are especially concerned that the proposed tower will cause visual disruption from many aspects throughout the valley, and may also have adverse health implications, particularly to children and the elderly, from extended exposure to low level electromagnetic radiation.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House directs the Executive of the Commonwealth Government to exercise their rights and powers as major shareholders in Telstra Corporation Limited by calling a Special General Meeting of shareholders in order to present and vote in support of a motion that Telstra cease and desist from the erection and use of telecommunication towers which adversely impact on residents or which do not comply with the Hills Face Zone regulations applying in South Australia.1528Mr Downer4G4Mr Downer (from 1,528 citizens).2000465583REdwardsTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the need for urgent assistance for Vietnam veterans' children due to their fathers exposure to 31 toxic chemicals and anti-malarial drug Dapsone during the Vietnam war.Your petitioners ask the House to support decisions in Volume 3 Validation Study on Morbidity of Vietnam veterans and children, revealing:Increased levels of spina bifida in children of veteransVeterans' children's death rates above those expected based on Australian community standardsCancer of adrenal gland in veterans' children to be further investigatedCleft lip/palate in veterans' children significantly higherSuicide rates three times more prevalent in veterans' childrenExtra body parts not assessed due to no corresponding community dataTherefore, we women and children request urgent medical, hospital, pharmaceutical and financial aid be provideed for Vietnam veterans' children suffering ill health due to their parents' service in South Vietnam.655Mr Edwards83RMr Edwards (from 655 citizens).200052483NHallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of Parliament of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned believe that the imposition of the GST on the fundraising activities and membership fees to be unfair and inequitable.We oppose the imposition of the GST in this way, as we believe it will have a detrimental effect on our fundraising efforts. Rotary Clubs are service organisations and members give freely of their time as well as making considerable personal financial contributions. We further believe that, with the GST, the assistance we provide to those in need will be reduced by 10 per cent.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to see that clubs such as Rotary are not forced to reduce the assistance they give to the community in order to pay the GST.24Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 24 citizens).200051KV5NevilleTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.I, Frederick Arthur George Callander, MID, SS(US), Citizen of Australia, resident of 9 Phillips Street, North Bundaberg, Queensland, 4670 (Electorate of Hinkler) do hereby, petition the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives to take action to vindicate myself and those Australian army soldiers, who in 1967, whilst serving with the Australian Army Training Team in South Vietnam were wrongfully slandered, accused of doing wrong and being disloyal whilst serving on active service in a war zone. By 590 Lt Colonel Martin T Tripp OBE (Now retired). Two of the veteran soldiers most affected by these injustices were, (1) 33691 Warrant Officer Frederick A.G. Callander, who (without his knowledge) was wrongfully accused by Lt Colonel Tripp as having a personality problem and that he was disloyal?(2) 213207 Warrant Officer Clarence R. Upton, who (without his knowledge) was wrongfully accused of having a personality problem and that he has not displayed the knowledge maturity or loyalty required of a Warrant Officer?I advise the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House that during the period of six months, when I was the Commander of a small force, whilst attached to the US Special Forces the following four men of good report were awarded the following awards and decorations which if investigated can prove beyond doubt that we were not disloyal and we did not have a unsuitable personality problem.33691 Warrant Officer F.A.G. Callander awarded the Mentioned in Dispatches for bravery and the US Silver Star for Gallantry In Action. On return to Australia he was also awarded the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal and the Meritorious Service Medal who during his military service of twenty four years has never to his knowledge had a bad Confidential Military or Civilian Character Report.213207 Warrant Officer Clarence R. Upton awarded the US Bronze Star for Valor. On his return to Australia he was awarded with Order of Australia Medal and the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal who during his military service of twenty years has never to his knowledge had a bad Confidential Military or Civilian Character Report.43593 Warrant Officer Maxwell P. HanleyMilitary Medal for Bravery (Malaya) the US Bronze Star for Valor. (Killed in action in Sth Vietnam, February 1967)214091 Warrant Officer William B. RogersThe Distinguished Conduct Medal. (Now deceased.)Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, I respectfully request through your good office that the following questions be asked in Parliament: (1) How could such field soldiers of good report, brave conduct and honour be considered to have personality and loyalty problems? (2) How could Lt Colonel M.T. Tripp possibly know what was going on? He spent most of his time during his service in South Vietnam during 1967 socialising, money laundering, leaving the war zone of South Vietnam to go absent without leave to other countries as far away as Hawaii which was a most serious criminal offence.It is therefore my will Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, that I most humbly and respectfully pray and beseech you all to convey my will to the House of Representatives that we only seek vindication for the slanderous lies and accusation. That I and those who served with me, did not commit or ever attempted commit.I am one of Her Australian Majesty's loyal and respectful servants-God Save the Queen!1Mr NevilleKV5Mr Neville (from one citizen).200061653XT4RonaldsonTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of the undersigned 1,680 citizens draws to the attention of the House unjust mandatory sentencing laws.Your petitioners therefore request that the House take the necessary steps to annul mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. 1653Mr RonaldsonXT4Mr Ronaldson (from 1,653 citizens).Petitions received.Private Members' Business200062000615:34:0020006Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I move:That the House:(1) notes the crucial importance of water to the ongoing growth of the Australian economy and to the environment of rivers and wetlands;(2) acknowledges the many initiatives implemented over the past decade to achieve more efficient use of water;(3) commends the Government for the directions created by the Natural Heritage Trust National Rivercare Program initiatives, particularly in regard to the Murray Darling Basin and the upper reaches of the Snowy River; (4) calls for all future water allocations to be used for environmental purposes to be only taken from savings from the NSW and Victorian distribution system and only after satisfying a test of the national interest; and(5) calls for proper financial compensation to be awarded to those who have their right to water taken away.This motion acknowledges a number of key issues concerning water resources. These issues arise due to the importance of water to the economic and environmental wellbeing of regional areas such as my electorate of Parkes, but certainly not confined to that area. A more efficient balance of these two competing interests has been a source of increasing public debate and considerable government activity of recent times. For example, the federal Natural Heritage Trust was started in July 1996 and is the single biggest effort by the government and local communities to ensure the ecological sustainability and economic viability of Australia's natural resource base—with almost $1.5 billion committed over six years. One of the programs under the Natural Heritage Trust targeted at improving the management and condition of our rivers is the National Rivercare Initiative. Through the National Rivercare Initiative the government has invested $83 million over five years, starting from 1997-98 and continuing to 2001-02. Other river focus programs under the trust that complement the National Rivercare Initiative include the Murray Darling Basin 2001 program, Waterwatch Australia, the National River Health Program and the Fisheries Action Program.It is more than evident that the ecological concerns of the community have been acted upon by this government and by previous governments and that these measures are comprehensive and ongoing. What is of concern is that the same due care has apparently not been given to the economic concerns of individual irrigation farmers or to the regional communities which rely on the irrigators' continued viability. For example, not only have water licence allocations been slashed in many cases—proposed up to 47 per cent—but also federal money allocated to governments, such as the New South Wales government, to compensate these irrigators has not been paid to them. I understand that in the COAG agreements there is no legal obligation for the states to use the competition payments for this purpose, but they certainly have a moral obligation to do so. I draw attention to the Queensland government which has passed on about 11 per cent of its competition payments to offset the burden carried by local governments due to competition policy, but not one razoo has been forwarded by the New South Wales government in this regard. This means that the financial burden for water reform in the state of New South Wales has fallen squarely upon the shoulders of irrigation farmers. These farming families made business decisions based on the amount of water they believed was rightfully theirs to use, only to have the goalposts effectively moved without notice—and it is threatened that they will be moved again. To then refuse compensation for this loss is an outrageous injustice upon these hard-working people, and I would like this government to take greater steps to force the New South Wales and Queensland administrations especially to pay them their due. Certainly on the Cooper, the Queensland government went so far as to encourage investors to irrigate along that river, but then, having spent the money, they had the rug pulled out from under them following community outrage over the fact that it was done. I have no problem with communities voicing their opinions, but the investor certainly should not be the one who is left holding the can.It is also essential that the broader, long-term implications that the dramatic reduction in water availability will have on the economy of rural areas be fully addressed. Many country towns gain much of their economic viability from the modest success of surrounding irrigators, and that portion has increased with the relative decline of more traditional commodities like wool. Take the example of Bourke, a thriving centre of just under 3,500 people, that provides over $75 million in irrigation produce annually using just two per cent of flows from the Darling River. The irrigation industry provides 700 full-time jobs in Bourke, but it is feared that water allocations could be cut by up to 47 per cent. This would have disastrous ramifications for the region. The Bourke Shire Council rightly points out that such a reduction would have flow-on results in the way of job losses—up to 329 full-time positions by their estimates. The council also argues that such a reduction would lead to less income for local business houses, fewer children in the schools and therefore fewer teachers, and less funding for police, schools and hospitals. These are the projected short-term results over a few years, but the long-term results would be far more alarming. Centres such as Bourke have few alternative income sources and even fewer options by way of diversification. Within a decade a community such as Bourke would dwindle from a self-sustaining, economically vibrant community to one more shrivelling welfare village that this country—and my electorate—could well do without. And no-one is more acutely aware of this precarious balance than the community's irrigators themselves. As a consequence, farmers in the district are among the industry's most innovative, constantly trialing better river management techniques while optimising end-of-river flows by self-regulating rotational pumping. There are between 30 and 36 water licences in the Bourke area that have not as yet been developed and, despite the community's expectations that these assets will be utilised, there are now fears that these permits may be cancelled altogether—again with no compensation to the holders. This entire scenario would be catastrophic for Bourke and all the other towns served by surrounding irrigators—Narromine, Trangie and Warren. I would like the government to back moves restricting so-called environmental flows to only water that has been saved through more efficient water management. This efficiency is already being achieved through the programs and federal funding I mentioned earlier.It is my information that of the total water loss in the river system of the Murray Darling between the upper catchment and Adelaide only three per cent is attributable to irrigation. This would indicate that the slashing of an allocation of irrigators by 50 per cent would only have an impact of about 1½ per cent on the total flow of the river. The catastrophe of having their irrigation halved that would befall towns like Bourke along the river that rely on irrigation is almost indescribable. During a recent flood period, approximately 10,600,000 megalitres flowed past Bourke, of which about 7,100,000 megalitres reached Wilcannia. After storage and flood plain losses, less than 2,500,000 megalitres reached the Murray River. Clearly these losses have a far greater impact on the water flowing into South Australia than any impact that the irrigation industry may have. It could be argued that there are producers who do not make optimal use of their water in either their irrigation practices or in their choice of crop. However, it would appear to me that a 45 per cent reduction in water allocation would penalise the very farmers who have already optimised their water usage and are using the water in its most efficient way. For example, the Mansell family of Back O'Bourke Fruits have in excess of 95 per cent of their horticulture production under drip irrigation and control all of their water flows by computer. These people simply cannot gain much more in the way of efficiencies whereas a farmer who is irrigating fodder crops may be able to do so. A blunt regulation instrument is not the way to address these issues. No-one denies the need to maintain our environmental assets, and it is clear that enormous steps are already being taken in pursuit of this goal. I must say at this point that farmers are not looking particularly for compensation but just for a fair go and a reasonably scientific approach to the problem, but adequate compensation must accompany any forced reduction in the amount of legitimately purchased water resources that farmers are ultimately able to use. Tradability of water is an underpinning principle of COAG, but you can only have true tradability if you have secure property rights. You cannot simply trade without having secure property rights. But by hastening the process to establish a more ecologically focused water usage arrangement, the relevant authorities are threatening the future of the very towns in western New South Wales that are prospering. There are many valid reasons for changing our attitude to water use. State governments of both persuasions have erred in overallocating our rivers. The health of the river is important. But salinity and water quality are also important, and they are issues of extreme concern to areas such as South Australia. I am told that one of the reasons for the silting of the mouth of the Murray is in fact the erection of barriers at the mouth of the Murray to impede tidal flows. I am also told that some of the areas at the mouth of the Murray are amongst the worst salt-producing areas in the Murray Darling Basin. I say this not to criticise people in South Australia but to highlight the mistakes that have been made in the past all through the Murray Darling Basin, and to make the point that it is a small group of people that are apparently being left to pay. It is all very well to pay heed to regional and rural areas' calls for economic support, but if simultaneously the hatchet is applied to one of the few industries bringing genuine growth to some of those centres—and arguably helping several others in the district to survive—then it is all for nought. 15:45:0020008O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—The contribution by the honourable member for Parkes outlines completely the cause of the problem. What we are talking about here is, without question, Australia's major economic and environmental national problem, for which we have to find solutions. An article in the Financial Review published on the weekend draws attention to the fact that the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the CSIRO are all in agreement that this is now a $64 billion problem—if it can be fixed at all. We have had a plea from the member for Parkes that, `As you go about fixing it, leave the irrigators alone.' As I will make clear in my contribution, I am not about taking water off irrigators. I am about treating irrigators fairly. But for heaven's sake—when a member of the parliament purports to be representing the National Party, purports to be caring about an issue such as this, then he ought to at least have some grasp or understanding of the problem. The problem primarily is this. We all acknowledge that there are two few stream flows remaining in the Murray River from its tributaries. The Snowy is one that has come to public note, as a result of the Victorian election in particular. We know we have a problem. There is not enough water left in the river to sustain the outcome. We have known this for a long time. The first serious step taken by the Murray Darling Commission, with the cooperation of the state governments involved, was the introduction of the cap to at least limit what would be taken out from this point on. It was conceded that savings in future had to be made in two areas. They had to be made in the public delivery system, in the way water is stored and delivered to farms, and in on-farm distribution. I think any serious observer of this whole issue since the change of government in 1996 would say that what has been totally missing in Australia is national leadership. The first action taken by the Howard government in 1996 in slashing the former Labor government budget was to cut funds to a whole range of areas, fundamentally including a number of programs that were applied to the Murray Darling Commission and a number of environmental programs, which had begun to build momentum, for alternative land use in the Murray Valley, programs which tackled the issues of salinity and water use and support for the state governments which had imposed the cap, against the screams of the users of the water. For two years this whole thing went into abeyance because of the budget decisions of the federal government. Then along came the sale of Telstra and the great $1 billion for the Natural Heritage Trust—`the world's greatest environment program'. When you study it, all that happened was that the former programs were put back. They were all rebadged. Over a five-year period there was not a single extra dollar of funding and in that hiatus the problem just got worse. Now we have the premiers of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia all pulling their hair out because the federal government is providing no leadership on, and no coordination even of, genuine solutions to the problem. A CSIRO report, which landed in about March this year, said, `This has all gone so far that it cannot be repaired.' The response from the Farmers Federation and the ACF is: `Yes, we think it can, but it needs $65 billion over the next 10 years.' Where on earth are we going to find $65 billion? At the last federal election, Labor became the first party to take to a federal election a national water and salinity strategy which would have provided national leadership and an intelligent approach to cooperatively upgrading the public delivery system and encouraging farmers to move to more on-farm savings. Let us talk briefly about upgrading the public delivery system. The water authorities concede that measures to upgrade the public delivery system would deliver savings in the order of 10 per cent of total irrigation use. Conservationists and academics say it is more in the order of 30 per cent. I have worked on a figure at the bottom end, about 15 per cent—a conservative estimate. What have we seen in the last two years? Labor spelled out how we could do this as a federal government. The shadow minister sitting at the table, Mr Kerr, who was then the environment minister, worked through this negotiation about what we would do. We spelled it out for them. There has not been a single word, not a single step taken. Now we get the member for Parkes standing up here bleating, `Whatever happens, you cannot take it off the irrigators.' I fully understand—probably much better than him—the importance of water in country areas. I fully understand the importance of security of supply. I fully understand the need for us to encourage and invest in high value added activities on-farm, major water saving techniques on-farm and major development and upgrading of the public delivery system. I say there are solutions. In fact, now there are quite simple solutions. You have actually got the four state governments prepared to commit considerable resources to matching a federal package. The only thing missing is the federal package. It is not as if there is not the money to do it; the key point is that they have neither the wit nor the will to tackle these sorts of problems. I find it astounding that the member for Parkes would be silly enough to include in the private members' business section of our agenda a debate about water, acknowledging that it is such a huge issue in Australia now. It will be a big topic at the next federal election in the action agenda of both the government and the opposition. But I know where the intelligent proposals will be coming from; I know where the cooperative proposals will be coming from. I know right now where there are no ideas and where there is no willingness to provide leadership. Most importantly, since 1996, there has simply been populist cant about investment in river care and the rebadging of all these programs, but not a single dollar or a single unit of energy has been expended on providing the national leadership so badly needed in this area.15:54:0020010Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—Well, well, well. Hyperbole and cant. Did we hear it? No wonder he lost his shadow portfolio. In fact, he came to the electorate of Page to talk to my constituents and could not find the township of Maclean so he could not talk to them. UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Play the ball. You've only got five minutes.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—The member for Paterson well might chant, because I will start to tell him a little bit about the allocation of water in the—I can't even think of the river now; the Paterson River. I do not think this is a subject that need get down to politics. That is exactly what we are seeing from the Labor Party. This is a very serious issue; an extremely serious issue. Having been, I think, the longest serving minister for water resources in New South Wales, I have had a little bit to do with it. I think that the one thing we must remember in this country is that we have very little water and we do need it desperately for the industries that we have. That is not to say that we should not take note of the environment and the needs of the river. In fact, under my portfolio guidance, we were the first government to give an allocation to the river in New South Wales. This is more to do with states than it is with the federal government. Yes, the Murray-Darling council has a role to play, but overall it is the management of the states that defines the water allocations and the water management. We cannot deny that irrigation is very important in Australia. Many studies have been done. I took the opportunity while I was a member in New South Wales to look through the debates about the building of the Snowy Mountains scheme. The debates started right back in 1915. It was very interesting to read through those debates about the need for water and the need for development in what was really a semi-arid desert around Leeton and Griffith, which has now become the food bowl of Australia. It is a very important debate. In those days—or even four or five years ago—we did not know the extent of the environmental damage that was being done. Some of it was not from irrigation; some of it was from land practices that were encouraged by previous governments and that the owners of the properties who are now being blamed did not realise were causing a problem. We do know now that there are some effects that are causing problems, and it seems that the easy action is to blame the irrigators and take the water away from them. The irrigators have never said to me—not once—that they are opposed to looking at better management of water. In fact, when we raised these issues in the past in New South Wales, they willingly sat down and cooperated with government as to how they could better use water. They introduced laser levelling, they introduced drip irrigation in horticulture, they tried by all means to alleviate the salinity problems by planting trees around the perimeters of farms. The users and the farmers in those areas are quite willing to sit down and talk about this and try to work their way through—quite willing. But when you get a white paper like we have in New South Wales which suggests that all this should be managed through management committees, and the only input that producers will have is two on a board that practically can be of 20, what sensible debate are we going to get? The only way we are going to resolve these issues is to sit down with the people who are using the resource, explain to them the problems and get some input from them as to how they can change their practices to alleviate the problem. And they are willing to help.So I think in these parliaments—not just this parliament, but parliaments around Australia—we have to get away from this finger pointing and saying, `You're causing the problem,' because these people have acted on the best advice available from all government departments over many years. Yes, our knowledge has changed. Now we have to look at ways in which we can alleviate the situation. I do not believe it is going to be achieved by just blaming one particular section. It is not going to be achieved by a particular interest group coming into this argument and saying, `We want more of this resource,' without sitting down and scientifically proving what the result will be. We also need to look at the economic results. We often forget about that. If we just go in with a quick action—a quick reaction probably—in some of these affairs, we will destroy country communities. It is a very delicate subject. It needs to be handled very carefully. It needs input from local people and it needs some sensible reactions from governments. If we get those, I am sure we can start to reverse some of the problems that we see out there in the community at the present time that we all agree are causing some angst. (Time expired)15:59:0020011Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—As often, I fully agree with the member for Page: this should be a non-political issue if we are going to resolve it. I will also say that I fully commiserate with the member for Parkes—I was going to say Dubbo—because he has identified a problem that is not going to be fixed quickly, that is not going to go away. As the member for Page indicated, Australia indeed has become a world leader in irrigation techniques that require a minimum amount of water. We do it very well. But again I refer to a comment the member for Page made: that a virtual desert has been transformed into a food bowl. That tells something of how our farming community—our society—has felt that it had the right simply to divert resources and change forever the environment. And we have done that specifically without knowing what we were doing. From a little research in a few papers that I have read and from my own property in the Hunter, I know that levee banks, considered by many to be a panacea because they prevent flooding, of course simply divert water to other places. Similarly with clearing snags—clearing logs to hurry up the flow of water. These are the sorts of issues that we have to address. The salinity issue is estimated to cost $64 billion, and I do not think anyone says that that figure is wrong. The whole of the remainder of the sale of Telstra could go to trying to resolve the problem that we have with land salinity in this nation—something that has evolved since European settlement simply because of land management practices.In his introduction, the member for Parkes used the word `sustainability', and that is what it comes down to—sustainability. It is vital that we find a sustainable way of managing our land practices. There is no doubt of the prosperity that a variety of crops have brought to inland Australia. I was reading today about Dirranbandi and the effect that cotton has had on that town alone. I think that is in the electorate of the minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It has changed it from a broken down rural community into a thriving community. But it is all about sustainability. How long can it go? How long can it continue? How long can it continue to use water in the way it is currently using it? Perhaps, like our predecessors, we do not have the answer to that and that is why we need to study it. We have cotton in the north, we have fruit trees in the MIA, we have rice in the MIA. Perhaps it seems a bit ridiculous that some of these crops are grown where they would not naturally grow. They are only there because of the way we use our irrigation water.So I respect the argument put forward by the member for Parkes. I know what it is to be in a rural and regional electorate. Those communities need us to determine that they have a place in the future. I sincerely hope that we can work together to resolve this. I fully support the fact that we should not go pointing the finger only at the New South Wales government, only at the Queensland government or only at the Victorian government. I heard the flow rates that were mentioned. In I think it was the 1998 flood, a major flood occurrence in south-western Queensland and north-western New South Wales, virtually none of that water got to flow out at the Murray mouth in South Australia. I would also point out that the statistics show that something like 56 per cent of the flow of the Murray-Darling Basin in 1998-99 was diverted from its normal flow. All I can say is that if we continue to use those practices, then we are heading for disaster.The other thing that we have to look at is the seasonal variation. Unfortunately, it is spring and early summer when the flow is high but it is late summer when the demand is great. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business200122001216:04:0020012Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I move:That this House: (1) recognises the protection of children from abuse is fundamental in a civilised society; (2) is alarmed by the apparent rise in child abuse and neglect despite the efforts of the National Child Protection Council; and (3) calls on the Government to urgently focus more resources in implementing a national approach to the prevention, repair, intervention and research into child abuse.This week will mark National Child Protection Week. It should provide an opportunity to take stock of our progress in addressing this major problem in our society and setting goals for future action. Instead, it is likely that it will simply provide an opportunity for government window-dressing. The real situation hardly warrants the round of self-congratulating that these affairs turn out to be. The February 2000 report on government services, under `Protection and support services', shows that notifications of child abuse and neglect have greatly increased in recent years. Comparing notifications for the years 1996-97 and 1998-99, we find that notifications increased in Victoria by nine per cent, in Queensland by 21 per cent, in Western Australia by 22 per cent and in South Australia by an alarming 30 per cent. There is cause for alarm. These levels of notifications have occurred despite the work of the National Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse and its predecessor, the National Child Protection Council. They have occurred despite the efforts of all state governments as well as community based organisations working in this field.The Commonwealth's obligations for the protection of children from abuse and neglect are covered in article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Commonwealth has a clear responsibility to act in this area, but there are more important reasons than simply that international obligation. In economic terms, child abuse and neglect lead to high costs to governments and the community. Studies in the United States claim that for every dollar spent intervening in a supportive way in a family with young children, seven dollars is saved later on down the track in welfare, health costs, crime fighting and the jail system. The trouble is that you do not get the benefit of these savings for 14 to 15 years. It is a long-term investment. Don Weatherburn, Director of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics, gave some idea of the costs in a recent interview on Radio National:For every thousand neglected children in New South Wales, about a quarter of them, we estimate, will end up in the Children's Court, and they'll be committing upwards of 11 or 12 break-and-enters a month during those four or five years, so they'll generate an enormous burden on the community in terms of crime.That is just part of the price paid by the community. The victims of abuse and neglect may copy the abusive behaviour, the cycle of neglect and abuse will continue and another generation of children will suffer as a result. We cannot continue to fund child protection agencies on a shoestring budget. Most of the tragic histories of abuse and neglect that we hear of reveal overstretched agencies failing to respond in time to reported cases of abuse. If we are to break this cycle of abuse and neglect and if we are to save future generations from abuse and neglect, the scale of intervention must be great enough to break this cycle. We have to be prepared to properly fund programs of intervention—and we have to be patient; the results will not appear for another generation. A national approach is needed. The work done by the National Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse has barely scratched the surface. Unless the resources necessary to back up strategies are made available, we will continue to see increases in child abuse and neglect notifications. Unless we have a national approach which includes assessment of resources necessary for prevention, repair and intervention as well as research, we will continue to lose the race against child abuse and neglect. Not every problem can be fixed by throwing dollars at it. A national approach to protecting children from abuse and neglect can result in savings where individual states and agencies combine their experience and research to develop better strategies. But in the end all the policies and strategies are worth little if resources do not match the need.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:09:0020013Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I rise to strongly support the motion moved by the member for Fowler and I commend both the member for Fowler and the member for Braddon for having the foresight to put it on for debate here this afternoon. The 19th century poet George Eliot said:Childhood is only the beautiful and happy time in contemplation and retrospect: to the child it is full of deep sorrows, the meanings of which are unknown.For the 103,000 cases of child abuse and neglect reported to Australian authorities last year, the cause of their `deep sorrows' is certainly known. One-third were emotional abuse cases, 30 per cent were physical abuse, about a quarter of cases were neglect of children and 16 per cent were cases of sexual abuse. In fact, I read only yesterday a report from the People's Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse published under the heading `You're the Voice' and in it a number of facts are reproduced from the Children's Commission of Queensland report on the 1997 inquiry into paedophilia. For example:One in 4 girls and one in 8 boys are sexually abused by the time they reach the age of 18 years. More than 150,000 children under 17 years in Queensland have been sexually abused and an estimated 420,000 Queenslander's over the age of 18 years are survivors of sexual abuse—in one form or another, according to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence studies referred to in the commission's report. It says:Close to 70% of psychiatric patients are known to have been sexually abused as children. 40% to 60% of women in care suffering depression, phobias, obsessive compulsive disorders, personality disorders and schizophrenia had been the victims of significant sexual abuse as children.It goes on to say that child abuse could trigger the development of future violent behaviour resulting in criminal convictions—to which the member for Fowler just referred.Some experiences do not ever leave your memory. I remember, as a fourth year medical student in 1980 in Adelaide, having chosen to spend my six-month elective term attached to the Crisis Intervention Unit in South Australia. Until that time I think it is fair to say that I had enjoyed a life sheltered from the far extremes of human emotion and behaviour. The nature of this extraordinary service was that social workers would take calls from people suffering a variety of stresses and then, if appropriate, would dispatch people in a car to do a home visit. I went on one such home visit and we arrived at a home expecting to speak to a distressed woman about a sexual assault only to be met at the door by a man brandishing a shotgun. When the police arrived and talked him into letting the authorities in, the scene was one where this man, fuelled by alcohol, had raped his six-year-old stepdaughter while she had been forcibly restrained by her own mother. Similarly I recall a visit as a young doctor to a modest home in the northern suburbs of Hobart in the early hours of the morning to provide comfort to a mother of three who had found her husband having sex with their eight-year-old daughter. What is it about some human beings that they can be so cruel, if not depraved, when it comes to children? The extent to which we nurture the idealism of young people and protect the vulnerable transition of children to adulthood is a critical measure of a caring society, and in this regard Australia has some considerable distance to go. There are all kinds of neglect and all kinds of abuse. My electorate on the upper North Shore of Sydney, which is amongst the most affluent electorates in the country, has the same problems that many other lower income, lower levels of education electorates have. But in some areas of my electorate my experience, based on people with perhaps high levels of education, is that we sometimes project on to our children our own unfulfilled ambitions and children feel increasingly under great stress to meet the expectations of their parents. In other instances I have also seen parents project with aggression those ambitions onto their children, which manifest themselves in all forms of self-harm, including but not confined to drug use and alcohol abuse, the extreme end of which is suicide.This week marks our efforts to reduce child abuse and neglect. With the annual number of reported cases of child maltreatment increasing and Kids Help Line run off its feet, we have little in this area of which we can be proud. The Kids Help Line, for example, answers about 350,000 calls a year. Many more calls are attempted, but there are not enough volunteers to take the calls. The help line is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there are about 85 counsellors. The major issues include child abuse, which ranks No. 4. When children are asked why they have attempted or contemplated suicide, child abuse is the most often mentioned reason. As far as the Kids Help Line is concerned, child abuse refers to physical, sexual and mental abuse, as well as neglect. The help line answered over 6,000 calls about child abuse last year alone. Three-quarters of the callers are female.One specific challenge which faces Aboriginal Australia in this regard is reflected in some of the disturbing data which has been collected about child abuse and neglect over the last decade. Though comprising only three per cent of the population, indigenous Australians comprise eight per cent of reported and substantiated child abuse. They also represent more than one in eight cases of neglect, according to Broadbent and Bentley. For example, many are unaware that since 1990 the death rate from Aboriginal domestic child abuse has increased to a level 30 per cent above that of Aboriginal adult deaths in custody. Australia desperately needs a nationally coordinated approach to child abuse and neglect. The public response to child sexual abuse and physical and emotional abuse is fragmented. It is poorly coordinated and generally not well informed, tragically so when you consider the long-term effects, which include, but are not confined to, eating disorders, self-harm, suicide, nightmares, drug and alcohol abuse and intractable psychiatric and psychological disorders. There is still no good national child sexual abuse database, but we do have different sources of information—the police, the courts, correctional services, protective services, health-care providers, victims services, community agencies—all of which are put together to deal with these things, in many cases in an uncoordinated fashion. Reporting, policing, education, counselling, prevention and early intervention programs still rely far too much on cake stalls, raffles and the goodwill of volunteers and the agencies for which they work.Commonwealth initiatives in this area include the 1994 National Prevention Strategy for Child Abuse and Neglect. The 1997 National Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse was formed to provide community perspectives, advice and recommendations on child protection issues to the relevant Commonwealth minister and also to fund and oversee research and the promotion of annual awards, the National Child Abuse Prevention Awards. Commonwealth initiatives also include organisational and research grants, and the Commonwealth has supported accommodation programs, which are jointly funded with the states. This year we have seen the year 2000 stronger families strategy, which has committed $240 million over four years for nine new initiatives, including a special focus on effective parenting and early childhood. All of those measures are to be commended and supported, but any scholarly examination of this issue, if not acting as a practical exposure to the problems of day-to-day life facing everyday Australians, suggests we have a lot farther to go. Surely this issue is pressing enough to warrant a strategic approach, including significantly more funds. We should also ask ourselves what it is about modern society that more children will have reasons as adults to nod in painful agreement with Eliot's assessment of childhood. 16:19:0020014Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—The birth of a child is unique. From birth until young adulthood, children are emotionally and physically dependent on those who are responsible for their day-to-day care. Their belief systems and emotional wellbeing are formed by the direct and indirect systems they are engaged with. Tragically, every year too many children suffer and even die due to abuse and neglect within the very systems that are set up to protect them from harm. Child maltreatment and trauma are complex phenomena that are found not only in families but also in the government systems they come into contact with. These systems to some extent have not recognised, and still do not recognise, their failure by ignoring the fact that children who voluntarily go, or are mandated, into the Family Court system continue to be harmed.In 1995 the then federal Attorney-General required the Law Reform Commission and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to hold an inquiry into and to report back on matters relating to children and young people who were involved in the legal process, including that of the Family Court. The report stated that in 1996 Australia had 1.8 million children aged between zero and 18. Sadly, during the period of 1995-96 there were 91,734 cases of alleged child abuse and 67,816 of those cases were investigated by child protection authorities. Children continue to be abused within our communities, and the systems they reach out to for help continue to perpetuate that abuse. Our Family Court system, along with the system of agencies that are protecting children, is fragmented and is trying to deliver a service to children that it cannot deliver. This system is severely underfunded and underresourced.As a society, Australia has increasingly begun to speak openly about child abuse to break the silence in order to protect our innocent children. Why are we still getting it so wrong? One of the key things that need to be addressed is the lack of coordination of services that deal with child sexual assault. For instance, it is not uncommon for a minimum of five different agency workers and organisations to be dealing with one child at any one time. The North West Centre Against Sexual Assault, headed by Vicki Russell, in Burnie in my electorate, deals with systems abuse of children every day. Sexual assault services such as these are part of the front line attack trying to deal with children every day who are victims of sexual assault. One particular case comes to mind of a small child aged five who had been sexually assaulted. He disclosed the abuse to one of his parents. The parent made a notification to child protection and took the child to the North West Centre Against Sexual Assault for assessment and counselling. Upon this disclosure, the child can be interviewed by more than five different professionals in the course of the investigation. That is five different faces, five different strangers and five different systems. Each worker who is now involved with this one child may not even speak to any of the others during the case. He may be interviewed by the police, the sexual assault worker, the child protection worker, the Family Court counsellor, a psychologist and even a lawyer who has been ordered by the Family Court to represent the child. He may then be placed on a protection order and placed in temporary care whilst the investigation is completed—another system and another strange face. The child is abused not only by one of his parents but also by the system that has been set up to protect him. I cannot even imagine what it would be like for this small child to experience such a trauma. He is a victim of the system that has been set up to care for him. What is needed is reform—and we need it now. Sadly, a sexual assault worker may work intensively with this child for six months whilst the case proceeds through the Family Court system, and not once will this professional be consulted about the information that the child has disclosed. Not once may this worker be contacted by any of the other agencies involved with his case.It is time for a coordinated approach to the care of children who have been sexually assaulted. Section 65 of the Family Law Act provides a number of means by which a child or young person can have their wishes and concerns expressed. A child can be appointed a separative representative to be their voice in court. But I am shocked to hear that, on some occasions, the appointed representative may not even speak to or see the child before they represent them. This child has become a faceless name on a piece of paper. We have created an adult system based on adult thinking and adult experiences. I commend all of those who try to work in this system, undermanned and underresourced. I believe, like most of them, that we must listen to the children as they speak out or, as the Kids Help Line says, cry out for help.16:24:0020016Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I am a dad. I am the father of two children: a son and a daughter. For the life of me, I do not understand and could never contemplate ever being involved in sexually abusing a child. But it happens, and it happens too often. I guess everyone in this House would recognise that one of the major challenges facing Australia, as earlier speakers said, is ensuring that kids do have the best start in life, that they do not have to endure the sorts of things we are talking about this afternoon and that they can realise their hopes and their dreams.One would think in a thinking society that the protection of children should just be taken for granted. However, neither I nor my fellow colleagues would be so naive as to suggest that now. A basic tenet of our society is that there are children out there who do suffer this abuse, and there are many of them. I heard the figures quoted by the member for Bradfield. He indicated that one in four girls and one in eight boys suffered this kind of abuse before they were 18. That is a very sobering statistic for the member to bring into this House and for us all to think about. It is somewhat appropriate that this week marks National Child Protection Week, which is organised by the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect and funded by the coalition government, and that this year's theme is `Family—Australia's most important team'. Too right it is.It gives me great assurance to announce that the coalition government is offering real assistance to strengthen `the family'. The coalition government has focused on the need to address problems relating to family breakdowns, including early intervention and prevention, working with the community and social coalition to provide better services and support, and holistic approaches to problems and using activities to build better approaches. Our track record on this issue has shown a strong interest in children's issues and provides leadership in various areas such as research and the provision of specialist services such as children's contact services.Just last week I was very privileged to open the new children's contact centre in Townsville. I know that Relationships Australia, the organisation that will be undertaking that tender on behalf of the federal government, are very pleased that they have been able to win this particular tender because they know that it is a vital service that has to be provided. There has been tremendous inquiry and interest already, particularly from the legal profession and also from parents who want to take advantage of this new children's contact centre. I know too that Relationships Australia will provide valuable assistance to those affected by child abuse. It reassures the Townsville community that there is a helping hand out there if they need it. Relationships Australia in Townsville are very actively involved in this week's events. They have a family support worker organising and presenting many seminars and workshops on this particular situation. I have been fortunate to have been involved in Child Protection Week in Townsville. This week will mark several events highlighting the awareness of child abuse in my electorate and ways of preventing it from happening. There will be several workshops on effective discipline, forums on prevention, the inaugural network meeting, and family day this Saturday. I would encourage all of the constituents in Townsville and Thuringowa to take part in those very good programs.However, the coalition government recognises that the community cannot heighten awareness alone, nor can it make considerable policy change on this matter. The government has recently increased financial assistance to families with children through the family tax benefit introduced on 1 July. Over two million Australian families with children will benefit from this initiative. This represents assistance of over $2 billion each year provided to over 90 per cent of all Australian families with dependent children. I think everyone on all sides of the House and on all sides of the political spectrum would agree that any level of child abuse is unacceptable. I certainly do. I am pleased to support the member's motion today and to see the uniform agreement that we have across the chamber. (Time expired)16:29:0020017Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—It is just possible that something important and special is happening here today in relation to the problem of child abuse. I am honoured to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Fowler and seconded by the member for Braddon. I commend the member for Bradfield, a doctor of medicine, who has spoken from the heart and eloquently about the tragedy of child abuse in this country. Evidence suggests that the incidence of child abuse is on the rise. Each year 100,000 notifications of child abuse occur in this country. More than 25,000 of those are substantiated. This call to break the silence of abuse is a reflection of the fact that there must be more cases of child abuse than those notified. That is why I agree with the national call to break the silence on child abuse. That call has been made by the People's Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse and I also support the work of NAPCAN, the Kids First Foundation, the Abused Child Trust, the Purple Ribbon Committee and other organisations dedicated to dealing with this problem. Abused children suffer in silence. They are defenceless and in many cases wonder, as a result of the abuse, whether they are at fault. Professor Kim Oates, the CEO of the New Children's Hospital in Sydney, reporting on his research, said:... almost half of sexually abused children are sad or depressed, have low self-esteem and a higher level of anxiety five years after the incident.I find the plight of abused children sad and depressing. They are our precious children and as parents we have a heavy responsibility to create for our children a nurturing environment and a world of hope and delight. We know already that the victims of abuse are far more likely to become abusive parents. Therefore, it is imperative to break the cycle of abuse. But that needs government resources. Traditionally, governments, advised by treasuries and finance departments, have found it very easy to support hard-hat projects, often based on bodgie calculations and benefit cost analysis. It is a very male thing to do because you get to open big projects and it looks terrific on TV, but traditionally the departments of community services have been underfunded and, until recently, prevention programs have been virtually non-existent. I think there is new hope for positive changes in this area. For example, in my state of Queensland, the Minister for Families, Youth and Community Care, Anna Bligh, and the Minister for Health, Wendy Edmond, are committed to providing support for abused children and struggling families. Anna Bligh fought very hard for extra funding in response to the Forde inquiry and she won that extra funding. Wendy Edmond has presided over a very successful start to positive parenting programs. Within those portfolios as well there is an important home visiting program. I take the opportunity to commend Peter Beattie for his support and also, ironically, Queensland Treasury, because they are now recognising in Queensland that it is not just the hard benefit cost analysis which is needed to justify these programs. They know that there are big gains to be had from investment in prevention. As a result, Queensland is putting money into this.I want to talk about three projects: the Elmira Pre-natal and Early Infancy Project, a home visiting program in the United States which seems to work quite well, the Birth to Three program in Oregon and Hawaii's Healthy Start program. The US General Accounting Office has done an analysis to support the benefits of such early intervention. Labor supports early intervention and, within a spirit of bipartisanship, we believe there is a growing need for a comprehensive, national, early assistance strategy aimed at strengthening parenting skills and early childhood development to support the fundamentals of family life, whatever pressures there are from the outside world. As part of this strategy, we believe there is a need to establish a comprehensive network of early childhood and parenting services. It is tremendous to be associated with this motion. I think everyone has spoken in a spirit of bipartisanship. As I said at the beginning, it gives me some hope that we may be able to achieve something by raising awareness of the problem of child abuse in this country and the value of early intervention and prevention programs.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for the debate upon the motion moved by the honourable member for Fowler has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate20018Question proposed:That grievances be noted.2001816:35:0020018Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—This afternoon, I desire to speak on the government's neglect of the needs and aspirations of many Australians. The problem is that, while ordinary Australians are striving to move forward in their own lives, they are not getting the support of the national government. Too many people in too many places are missing out on the benefits of change. Too many Australians are finding it hard to embrace change because they do not feel that their national government cares about who wins and who loses. The truth is that Australians, particularly those who are missing out, do not feel secure. In public debate there has been a tendency to see the insecurity and a fear of change as the same thing. Insecurity is not the fear of change but the fear of being helpless in the face of change. It is the inability to cope with change. Unfortunately, as the Howard government has slashed funding for education and regional development, many people in more places have felt unable to cope with change. If you do not have the skills and capacity to adapt, then change hurts. That is the truth of the matter. That is why people are feeling insecure.The story is worse than the Howard government's neglect of education and regional development. When people are insecure about their future, it fosters more than a simple rejection of change. It feeds the urge to find scapegoats. If you want to find a few popular scapegoats since Pauline Hanson left this place, I suggest you need to go only to the media statements of the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr John Anderson—that is right, the man who is our Acting Prime Minister. If we believe that the scourge of One Nation is gone, then we had better think again. Just listen to the rhetoric of the Acting Prime Minister. Every week, he is out there telling people in regional Australia that the pains associated with change are due to the decline of family values, too much immigration or too much welfare for our Aboriginal community. He is out there peddling like a dog whistle the soft Hanson line. The Acting Prime Minister fails to understand that Hansonism did not rise on the back of ordinary Australians being racist or being innately conservative; it arose out of the feeling that people's voices were not being heard. When you get out there and talk to people in regional Australia and the outer suburbs of our cities, you realise that this problem is just as relevant today as it was a few years ago. People simply do not believe that the Howard government is on their side. The Acting Prime Minister fails to understand that it is fundamental to engage with the people and the places that are missing out. While he is out there spouting the rhetoric about family values, about immigration and about Aboriginals, the real work is not being done. The hard work of listening to and working with people and communities is not being done. If the Acting Prime Minister were listening, he would know that people will not forgive massive cuts to education, to employment programs, to support for child care and for families, inflicted by the government on our struggling communities within the suburbs of metropolitan Australia and in regional, remote and rural Australia. People will not forgive the government for the proceeds of these cuts in services being handed back to the wealthy as tax cuts.Australians do not want leaders who are not prepared to lead, and they do not want leaders whose leadership is based on populist rhetoric rather than on engagement with ordinary people. If leaders fail to articulate a vision that is more inclusive and closer to the concerns of ordinary people, we cannot claim to be surprised at the outcomes. When leaders fail to lead, populism and traditional scapegoats—fear, habit and rhetoric—will provide a ready substitute. Populist moralising will not improve the lives of ordinary Australians. If there is one thing Australia needs at the moment, it is genuine leadership. If there is one thing that we are missing as a community at the moment, it is genuine leadership. Instead, we have a government that not only lacks courage and commitment but is out there fuelling the fires of division. Meanwhile, if people lose their job today, they do not know whether the government will help them find one tomorrow. If their local mill closes today, communities do not know whether the government will help to attract new industry opportunities tomorrow—unless it is in a marginal seat that worries the government's electoral prospects at the next election. Leadership requires a commitment to the people and the places missing out. Leadership requires that we invest in the people missing out, but the Howard government is the only government of any developed nation that has chosen to go backwards on education, training and research. Leadership requires that we invest in the regions missing out, but the Howard government, in contrast with the rest of the world, does not believe in investing in regional development. The Acting Prime Minister should be worried more about that than about the so-call regional backlash. The real backlash is against politicians such as the Acting Prime Minister, who peddle false hopes in their rhetoric but abandon people in their policy. It is a backlash against politicians who say one thing in Canberra and another in the community. People want to see political parties articulate a broader vision for society rather than use traditional scapegoats. The truth is that we have a rupture between the Howard government and ordinary Australians. We have lost a sense of community. A good society does not want handouts; it does not want manna from heaven. A good society is built and sustained through the efforts of its citizens and promoted by the leadership of government. Our citizens are willing to do the hard work. They are prepared to put in the effort and the hard yards, but they want to know that the national government is on their side—that it is actually barracking for them. Everywhere I go, people are telling me that they do not believe that the Howard government is barracking for them—more importantly, they believe it is barracking only for some friends at the top end of town. They say that actions speak louder than words—that actions really do tell a story. The truth is that the Howard government funds the elite private schools to the detriment of struggling communities. This government refuses to put one additional dollar into the regional TAFE network, and it refuses to act on the fact that a number of regional university campuses are at risk. People are worried about the consequences of the Howard government's leave-it-to-the market mentality and what it means for workers, families and communities, particularly in regional Australia. You would think that the Howard government would have got the message loud and clear by now, and that the Prime Minister himself would stand up for regional Australia in the same forceful manner that he stands up for the Packers.You would think that the national government would have got the message loud and clear by now. Judging by the recent rhetoric of the Acting Prime Minister and by his inability to get anything through the citycentric cabinet, it is clear that the National Party has not learned at all. People no longer trust the Howard government to do what is right. Importantly, country people no longer trust the national government to do what is right. They know in their hearts that the National Party is a rump that is continually rolled in the cabinet room, that the Deputy Prime Minister has no clout and that in essence the National Party is just an organisation that is used for the electoral prospects of the Liberal Party in Canberra—when it suits them.People are not prepared to accept the argument that government is irrelevant. People want a government that works with them to revitalise community confidence—to rebuild a sense of community in Australia. People want to believe that the national government is on their side—that it is a government that is prepared to barrack for and do something for regional Australia. They are sick of the government being more concerned about the prospects of a member who lives in the seat such as that represented by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, on the North Shore of Sydney, than those of someone who lives in a seat such as Indi in the northern area of Victoria.People clearly want the national government to be on their side. We need to have empathy and understanding. We need to work with people to give them the support and the resources they need to have the confidence to give it a go. I suppose the great tragedy of the Acting Prime Minister's agenda is that it is gutting our people of their ambitions. He is not leading in his own portfolio, let alone as Leader of the National Party. He is, in essence, a person who is unable to come to terms with his own portfolio responsibilities—a person who is unable to make a recommendation to his cabinet because of his fear of being rolled yet again. Be it on the Speedrail, on the airport needs of Sydney, on the orbital road in Sydney, on the ordinary needs of regional Australia or on education and health, the Deputy Prime Minister has gone missing because he is sick of being rolled by the citycentric Prime Minister and the Treasurer. There are not many sadder sights than when people lose hope, especially in rural, remote and regional Australia and in the outer suburbs of our cities. The trouble is that, for more than 10 months after the Regional Australia Summit—a summit that cost Australian taxpayers quite a substantial amount of money—the government has failed to do something with respect to these responsibilities. The issue, therefore, is that the government has done nothing to improve the lives of ordinary Australians. The time has come for us to get a government into Canberra that is prepared to barrack for the people doing it tough in rural, regional and remote Australia and in the suburbs of some of the metropolitan areas. It is time for a government that is prepared to make decisions, not just for the elite but for all Australians. (Time expired)2002016:45:0020020Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Today I would like to talk about three important topics to my electorate of Gilmore. The first is the recent decision by the New South Wales government to allow and stipulate minimum amounts of many drugs that young people may carry without penalty beyond a warning. To me, taking this step as a government is to condone illegal activity. To double the amounts able to be carried by adults will be seen by young people as encouraging the regime of substance abuse. I believe this decision is likely to move the focus of the underworld onto young people as drug couriers—not that they have not already featured as such, but now they can run the stuff with impunity.I know that people will ask: `Why wreck a young person's life for just one silly incident of carrying some drugs?' That is how this legislation has been fraudulently sold. This view does not look at the damage caused to others. I am sure if I said, `Why ruin a young person's life just for one stupid incident where he or she got drunk, drove a car and killed your child,' you would be enraged by my attitude, and quite rightly so. So why is drug dealing or sharing different? It is widely acknowledged that some people cannot tolerate any level of particular substances or are in some way predisposed to addiction. Also widely acknowledged is that the strength or purity of many substances today is far beyond that of 20 to 40 years ago. By giving our children access to double the amount that adults can carry, without fear, means that many more of their friends can sample from that allowable amount. How many children will now be carrying the stash for their parents, older family members or friends? We are setting up these people for disaster when, as adults, our job is to protect them, at times even from themselves.When I first heard the news about this legislation, I asked, `What substances does this law cover?' The response contained over 15 pages of substances, not just marijuana but hundreds of drugs, many of which I have never heard of. But now, thanks to these new laws, my grandchildren can happily carry them without fear of prosecution. Yet in every family and in every school today we educate our children against using drugs. It just does not make sense. When I asked, `Who voted for this?' as it was New South Wales legislation, I got a copy of the vote count. The vote did not contain the name of the Labor member for the South Coast, a man who has made much of his stance against drugs in his professional capacity as a drug counsellor. His name was not among those who voted against the bill. His name was not recorded among those who had leave from the chamber or the house at the time. He has a habit of not appearing on anything controversial. Why were we, his constituents, not asked how we felt? It is a big issue in Gilmore. There are many more mums and dads who feel as I do, so why did he not represent the views of his constituents, or at least ask us how we felt?On the other hand, what we have done to identify and address the region's drug problems is to talk with local people and agencies. Over 25 people, representing a diverse range of agencies that work with substance abusers and young people, spent two hours in my office just listening to one another's issues, difficulties and needs. I called the meeting to ask all these and other interested agencies to consider joining as one regional group to apply jointly for funding from this government's Tough on Drugs policy, to identify gaps between our services and to fill them. This month we will meet again to decide whether this is seen by the various management committees as viable. If they agree to commit to this group I give notice that, once we have developed our action plan, we will be banging on a number of ministers' doors in this house. Of course, we will not leave the state government alone either. Although we may have some hurdles there because even the regional manager of the state's Illawarra Area Health Service has recently said that he does not believe there is a need in our community for a combined approach to rehabilitation. That is pretty interesting, as we have one of the state's top statistics for substance abuse and related crime outside of Sydney. Anyway, if it means that we have to convince our state health system bureaucrats that there is a need through objective statistical means, it will benefit us all to have such relevant information, which nobody can then deny.In all of this I am not for a moment suggesting that the young people of Gilmore are substance abusers. They are not. In fact, we have some excellent ambassadors in Gilmore, both in academia and in sport. In fact, my under 18s Gerringong team have just won their rugby grand final. However, as adults our primary role is to look after the young and the old, and that is the reason for our concern. In many ways, Gilmore's young people have demonstrated their talents, strength of character and preparedness to contribute over and over again.Turning to another far more pleasant matter, may I pay tribute to the men and women of the Australian Federal Police force who have been serving in East Timor. They are unsung heroes. They are the men and women who volunteered to help those less fortunate, often exposing themselves to danger. Much is expected of our men and women in uniform, and people have certain expectations and attitudes towards you. Many are very positive and helpful. However, they went to East Timor to assist with keeping the normal law and order issues under control and to provide escort for the electoral officials as they went about their business. They did this knowing the tensions in East Timor and knowing the possible ramifications when the poll results were announced.Our AFP also knew that East Timor harboured many armed militia groups who were unlikely to be impressed by a uniform. In spite of all this, the men and women of our AFP went into East Timor unarmed. Over 250 of our police risked their lives to protect the democratic right of the East Timorese people to vote with their consciences for the first time. We know what happened after that poll. We have all seen the graphic pictures of our Australian Defence Force personnel facing danger to make the peace. But what we did not see were unarmed AFP officers trying to negotiate their way out of extremely dangerous situations with armed and hostile militia groups. We did not see, for instance, any film of AFP officers using plastic chairs and a coffee table to fight off an armed militia group. They were desperate times indeed. Only the cool heads of our well-trained and experienced officers prevented several incidents from escalating into bloodshed.And speaking of cool, when a defence force lands it brings all sorts of logistical and other support with it. But none of this was available to our Australian Federal Police. They were deployed in small teams, or even individually, to posts all over East Timor, including some of the most remote areas. Most were on rations without regular water supplies and had no access to dairy products or greens. At that time, you may remember, there was no defence force in East Timor for backup. They literally were on their own. They were under the United Nations banner but they had no weapons as such at their disposal to combat attack or threat. May I commend every AFP officer who has served, or is serving, in East Timor for their courage, their dedication to duty, and their unfailing Australian sense of humour and compassion. Everywhere I went in East Timor I heard stories of how the AFP, when on leave back in Australia, had organised—or had just gone and bought—tools, toys, medicines and educational items that were desperately needed by the East Timorese. Time and time again, people spoke of the Australian police who took children in their arms and consoled them. Their humanity remains with many East Timorese as a fond memory and in a practical way, too, for many of them are still in contact and are still providing assistance, advice and equipment. To the men and women of the Australian Federal Police: well done. You are excellent ambassadors for your country and for your people, and Australians can be very proud indeed. Lastly, may I take the opportunity to congratulate Wollongong University for its success in the Good Universities Guide awards in Canberra last week. As you might know, Wollongong University has, for the second year in a row, jointly won first place—best university in Australia. This time it shared the prize with the University of Southern Queensland which, like Wollongong, is focused on excellence. We in Gilmore have already had the taste of excellence that Wollongong University not only provides but also demands. Initially our students—who until recently had to leave the area to get a job or a university education—could travel to Wollongong to benefit from the institution's facilities. Although it took a little time to convince people that you did not have to go to Sydney or Melbourne to get the best, now there is stiff competition to win a place at Wollongong. Then, in conjunction with this federal government and Shoalhaven City Council, Wollongong University opened a campus at Berry. It did not take long for us all to recognise the need to bring the campus further south so that others could more easily access tertiary education.Last year we opened the West Nowra campus of Wollongong University and Illawarra TAFE, funded to the tune of over $15 million by this federal government, and the benefits are already in evidence. We do not have to export our young people anymore. The campus is providing facilities that build on our region's strengths and potential opportunities. With training available, other industries are now prepared to relocate to this area. The good news is that we are slowly moving towards having another campus in my electorate of Gilmore. This one will be located at Moss Vale and will, I hope, bring the same advantages to the Southern Highlands. The specialities for the highlands campus are still being evaluated, and I hope it will be a joint venture with the music school already established in the area. Wollongong University is very good at providing an opportunity for people to think about their region's natural potential and talents along with the needs of local businesses. In closing, may I say how much I am looking forward to working with them on the Southern Highlands university. (Time expired)2002316:55:0020023Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise to respond to the comments made during question time last Monday by the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, who attacked and ridiculed Labor's policy of support for developing and securing the future of the printing and publishing industry. Judging by the minister's answer, the Howard government will obviously implement a plan to scrap the parallel import restrictions which are currently in place. Labor's policy will preserve the modified `use it or lose it' parallel import regime which currently exists for the book industry. This regime will be extended to apply to the video game, computer software and music industries. Under Labor, the importation of a good for which there is a local copyright owner will be permitted only if, firstly, the copyright owner does not release the good on the local market within 30 days after its publication or international release or, secondly, the good, although released locally, is unavailable for purchase within Australia or is unavailable within Australia at an internationally competitive price, within 90 days of that good being requested. This regime is commonly known as a `use it or lose it' regime. Australian publishers, computer software and video game distributors and record companies will have exclusive copyright in a good, as long as they exercise that right in a way which benefits the Australian consumer. Labor's policy will benefit Australian consumers. The `use it or lose it' regime will ensure that Australian consumers of books, video games, computer software and music will continue to have access to Australian goods which could not be developed without the competitive advantage which parallel importation restrictions give to the Australian industry; that they will have access to the latest in international releases; and that they will have access to the latest international releases at a competitive price. Labor's policy will result in consistency across these industries and will ensure that there is a proper balance between supporting Australia's cultural industries and promoting consumer interests.The printing industry has been savaged by the Howard government over the past three years. The abolition of the book bounty cost some 4.5 per cent on inputs into the printing industry, and the GST will put another four per cent on their inputs—not to mention the added cost of books as a result of the GST. The industry is facing yet another impost with the proposed scrapping of the parallel import restrictions. The minister sneered at Labor's policy and suggested it was supported only by the AMWU and the Visual Software Distributors Association. Of course it is supported by the AMWU. Any worthwhile industrial organisation which is concerned about the future of an industry and the workers in it would support it, and I welcome their support. What the minister deliberately overlooked was the fact that our policy is also supported by the Australian Publishers Association, the Printing Industry Association of Australia and the National Association of Forest Products Industry Inc. I would like to highlight the significance of the publishing industry in my electorate of Bendigo, and I refer in particular to Maryborough. Maryborough is a town of some 8,000 people, and 700 jobs in the town are dependent on the printing industry, which injects some $24 million in wages. Maryborough has a current unemployment rate of over 14 per cent—almost double the national average—so you can see how Maryborough depends on the printing industry. I note that the popular Harry Potter book was published in Australia and was printed in Adelaide with a backup print of some 250,000 copies in my electorate, in Maryborough. That just shows you how efficient our printing industry is. In contrast to this, I note that last week the government announced a package of measures to assist the sugar industry. So on the one hand the sugar industry is to be bailed out but on the other they are putting in place policies which are going to devastate the printing industry and which have no regard for it. I do not for one minute begrudge the sugar industry a package of assistance. They have had some horrendous disasters to contend with, including cyclones, floods, rust disease, the Borbidge state government, rat plagues, and now low world sugar prices. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry says that assistance should be worth some $83 million but, as Labor's shadow minister for agriculture, Gavan O'Connor, has pointed out, it is not a comprehensive package designed to position the industry to face ongoing challenges, and it contains nothing to assist workers or regions also battered by the difficult circumstances faced by the industry. So they could not get the sugar industry right either, and nor have they been able to produce a policy which will secure a sound future for the publishing and printing industry. I reiterate: the publishing industry is a vital component of regional Australia's economy. Nobody in regional and rural Australia really believes the Prime Minister's promise to look after non-metropolitan people. The red light did not flash in his office over the scrapping of the 30-day rule and it only just managed a blink or two before the government attended to problems in the sugar industry. My own electorate has suffered severely from the economic rationalist obsessions of this government. Contracting of jobs by Telstra to Enetech cost Bendigo and other regional areas in Victoria some 100 jobs only last week. I am delighted that Labor has taken this major initiative to assist the industry to achieve a stable and prosperous future. I would like now to read from some of the press releases from these organisations that supported our policy, which the minister conveniently forgot to mention. The press release from the Printing Industries Association of Australia is headlined `Major industry group support Labor's new copyright policy'. The Printing Industries Association of Australia said:One of Australia's largest manufacturing employer groups has endorsed Labor's copyright policy.The Printing Industries Association of Australia said it welcomed the policy, in particular the provisions covering the 30 Day Rule, which is a `use it or lose it' provision that provides the Australian book manufacturing industry with a window of opportunity to produce longer trade runs publications locally. Printing Industries National President, John Flynn, said the policy had wide ranging positive impacts on the book printing sector of the industry which has an annual turnover of more than $300 million.The Australian Publishing Association press release, with the headline `Book industry welcomes Labor's parallel import policy', said:Sandy Grant, the President of the Australian Publishers Association, today welcomed the launch of the ALP's parallel import policy. Speaking at the launch today, Mr Grant said, `The book publishing industry welcomes this very swift response by the Labor Party to the government's untimely and ill-conceived announcement on parallel imports.I could go on forever reading from those press releases, but I think we need to ask ourselves: why would this government ignore the printing industry and place it in jeopardy, and yet spend a paltry $83 million on a package to try to help those sugar farmers in Queensland? The answer is quite simple: five National Party seats. What we are talking about here is protection—not protection in the industry sense of the term but protection of the government's own position in trying to bail out five National Party MPs who are hell-bent on being destroyed simply because of the policies they pursue. That is a common factor. They have obviously learnt the lesson of the National Party in Victoria who were absolutely devastated at the last state election. I think there are some five National Party members in the lower house as we speak. They have paid the price because, quite frankly, in their electorates they roar like lions when they advocate their cause for regional Australia but when it comes to standing up to their coalition partners they squeak like fieldmice. The amusing side of all that is that in Victoria the fieldmice are now all field marshals. In fact, all of the National Party members of parliament—the few that are left—have now all got portfolio responsibilities. They are all shadow ministers. Those of us on the Labor Party side will not need to be concerned about that, because they will continue to do what they have always done, which is not much.We are seeing the possibility of the printing industry being devastated. We have seen a pretty paltry rescue package for the sugar industry. I think the industry was requesting some $700 million and what we saw was a figure of about $83 million. Obviously, $83 million divided by the five National Party seats works out to be quite an expensive exercise—imagine what would have happened if they had given them the whole $700 million. As I said, I did not begrudge the industry assistance. They needed it desperately. They have had it tough for such a long time, and I hope they are able to struggle through. I doubt whether they will be getting any more assistance from the Howard government. 2002517:04:0020025Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—On Friday, 15 September, an expected television audience of some 19 million nationally and some four billion internationally will tune in to share arguably the most significant moment in Australia's modern sporting history. We have witnessed daily the proud images of everyday Australians celebrating and cherishing their own Olympic moment with the arrival of the torch in their communities. We have felt the excitement mount as the media focused on our national sporting icons and captured the hype as the nation counts down the days until the opening ceremony beings. There is little doubt it is an event that has inspired a nation.I stand before this House today to tell one of the untold stories of the Olympics. It is a story of forgotten children in my electorate, and no doubt in others, who will grow up never knowing the significance of hosting an Olympic Games or understanding the history and meaning of the Olympic spirit and ideals. These children who did not get to witness the torch as it flew overhead on its way to more important destinations have not shared in the excitement and hype or seen the constant stream of stories and promotional material available, courtesy of the mainstream media. I am talking about children growing up in the communities of Coen, Laura, Lakeland, Bloomfield, Rossville, Mount Molloy and Julatten for whom commercial television remains out of reach.In these communities, the kids know that the Olympics are a big deal—they just do not know why. Recently, a teacher in the small town of Coen told me that, when she asked a class of 8- to 10-year-olds what the Olympics are, not one child in the room knew the answer. That in itself is a tragedy. Families growing up in communities such as Coen and Laura accept the disadvantages posed by geographic isolation. They accept their children will not have access to the same educational, sporting, entertainment and employment opportunities, but it is a lifestyle choice, albeit one they would not change for quids.However, it really gets hard to accept the total lack of television services when just about every other regional and remote community has access to not only one but two commercial channels in addition to the ABC and, in many cases, the SBS. The void in television services in these communities is by no means a new issue. Indeed, I have been raising this issue since coming to this place and lobbying on many telecommunications issues, but sadly with painfully slow progress. The sale of the second tranche of Telstra and the much publicised social bonus package was to have been a panacea for a massive injection of funding aimed at ensuring rural Australia would not be left behind in the age of telecommunications. The Rural Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund—or now appropriately Networking the Nation—generated considerable expectation when it was first launched. However, there has been disappointment and frustration in many communities in my electorate due to the guidelines for funding allocation. In saying this, I do not seek to detract from the good work being achieved in communities throughout Australia as a result of projects successful in gaining funding under Networking the Nation. But it has to be recognised that it is in no way addressing, nor is it intended to address, one of the single biggest areas of need in remote Australia, which is lack of infrastructure. Our hopes then turned to the establishment of the Television Black Spot Program, which promised to be our best opportunity to resolve some of the problems relating to total lack of TV services. With this in mind, I wrote to the Television Fund Unit during the department's public comment period to express my desire to see the criteria for the distribution of funds determined on the basis of need rather than the population of the areas affected. On 3 September last year I wrote: The electorate of Leichhardt covers 151,000 square kilometres and includes some of the most isolated and, I believe, disadvantaged rural communities in the country. Not one centre currently qualifies for the SBS extensions and for the majority of towns, self-help options are simply not an option.It is these communities that were promised the benefits of the further partial sale of Telstra and I fear that unless priorities are adjusted to reflect the original intent, that objective will not be achieved.For more than the year, communities in my electorate waited anxiously for the launch of the TV Black Spot Program and the subsequent release of guidelines for funding. As months slipped by and deadlines for the release were extended, hope faded of being able to get services established in time for the Olympics. However, this was nothing compared with the disappointment of discovering that many of the communities with the greatest level of need would be overlooked completely due to the setting of a minimum requirement of 100 households to be attached to the black spot program. I guess what I am trying to say is that the $1 billion of social bonus initiatives which promised so much really has not made an ounce of difference in the lives of my constituents living in the towns of Laura, Coen, Lakeland, Bloomfield, Rossville, Mount Molloy, Julatten and others. I am sure there are many here who would argue in defence of the 100 household limit—after all, there has to be a cut-off point somewhere. But I think these people fail to realise that this policy serves to further compound the inequity which already exists in the way government allocates funding. For example, the $10 million self-help subsidy is set up to assist only those communities with existing self-help facilities to gain a second commercial television service. This leaves remote communities that are unable to afford to fund self-help infrastructure in the first place with nowhere to go. Of course, there are also the generous subsidies offered under the Regional Communities Partnership whereby the federal government and NTL will assist self-help groups obtain access to transmission sites such as the ones that actually exist in Coen and Laura. Subsidising the costs associated with retransmitting commercial and national TV and radio services is certainly a step in the right direction. But I remain concerned about the ability of small, cash-strapped rural communities to pay for such services on an ongoing basis, particularly when the local authorities in these areas are struggling to maintain their rural road networks and other basic local services.The unfairness of capping funding to communities of 100 households or more fails to recognise the expectation and demand for services in communities of, say, 70, 80 or even 90 households who have absolutely no hope of ever funding commercial services themselves. The important point that needs to be emphasised in this debate about equitable access to television services is that for these communities it is much more of an issue than just entertainment. In areas of low employment where boredom is a major contributor to juvenile crime and substance abuse, access to television services becomes one more piece in the complex jigsaw puzzle of delivering better health outcomes to small remote communities. A recent consumer survey identified rugby league as the program in highest demand in regional areas in my electorate. Second was The bold and the beautiful, followed very closely by Days of our lives. It may be hard for some people who have grown up taking commercial TV for granted to understand the attraction of these programs. But if it means a woman can stay at home and watch The bold and the beautiful and not go down to the pub and pump half her pension through the pokies during the day, or if it means people could stay and watch the footy in the comfort of their own homes without dragging the family down to the pub to the only available satellite dish, then surely this is a good thing for our small remote and disadvantaged communities. Governments should not look at the provision of television services solely as an entertainment issue or as a services issue. It is also inescapably linked with the issues of health and economic and social wellbeing, and I strongly believe that the allocation of funding should be considered in that context. It is not all negative news. I am pleased to report here today that the efforts of the children of Coen have paid off, at least for the Olympics. I think this epitomises the never say die spirit of the communities of the Cape in that they refused to accept no for an answer and went out to find a way to get the Olympics. The Coen kids went about successfully raising funds to purchase a satellite dish, decoder and wide screen TV to be used in the community hall, which the kids are going to set up and decorate as a mini Olympic Village and public access point for anyone in Coen who wants to watch the Olympics. I want to acknowledge the efforts of their teacher, Megan Irvine, who rallied and focused the kids. But overall the real credit goes to the kids of the Coen State School, who have ensured not only that all of Coen is now able to watch the Olympics but also that there will be a long and lasting legacy of television infrastructure for Coen long after the Olympics have gone. I think we should all acknowledge that this is something in which a small group of children from one of the disadvantaged communities have really made a change for the better for their own community. Finally, I would like to again implore the minister for communications, who I know is acutely aware of and sympathetic to the problems in my electorate, to amend the guidelines to allow some flexibility to ensure that funding is delivered first and foremost on a basis of need.2002717:14:0020027Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—Since this government took office in 1996, Australia has been criticised by a number of United Nations bodies on several occasions for both failing to report properly and for breaching the substantive requirements of UN conventions to which we are signatory. This year alone there have been three major criticisms from the United Nations. The first was about the mandatory sentencing regime in the Northern Territory in particular. The second was in relation to the treatment of illegal immigrants or refugees, particularly in relation to the two-year waiting period for social security benefits. The third and most recent was on our record of addressing disadvantage suffered by indigenous Australians. Australia's response, instead of attempting to improve our record in this area, has been to withdraw from the United Nations processes to a great degree. This is an enormous shame. Australia has had a good history of promoting human rights in the international arena. The first Secretary-General of the United Nations, Doc Evatt, a leading Australian, was someone whom most Australians were very proud of in the early days of the United Nations. Since 1996 our status as a country at the forefront of human rights has changed. Just last week, when the government announced that it would not ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and on the weekend, when the United Nations committee released its report into the state of indigenous disadvantage in Australia, our standing in this area has been shaken quite dramatically. I think it is fair to say that this government's record in relation to discrimination against women has been consistently bad. When the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women met to consider the third periodic report that Australia produced on meeting its obligations under CEDAW, the comments of the committee were damning. The report was late and the committee made a number of unfavourable comments, including that it was `concerned about the government's apparent shift in attention and commitment to the human rights of women and the achievement of gender equality', and further that it was `alarmed by policy changes that apparently slowed down or reversed Australia's progress in achieving equality between women and men such as in housing and child-care programs and in employment assistance'. The government's further refusal last week to sign the Optional Protocol to CEDAW allowing women to complain to the United Nations if they ran out of domestic options will further entrench this government's reputation for turning back gains in equality for women. The irony is that on the same day as Australia was announcing that it was refusing to sign, Saudi Arabia—not a country known for its promotion of the equality of women—was signing this optional protocol. Dame Beryl Beaurepaire said that it was `very unfortunate that the government had refused to ratify the optional protocol'. She said that Australian women needed the extra protection of recourse to the UN `because we never know what sort of government we may have in the future'. I do not think she was looking too far into the future. The government has also been subject to criticism from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The committee has twice used its urgent early warning and action procedures to criticise the government's Native Title Act amendments, its policy on land rights and the changes to the position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. In the report of the committee handed down in March this year the committee expressed its concern over the government's `unsatisfactory response' to the two earlier decisions of the committee relating to indigenous land rights. The committee has expressed `its serious concern' that the government's policy `risked creating an acute impairment of the rights' of indigenous Australians. It has also expressed its concern about `the apparent loss of confidence by the indigenous community in the process of reconciliation' and recommended that the government `take appropriate measures to ensure that the reconciliation process is conducted on the basis of robust engagement and effective leadership so as to lead to meaningful reconciliation'. Since the report was tabled, many hundreds of thousands of people have marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge and in other capital cities calling for reconciliation and a formal apology, yet this government continues to deny those things to the Aboriginal community and instead has spent several millions of dollars contesting the claim of two Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory for acknowledgment of the abuse that they suffered at the hands of the institutions they were taken to when they were taken from their mothers. The committee has specifically expressed its `concern that the government does not support a formal national apology and that it considers inappropriate the provision of monetary compensation for those forcibly and unjustifiably separated from their families'. The committee also expressed its grave concerns about mandatory sentencing in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Of mandatory sentencing the committee said: The mandatory sentencing schemes appear to target offences that are committed disproportionately by indigenous Australians, especially juveniles, leading to a racially discriminatory impact on their rate of incarceration. The committee seriously questions the compatibility of these laws with the state party's obligations under the convention and recommends the state party—that is, Australia—review all laws and practices in this field. The racial discrimination committee also criticised Australia for the treatment of asylum seekers, whom the Minister for Immigration continues to refer to as `illegal boat people' and `queue jumpers'. The committee recommended strongly that Australia implement faithfully the Convention on the Status of Refugees and the protocol thereto. The two-year wait for benefits by these people was brought up by a number of non-government organisations that appeared before the United Nations committee. Mandatory detention under the Migration Act raises questions of compliance with article 9, paragraph 1 of the covenant, which provides that no person shall be subject to arbitrary detention. The committee also urged Australia to be more mindful of ensuring that asylum seekers are aware of their legal rights and making sure that they have access to those legal rights. After these criticisms, instead of taking a little time to reflect on our record in this area the government has picked up its bat and ball and decided to go home. The Attorney-General said that, by comparison with countries where people `have their arms cut off', Australia is a model citizen. Of course, if you come from a country where you have your arms cut off for belonging to the wrong political party and arrive in Australia the wrong way, you are very likely under this government to be sent home to have your arms cut off.The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade were written to by the minister for immigration and asked whether we should re-examine our participation in the convention on torture. We heard about this just today in question time. They wrote back saying that perhaps it was a bit of a disproportionate response given that it has only been used seven times.There has been a great deal of criticism of Australia's stand in saying that we will re-examine our participation in the UN treaty and the UN treaty system. Some of the criticism has come from Philip Alston, the brother of the communications minister, who is also the head of the law department at the European University Institute. He said:We really are inviting some of the thugs of the world to come along and say `Jolly good Australia, we're right with you, we also agree that we shouldn't be held accountable for our human rights record.' Some of those people in Rangoon will be able to tell the minister for foreign affairs pretty directly of their view of our human rights record. In a context where we are withdrawing from participation in the United Nations, Alexander Downer is doing his best to repair the damage done in the region by organising a seminar on human rights in Rangoon. It is good to see that we are working on our relations with one of the most repressive regimes in the region! The Prime Minister at the moment is in New York trying to explain to the United Nations why we have taken the position that we have. I think that it is more likely that he is going to add insult to injury in this area and continue to play to the domestic market, as he has been doing all along with this issue—and perhaps pitch it to the same audience that the minister for immigration has been pitching his dog whistle messages to, target the same audience that the minister for immigration has been targeting. After all, there is an audience that likes to hear criticisms of the United Nations. (Time expired)2002917:24:0020029McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I wish to draw the attention of the House to the Regional Forest Agreement of Western Victoria and indicate that that outcome is in accord with the world's best forestry practice. The RFA process was set in train by the previous Labor government. I commend them for that. It was followed on by the Howard Liberal government in 1996. Put very simply, the RFA process is a cooperation between the state government and the federal government, forest industries and environmental groups, all contributing to the negotiations, which come to a final figure. It is interesting to note that the RFA process was brought about by the national forests policy statement in 1992—again a brainchild of the Keating government which we agree with. The RFA is based on a scientific measure of what is sustainable in the forests. In the case of the Otways, or the Western Victorian RFA, 27,000 cubic metres of forests have been allocated for harvesting. This figure represents a sizeable reduction in the available land for timber harvesting—so much so that there were indications at the local level that we would have been happy to have 44,000 cubic metres per annum, which was the figure agreed to by the Kirner government in its study in 1991. The RFA puts into place an agreement between the Prime Minister and the Premier of the state for a 20-year agreement where all parties know what amount of timber will be taken from that area. It gives a security of supply to the timber producers. Unfortunately, despite the final outcome of the RFA, some groups, especially the green groups in the Otways, particularly one, the Otway Ranges Environment Network, refuse to accept the scientific basis of the agreement. They are ideologically opposed to timber harvesting in Western Victoria—and to all forest industries in the state, for that matter. But the `green' arguments are not based on any genuine, scientific basis, and I emphasise that fact. The Greens claim that biodiversity is threatened and that the annual yield of 27,000 cubic metres is not sustainable. There is no scientific basis for this broad assertion. The truth is that timber harvesting actually promotes healthy forests. There is strong scientific evidence to indicate that timber harvesting can promote biodiversity. For example, a 1994 report of a University of Melbourne botanist, Dr Peter Attiwill, indicates that disturbing part of a forest through harvesting promotes the growth of many plant and animal species. Minister Tuckey referred to this report in question time today. This research supports the view that planned timber harvesting is ecologically sustainable and plays a vital role in maintaining healthy forests. The report is entitled `Ecological disturbance and the conservative management of eucalypt forests in Australia' and is found in `Forest Ecology and Management', volume 63 of 1994, at page 334. The author has this to say:... the proposal that planned timber harvesting is ecologically sustainable and that its effects can be contained within the framework of natural disturbance is generally applicable to Australian forests. Through planned disturbance of some portion of the forests estate by harvesting, we create a mosaic of classes so that diversity is maintained for the future. For those eucalypt forests which depend on catastrophic disturbance for their perpetuation, this planning is in my view, essential. The respected science writer Graeme O'Neill, writing all the way back in 1993, noted in Time magazine of September 6: Ecologists now recognise that sudden, destructive change is not only a natural force in environments as diverse as forests and coral reefs, but may actually invigorate ecosystems and generate biodiversity. The primary means of natural disturbance in Victorian mountain ash forests has traditionally been fire. The devastating 1939 fires are a case in point: we see these marvellous forests rejuvenated to their current state. Fires have been limited in modern times. However, they have historically been an important aspect of forest management. Dr Attiwill argues that the science of natural disturbance needs to be maintained. On page 302 of his report he writes: Management of forests for all their benefits should therefore be based on the ecology of natural disturbance so that the effects of forest management are contained within the effects of natural disturbance. It is noted that properly managed timber harvesting can actually make for good conservation. Dr Attiwill goes on to stress the importance of fire in the evolution, development and maintenance of Australian fauna. He notes at page 313 that there is:... little evidence of marked change in understorey composition after clear felling and burning in tall open forest.Local green groups use some misleading and emotive assumptions. They say they are opposed to clear-felling and point to the fact that harvested areas have vegetation removed. The greens conveniently ignore the key facts. Firstly, all logs harvested must be replaced with seedlings and there must be no net loss of trees. Diversity of tree type is maintained in the replanting. Secondly, the greens conveniently overlook the fact that only a tiny percentage of the forest can be harvested in any one year. Only 0.3 per cent—that is, one-third of one per cent—of publicly owned land in the Otways can be harvested in any one year. That is a very key feature in this whole debate. This is a very small percentage of the forest. All of the trees harvested must be replaced and will grow to become mature trees over the 40-year to 80-year cycle. The greens go on to claim that certain vegetation is used for woodchipping and that this is in some way wrong. Again, for the tiny proportion of the forest that is harvested, outside of the 40-year-old-plus sawlogs which are the most valuable, there is some residual timber. This residual timber can either be burnt—I note that particularly—and destroyed or it can be used. A disadvantage of burning residual timber is the creation of greenhouse gases, which the green movement would thoroughly agree with. Residual logs arise from harvesting and are too defective or small to meet sawlog specifications. They can be used for pulpwood, firewood or craftwood. The amount used for firewood in western Victoria is 244,000 tonnes per annum. In 1997-98, firewood produced $223,000 in royalty revenues, amounting to more than 90 per cent of the non-pulp and non-sawlog product revenue. So firewood contributed a considerable amount of both usage and royalty to the state government. Midway, which operates the woodchip operation in Geelong, will receive 20,000 small diameter logs until 2002. They have a guarantee of supply. Australian forest products exports amounted to $1.25 billion in the 1997-98 financial year. In the end, much of this wood is used for woodchips, which incidentally earn hundreds of millions of dollars annually for exporters in Australia.Another claim of the green movement is that there is a link between forest industries and drought in western Victoria. This argument has been used very strenuously over the last 12 months, during the dry times. There is no evidence that timber harvesting in western Victoria is the cause of low water levels. Dr Rob Vertessy, a respected water scientist from the Australian Institute of Hydrology, has gone on the record on this important subject. He has noted publicly that as only 0.3 per cent—less than one per cent—of publicly owned land in the Otways is harvested in any one year there would be no significant effect by forestry upon water levels in the region. Recent low water levels are better explained by the lowest three-year rainfall total in western Victoria for 140 years.Another `green' argument is that tourism in the Otways is threatened by timber harvesting. But timber harvesting and tourism can co-exist. The greens' argument is contradicted by the facts. Tourism is growing at a steady rate in the Otways, unhindered by the existence of forest industries. With an ongoing timber industry, there were more than 100,000 international visitors to western Victoria in 1998 alone, as the Bureau of Tourism Research indicates. This is little wonder, when you consider that only 0.3 per cent of public owned land in the Otways is harvested in any one year. If forest industries were affecting the tourist situation, then tourists would not be coming in increased numbers. What is at stake is good conservation—controlling timber harvesting is good for the ecology. There are 5,000 local families and jobs dependent on the timber industry; 700 people involved in sawmilling, 200 people in residual log processing; and 300 people in forest management, logging and haulage. Local jobs are the important feature. There is no sound environmental reason to stop the forest industries operating in the Otways. It would do untold economic damage in the area of Colac-Birregurra if the greens got their way and there was a cessation of logging and timber operations in the Otways, as they propose most of the time.2003115:34:0020031Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Our public hospitals are in a state of crisis due to chronic underfunding by state and federal Liberal governments. This underfunding occurred over much of the nineties, after the Liberals won government first at a state level then federally. Over the last couple of years the federal Labor government was in office, it increased public hospital funding substantially but the response from the conservative states was to use it as an opportunity to cut an equivalent amount from their own contribution to public hospital funding. One state premier who did this was Dean Brown. He cut South Australia's contribution to its own public hospitals by more than $100 million a year during that period. He is of course the same Dean Brown who now, as health minister, calls for more funding for South Australia's public hospitals from both his Liberal Premier and his Liberal Prime Minister. Indeed, the federal health minister claims the state government is continuing to use every increase in federal funding to replace, not supplement, the state's contribution. On July 10, he told the Advertiser: According to the 2000 State Budget, total spending on public hospitals last year was $1500 million. The Federal grant made up $506 million of this, while $994 million came from the State Government.Next year total spending is estimated at $1506 million. The Federal Government grant will be $532 million, while $974 million will come from the State. So what has happened? Federal grant up $26 million, State funding down $20 million.Meanwhile the states have been complaining that the independent review of the Medicare agreement conducted by the former Commonwealth Statistician, Ian Castles, which recommended a national increase of $628 million, was ignored by the Howard government.Mr Brown claimed that the South Australian health budget would be hit by GST compliance costs, new fringe benefits tax obligations on doctors' salary packages and an inadequate top-up of the Medicare agreement, together costing $67.5 million in 2000-01. Certainly the global budget increase for South Australia of $6 million for 2000-01 referred to by the federal health minister is derisory in the face of not only these extra cost pressures but the rising demand associated with an aging population. Commonwealth Grants Commission figures reveal that total state and federal health spending for South Australians has dropped from being the second highest in Australia to the second or third lowest. In 1993 total health spending in South Australia was 10 per cent more per person than the national standard. By 1996-97, the first year of the Howard government, total health spending per person in South Australia was six per cent less than the national standard. This is supported by the Evatt Foundation's annual State of the States report. It concludes that South Australia rates second-worst in terms of the quality of its health system.While the state and federal Liberal health ministers are arguing amongst themselves about who is responsible for the inadequate funding of our public hospitals when clearly they are both to blame, what are the effects on hospitals and their patients? First of all, let us look at three of my constituents. Firstly, a Christies Downs man, who had been diagnosed with cancer and had been waiting for admission to hospital for treatment for 10 weeks, was advised to report to the Flinders Medical Centre on 13 June but on arrival was informed that he could not be admitted because there was no bed for him. His doctor was furious and referred him to me. This is such a standard event I knew exactly what had happened even before I rang the hospital. The health minister's letter to me confirmed what, regrettably, is now not an unusual situation. He said:In circumstances where a patient is scheduled to be admitted to a public hospital for planned treatment, it is not always possible to guarantee that a bed will be available on the day of admission. This is because all public hospitals and especially those hospitals with a busy emergency department, such as Flinders Medical Centre, are required to give priority to patients who require very urgent or emergency treatment. This obviously impacts on the availability of beds at times of great demand, especially in winter months when many older people suffer respiratory problems following influenza. Such patients often require emergency admission for medical treatment and this may result in the cancellation of some non-urgent planned and elective procedures. Someone who has been diagnosed with cancer and has already had to wait 10 weeks for chemotherapy is not going to share Mr Brown's view that their treatment is non-urgent or elective. Similarly, another constituent, a man from Morphett Vale, contacted me in July to complain that he had been on the waiting list at the Flinders Medical Centre for a heart valve replacement for eight months. He saw his specialist, who expressed surprise that it had not been done yet and said that the valve was deteriorating and that the procedure was now urgent. I was surprised that he had been waiting for eight months for a heart procedure since I had previously believed that the waiting list for so-called elective heart surgery was only six months. Of course, even in six months most heart conditions will become either urgent or fatal.Then there are cases where the patient is unlikely to die on the waiting list. Many patients are being left much longer, even if they are in significant pain. Take the case of a woman from Seaford Rise who contacted my office in July because she had just been told that she would have to wait 2½ years for a hip replacement at either the Flinders Medical Centre or Daws Road. Her response to that news was to consider treatment as a private patient. Unfortunately, that is simply not an option for many of my constituents, despite the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. There has been some response from the state government on the waiting time for orthopaedic surgery. On 22 August the state health minister wrote to me, responding to a letter that I had sent, drawing to his attention another of my constituents who was waiting to have a hip replacement at the Flinders Medical Centre. He said:I can assure you that hip replacement surgery continues to be performed at the FMC. However, as there are finite resources available to public hospitals, I regret that there are waiting lists for non-urgent surgery and some services will not be in a position to meet all needs as quickly as we would wish.As you may be aware, I have recently announced an additional $4.5 million funding package for elective surgery, with $3.5 million going to metropolitan hospitals. A substantial proportion of these funds will be specifically targeted at those who will have to wait longest for hip and knee replacements.Joint replacement surgery is an area of increasing need in South Australia with its growing elderly population. In response to this need, the Department of Human Services is undertaking a clinical review of orthopaedic services in this State. This review will highlight problem areas and I anticipate that it should facilitate some further re-allocation of resources to services where there is increasing demand. I also understand that the FMC is involved in a project to work with local general practitioners in the development of an objective and integrated process for the assessment of, priority for, and clinical management of, patients waiting for joint replacement.The minister attached a press release to his letter. In part it says:Waiting times for joint surgery can be up to 15 months for an outpatient appointment and a further 12 months for surgery.Something of an understatement, I think. It seems the South Australian government is now in the mode of transferring funds to alleviate some of the problems in the public health system that it has helped to create and is foreshadowing further reallocations. The question is whether those reallocations are going to cause problems elsewhere. Realistically, greater funding is required. I have received some budget information from the Flinders Medical Centre that shows that, for the 2000-01 financial year, the hospital has unfunded cost pressures totalling $3.2 million. It also has further funded cost pressures that are $300,000 short of the actual costs. These deficiencies are part of the continuing process of running down our public hospital system. It is worth looking at this rundown since 1993 when the state Liberals were elected. In 1992-93 the FMC had the equivalent of 914 full-time nurses, rising to 936 in 1993-94. Today there are just 881. The overall number of doctors has increased from 315 to 356 full-time equivalents, due to changes in award conditions which reduced the standard working week from 43 to 37½ hours. While the nursing staff has been reduced and doctor numbers have remained about the same, patient demand has increased significantly. The emergency department at the FMC is the third largest in Australia and this year it will account for 20,266 admissions, up from about 18½ thousand in 1992-93. All other categories of patient numbers either remain steady or are growing. The exception is the number of same day patients, which has more than doubled from slightly less than 10,000 in 1992-93 to slightly over 20,0000 this year. That twice as many patients are being admitted, treated and discharged in the same day is due largely to improvements in medical technology. The other factor that is impacting on the hospital is the need to free beds for other patients. In 1992-93 there were 464 beds, rising to 471 the following year. The FMC now has only 402 operational beds. The occupancy rate is 95 per cent. When the hospital is full, ambulances are forced to drive past the FMC to other places. There have been 13 instances since last October in which such diversions have been the general case. (Time expired)2003317:44:0020033St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—The Australian Labor Party has left the lifeblood of this nation, the road transport industry, out to dry. This industry is a major mover of both raw materials and final product, not just in rural and regional Australia but also in the metropolitan areas of our great cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. As many of the honourable members in this House know, I have been involved with this industry for the last 30 or so years. The Labor Party has let down not only the transport industry but also small business throughout Australia, in particular small business in the metropolitan areas. Currently in Australia there are around 326,000 trucks that have a gross vehicle mass of 4½ tonnes or more. The majority are based in metropolitan areas. It is these trucks and transporters and their drivers that have been let down by the Labor Party. It is this group that does not benefit from the reduction of 17c per litre through the diesel fuel rebate scheme. The Labor Party may have been opposed to the new tax system and particularly the GST—remembering, as has often been said in this place, that they oppose the GST so much that if they ever should get back into government they will keep it. However, they had the opportunity to vote for and support the original diesel fuel rebate scheme, along with the $12 billion cut in personal income taxes, and they did not take it. Let me clarify what I have said: the opposition voted against a 17c per litre cut in the excise on diesel for the road transport industry in rural and regional Australia. They also voted against tax cuts worth $12 billion that are now benefiting the whole of the Australian work force, thanks to the Democrats.Many of the small businesses in the transport industry are run by owner-drivers and are located in the capital cities around Australia. Most of the owner-drivers drive trucks of between 4½ tonnes and 20 tonnes GVM—trucks which receive no benefit whatsoever from the 17c per litre reduction in excise on diesel under the diesel fuel grants scheme. Not only did the Labor Party vote against the diesel fuel grants scheme and the personal income tax cuts for the small businesses and people of Australia but also they had a chance to support the original diesel fuel grants scheme, which gave that 17c per litre rebate to every truck over 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass in Australia. The Labor Party voted against this. In doing so, they directly hurt over 15,000 small businesses—indirectly, who knows? The Labor Party is the only group that can be to blame for the fact that some small businesses are now hurting. Let us remember who it was that introduced dramatic increases in excise on both petrol and diesel and who increased the excise over their 13 years in government by some 550 per cent—the Australian Labor Party. This brings me to another matter: the misleading and scaremongering tactics of the Labor Party when it comes to the fuel excise question at the moment. Let me remind the House which government it was that set the increase of excise to indexation—it was the 1983 Labor government. The spreading of misinformation is coming from all levels of the Labor Party. For example, there was a letter in the Sun Herald last Sunday entitled `Honesty Please' which showed that the Australian people are sick to death of the dishonesty coming out of the Labor Party. I would like to quote a few lines from that letter:Labor and Country Labor want us to alter history to ignore what Whitlam, Hawke and Keating did to our industry and our jobs. When Martin Ferguson visits rural areas he says it is to explain the high cost of petroleum and he says he can explain the reason the Howard Coalition refuses to abolish the fuel excise.It then goes on to say:If he (Martin Ferguson) is entirely honest, he will not fail to tell the rural people that in 1983 it was the Labor Hawke and Keating government that introduced a biannual excise on ... petrol and diesel which amounts to a tax on a tax.This letter shows that people are starting to see through the rhetoric of the Labor Party in their policy to mislead the people of this great nation. Their tactics are failing, as their leadership has already failed. The new tax system, the diesel fuel grants scheme and excise on petrol and diesel are not the only areas in which the opposition has failed. I would like to remind the House that it was the Labor Party that made the deal on the closure of the analog phone system which affected so many of us in rural and regional Australia. They closed the system without a replacement system in place. It was our government that put into place the CDMA network, which is turning out to be highly successful. In my electorate of New England, support for the CDMA scheme is high and the availability of that program is terrific.For over a decade, from 1983 to 1996, this nation had no leadership when it came to small business or the transport industry. Now that a coalition government is in power, small businesses like those in the transport industry have strong support, which can be seen in our policies and in the new tax system. The road transport industry, both in regional and rural Australia and in metropolitan areas, needs support. This support is coming through strong and productive representatives from both the industry and the government. What a pity it is not coming through the member for Batman and the rest of the Labor team. Due to my practical background in the industry, I have had the opportunity to be part of these productive talks, and I look forward to a positive outcome. The Labor Party in its frontbench is a party with no direction and no policies when it comes to the transport industry or small business. As I have said in the House before, the Labor Party is the cholesterol to the road transport industry. It is out of government, out of policies and out of touch with the needs of small business. If the member for Batman thinks that he can hoodwink regional Australia or the transport industry with the rubbish he puts out, then he is sadly mistaken.One of the great concerns the road transport industry has, particularly subcontractors, is the fact that their pay rates and their freight rates have not reflected the rates of increase for registration, fuel and other items. There is great concern out there among those owner-operators and owner-drivers about whether they succumb to pressure by some of the large companies to reduce their prices even further. Their concern has to do with how the ACCC will view that. In a letter that Professor Allan Fels, the chairman of the ACCC, has written to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, he raises the issue of the commission receiving a number of complaints regarding the way in which prime contractors are forcing subcontractors to accept lower rates in order to pass through the new tax savings to customers. He goes on to say in that letter: However, the new tax system changes have not occurred in isolation. Fuel prices have fluctuated as have many other input costs, such as registration, insurance and wages. It is legitimate that these other factors be considered in freight rate negotiations. The price exploitation legislation does not prevent other factors from being incorporated in prices. In fact, section 75AU(2)(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 requires the Commission and the Court to consider other relevant factors, such as suppliers costs and supply and demand conditions, that may influence prices.The Commission is currently considering a number of alleged cases of unconscionable conduct in the transport industry and is in the process of seeking evidence from the complainants.At this time of volatility in fuel prices, we need to support the owner-drivers, those who are working as subcontractors for interstaters and, of course, the people who do our deliveries in the metropolitan areas, who failed to receive the 17c a litre reduction in excise that this government passed.10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills20035S25720035Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills20035R112820035Debate resumed from 29 June, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.17:55:0020035Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 provides Commonwealth government funding for every school in every state and territory, public and private, from 2001 to 2004. Raising the standard of education is the greatest challenge our country faces. Improving educational opportunities for every student at every school must be our goal. As members of parliament, we meet many school students through presenting flags at school assemblies, at the Anzac Day services in April and at the presentation days and graduation balls at the end of the year. Local members also face tough interrogation when primary school students visit Parliament House here in Canberra or when we are invited to speak to civics classes. On a typical day there are three million students attending school somewhere in Australia. While many students do not have the opportunity to travel to Canberra because of the distance or the cost, on a typical day there are 380 students visiting Canberra on official excursions. On most sitting days at question time, if you look up, there are dozens of students looking down from the public galleries.We could debate here tonight how important this bill is to the three million students at all Australian schools. Or we could debate the hundreds of students who will visit parliament today and how they will be affected by this bill. Or we could focus on its impact on the students who will be in Parliament House at question time tomorrow. Instead, today I want to focus on what this debate and what this bill can mean to just one of those children. For that young Australian, the whole debate about the future of education can be summed up in one question. It is a question we were all asked many times when we were young, and it is still probably the most common question that adults ask children: what do you want to be when you grow up? That question is so frequently asked that we may not think about the hidden assumptions, the hidden questions that lie behind it. What can you do? What can you expect to do?Our focus on education and training is about lifting expectations so that every child not just believes but knows that they have a chance to go on to obtain a decent, satisfying, secure job. The next time you look up at one of those students in the gallery—or the next time you ask a child what they want to be when they grow up—if Australia is doing the right thing in education, if you look hard enough you will perhaps see a policeman, an electrician, a nurse, a farmer, a scientist, a builder, a tour-bus driver, a designer, an actor, a doctor, a plumber, a lawyer, a hairdresser, an engineer, a computer programmer, a small business operator, a biologist or a teacher. If Australia's education and training is outstanding, that child will have all of those choices. That child will reach his or her full potential. Raising the standard of education and training in Australia does not just open up new career choices for young people who are at risk of dropping out or disconnecting from our society and it does not just open up better career choices for students; it also opens up new possibilities for our country. Every unemployed person, every untrained worker, every underemployed researcher is not just a personal tragedy; it is a lost opportunity for all of us. It is a lost opportunity for the whole nation.This bill proposes to set the funding available from the federal government for schools. Funding is important if you want to improve schools—and I will say more about that later. But improving education is about more than money. That is why, as Labor's shadow education minister, I set out earlier this year to signal that the Labor Party believes that one of the most important questions that we have to face up to is: how can we improve the quality of teaching in the classroom?There is an enormous amount of research, particularly from the United States by Professor Linda Darling-Hammond, indicating that the American states which have invested the most in improving the quality of teaching in the classroom have shown the greatest improvement in performance in literacy and numeracy. In the United States, it is the states which have invested the most in training their teachers which have shown the biggest improvement in the performance of students.Let me say a few things about teachers. After our family, teachers have the greatest influence on our learning. Students even spend twice as much time with their teachers as they do watching television—which perhaps is hard to believe. I am sure everyone in this chamber tonight can remember at least one outstanding teacher from their school days. For me it was our science teacher. Phosphorus was set alight, cubes of sodium danced on water, chlorophyll separated into its components on blotting paper and esters were made from pineapple juice—Queensland pineapple juice, I am sure.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—I made copper sulphate crystals.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—And others made copper sulphate crystals, as the member indicates. Unfortunately, most of us were too young to remember the early primary school teachers who helped us learn numbers, letters and words, or the teacher who provided remedial help when our reading slipped behind the rest of the class. So many teachers are still changing people's lives every day in every school. The best teachers know that, no matter how well they teach today, they are going to have to do even better in the future. The future of young Australians depends in large measure on how well teachers and their families prepare them for the rapidly changing society in which we live. We are demanding more and more from our teachers, our schools and our students. Young people do not need just a thorough grounding in the basic skills to read, write and add up. They need to be competent in using a computer and the Internet. They need inquiring minds, a thirst for knowledge and skills for the workplace. They need to be equipped to deal with changing social problems and, most importantly, they will need to be able to undertake a lifetime of learning as the nature of work and training changes. Very few of the current generation of young students will have the same job throughout their working lives. They will need to have the skills to train and retrain for the new career opportunities that will emerge. Labor has tried to emphasise that at the moment in Australia we are not spending enough on the professional development of our teachers. We seem to think it is quite normal for motor mechanics working at the local car dealership to regularly undergo refresher training to ensure that their skills stay up to date. Why should we think that teachers do not need as much investment in their professional development as motor mechanics at car dealerships? There are real concerns. There is some evidence that in one state 25 per cent of teachers teaching maths and science are not qualified to teach maths and science. How can we hope to imbue in young students a love of maths and science if they are not being taught by teachers who have the basic foundations, through their own teacher education, to provide the standard of education those students need? It is not just unfair to the PE teacher who is asked to teach maths or science in a country school; it is more unfair to the students who are in that PE teacher's class. Because of those concerns, Labor has outlined its plan to provide greater federal government funding for professional development. We have proposed a series of professional development partnerships with teachers. Labor has proposed to offer to fund the cost of professional development for teachers, especially in areas of high need. We will also offer to provide a $2,000 completion bonus to teachers who will undertake training and professional development in their own time. We particularly want to target the teachers who are teaching outside their area of specialty. We want to ensure that more teachers have better understanding of how to incorporate IT in classroom teaching. We also want to encourage those teachers who can then communicate new ideas and better teaching practice to their colleagues at their own school and at neighbouring schools.Another way to improve the quality of teaching in the classroom is Labor's plan to offer a new system of teacher scholarships. Labor's plan is all about encouraging more of our best high school graduates to consider a career in teaching. Because of the changes this government has made through the introduction of differential HECS, we are now asking students who undertake a specialty degree to repay more in HECS than people who undertake an undergraduate degree to education. The typical teacher graduate repays about $1,500 a year of HECS for the first 10 years after they graduate. Labor's plan is to forgive that $1,500 a year HECS debt for each year that they stay in teaching. If they teach for 10 years, it will mean that Labor's teacher scholarship will forgive all of their HECS debt—they will pay no HECS. If they teach for five years and then shoot through, it will mean that they will have their HECS debt forgiven for five years and then they will have to meet their HECS obligation. Our teacher scholarships are a plan to encourage more of our best students to consider a vocation in teaching.Recently, at Labor's national conference in Hobart, our leader outlined a number of other issues—our proposals for education priority zones, our proposals to abolish the enrolment benchmark adjustment and a plan to introduce a site on the Internet called the `Learning Gateway'. If someone asks me what the educational priority zones are all about, it brings us back to that question which I said is at the heart of the debate about the need to invest more in education and training. It is that question which we put to young people: what do you want to be when you grow up? In many cases in many poor parts of our country, there is a gap between the two hidden questions. The first hidden question is: what do you have the ability to be? The second hidden question is: what do you expect to be? Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, in electorates like yours, I am sure you meet children every day who have the ability to do any of the careers that I outlined earlier—to be a researcher, to be a biologist, to be a doctor, to be a lawyer, to have a career in tourism, to have a secure and challenging job throughout life. In many cases, the expectations of teachers and parents are low. In many cases, that means that the expectations of the students are too low. What the education priority zones are all about is raising those expectations, making sure that they do have ambitious goals about what they can expect to be in their working life. There are some problems in our schools and there are problems with some of our teachers. Some students and their families have all sorts of problems. In a few states, and at the federal level, some governments themselves have been the cause of problems in schools, but there is enormous evidence that underperforming students and schools are often located in low socioeconomic areas. The causes are many and complex. Some would argue that the gap between these areas and our best schools is growing as the demands on schools and teachers increase, as social pressures on families increase and as the information revolution gives an advantage to those homes and schools which can afford the latest computers. The fact is that, when educational and social disadvantage overlap, the expectations—and the teachers—are often too low.What is worse is that, for the students, the gap between what they can be and what they expect to be is enormous. We need to raise these expectations. We need to break the cycle of poverty and underperformance in education. Labor's plan is to create several dozen of these education priority zones across the country. The education priority zones are about breaking that cycle of poverty and underperformance in education. Under this plan, the federal government will no longer be just a remote funder of schools. It is not good enough for the federal government to sign a cheque, post it off and think that is all it has to do. We have greater obligations in this parliament. Under the education priority zones, the federal government will be an active partner with local communities, seeking to harness the talent and enthusiasm of people at the local level to help turn around the performance of their schools. We will seek to encourage the involvement of local businesses. We also want to harness the enthusiasm of local councils in regions involved with education priority zones because we believe they have something to offer.The aim behind the education priority zones is to raise literacy levels in the schools in the zone. We want to lift the year 12 completion rates and encourage more of the local students to go to TAFE or to university. We also want to ensure that the locals feel that they have some ownership of the plan that will be developed to improve education in their local zone. We think that, if the locals develop the plan and if the locals monitor the operation of the plan, they are more likely to harness the involvement of local business houses, to have an active local council and to be a successful program.In some zones, they may decide that the best way to spend the extra federal money that will be allocated for a guaranteed period of four years is to spend it on employing extra remedial literacy teachers in their schools. They might decide in other zones that the best way is to focus on funding refresher training for teachers—investing more in the professional development of the teachers. In some zones they might also wish to allocate some of their education priority zone money for a mentor program. A local government school in my electorate has had a very successful mentor program operating with the support of the Dusseldorp Skills Forum. It is through the introduction of targeted plans, designed by the locals to help the locals solve their own education problems, that I think we have the best chance of turning around the performance. That was the first initiative announced at the federal conference—the introduction of education priority zones.Secondly, we are committed to abolishing the unfair and unjust enrolment benchmark adjustment—the EBA—which has already taken $60 million away from public schools across the country, despite the fact that there are 26,000 more students in government schools. It is an unfair one-way adjustment. In Tasmania, where a greater percentage of students are attending government schools, they get no increase in their funding—the EBA acts in only one direction. Under Dr Kemp's ideologically pure EBA, he has already taken $60 million away from government schools across the country. The third initiative that was announced at the national conference was our commitment to establish the learning gateway. The learning gateway is all about giving students better access to high quality Australian-made online content. It is all about ensuring that, if Australian students are doing a project on history, they are able to access an Australian developed, Australian-made history of Australia, not the Microsoft history of Australia. We believe the federal government has a role in helping to commission the best possible online content for Australian students. Whether it be in history, mathematics, the environment or biology, Australian students should have access to the best possible material. For parents, it means they will have access to sample tests or information on how their child is progressing through the learning gateway. It can give teachers and parents information on the curriculum and on course development aids. For students and parents, it will give them access to teachers online after normal school hours.I will turn now to the government's plans for funding schools in the next four years, as outlined in this legislation. I really wish I could say that this legislation meets the needs of students of Australian schools and that, as a result, it had the full support of both sides of the Australian parliament. Nothing would make me happier than to say that this legislation proposes generous increases in funding for the schools, both government and private, that need it. I regret to inform the House that Labor have serious concerns about the inadequate funding contained in this bill for government schools. We remain opposed to the unfair enrolment benchmark adjustment of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and we are concerned about the inadequate information that has been provided by the government on how funding will be distributed to non-government schools. From the information we have obtained to date, we have grave concerns about the unfair allocation of funding to private schools contained in this bill.Let me make a few points about Labor's attitude to school funding. Firstly, Labor support increased funding for needy non-government schools. Secondly, with the government having significantly increased funding for private schools, Labor support a matching significant increase in funding for government schools. Thirdly, Labor recognise that this bill must be approved by the parliament before the end of the year. The reason we recognise that is that this bill contains funding for every school—public and private—throughout the country, commencing on 1 January 2001. I formally move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes that the preliminary data available suggest that the proposed distribution of funding among non-government schools is profoundly unfair;(2) is of the opinion that, before the bill is debated, the Government must provide detailed, final figures on the cost of the policy changes contained in the bill and the new funding figures for each non-government school; and(3) condemns the Government for: (a) failing to provide a matching increase in funding for government schools; and (b) continuing its unfair Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment policy”.While it will not happen during my contribution to the debate, I also foreshadow that, at the earliest opportunity in this debate, the opposition will be seeking to adjourn the debate. My understanding is that this will take place after the member for Moreton has spoken and before the next opposition speaker gets to their feet. The reason we will be seeking to adjourn the debate is that the government to date has still not provided us with the information we need to determine whether this is a fair new system to fund non-government schools. The minister's office is quoted as saying that `the government wanted the bill passed even if the figures were not available'—that is, the figures that indicate how much extra funding is going to the various non-government schools. It is an insult to this parliament to ask us to pass any bill without any accurate figures on its effect. It is an insult to this parliament to expect us to debate a $22 billion school funding bill without first knowing what the consequences will be for schools across the country. It is also quite feasible for us to seek to adjourn the debate in this House and the Senate when the minister's office and the department have confirmed that all of the necessary data is expected to be available by the time the parliament resumes after the Olympics. We should also remember that this minister announced the new funding package in the 1999 budget in May and then proceeded to act with such urgency that he sat on his hands for 416 days before the legislation was introduced into the House. So, if there is any shortage of time, it is because the minister has been incompetent in the way he has managed the drafting and introduction of this legislation. So, as I say, we will move an adjournment at an appropriate time.I wish to talk a little about Labor's position on funding for non-government schools. The whole state aid debate divided the Labor Party greatly in the 1960s, and some would argue that it cost the Labor Party government in at least one state. I should point out that it was Kim Beazley Sr, the father of the current Leader of the Opposition, who together with the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, lanced the boil of the state aid debate—and not just within our party but for the public policy debate at that time in Australia. It was Whitlam and Beazley Sr who brought in the policy that funding for non-government schools would be allocated on a needs basis. The Hawke and Keating governments and people like former education minister Susan Ryan ensured that there were reasonable increases, significant increases, in funding for indigenous education, in particular, in non-government schools. It has been publicly recognised that Tom Stephens, the Labor leader in the Western Australian parliament, also played an important role in ensuring that indigenous students at non-government schools in the Kimberley got a fair deal.But the significant difference between those Labor governments and the Howard government is that those Labor governments also significantly increased funding for public education. Some people might say that there was not as great an increase as they would have liked, but no-one can deny that Labor tried to get the balance right in funding for government and non-government schools—something that is absent in this legislation we are debating today. When the new socioeconomic status funding system was proposed by Dr Kemp, Labor made it clear that we would support the new SES model if the government could prove it was fairer.One of the problems we have with the legislation is that, when it was announced in the 1999 budget, we were told that there would be an additional cost of $561 million over the period of the forward estimates. We were told that it would include $50 million over four years in additional funding for the Catholic school system. In the last few weeks, my office has been given a document by the government claiming that the funding for the Catholic school system is now to increase to $100 million a year—a lot more than we were told was the case with the $561 million mentioned in the budget papers in 1999. Yet, a few days ago, the government was still giving the Senate a figure claiming that the additional funding for all non-government schools was still the $561 million. So we are expected to debate a bill without knowing how much extra money is flowing to non-government schools. That is just a ridiculous position to be in. The first question is: `How does this new funding system work?' The minister's second reading speeches gave us some indication as to how it will work. The question is whether this new system is fairer. It uses a combination of parental income, parental educational attainment and parental occupation based on the addresses of the students who attend a particular school. Under this new formula, if a school is better off under the new funding mechanism they get the extra funding. If a school is going to be worse off, they will have their funding maintained. The Catholic school system has its funding set at 96 under the new SES index, except for the ACT. These changes are to be phased in over four years and everyone is to have their funding indexed by the AGSRC school cost index.We are entitled to ask who are the winners under this new funding system. Certainly the low fee Christian schools and low fee independent schools are winners. That is no surprise given that, certainly in my own electorate, many of the parents who send their children to the low fee Christian schools come from low and middle income families. It is appropriate that the parliament recognise that they should be entitled to a funding increase. They are needy schools and they are entitled to a funding increase, certainly under Labor's needs policy approach. But the biggest winners, according to the small titbits of information we have been able to extract from the government, are the category 1 schools. Of the 62 schools that are currently funded at category 1 under the old funding measure, 46 participated in the 1998 modelling exercise. Out of those 46 schools, 45 will receive an increase. I will not go through all the figures but this equates to an average increase for the category 1 schools of more than $820,000 a year by the year 2004, when this system will be fully phased in. That is an extra $50 million a year going to the 62 wealthiest category 1 schools. When we put this figure to the officials from Dr Kemp's own department they described it as `probably a good estimate'. The minister tries to muddy the water by redefining what a wealthy school is and he calls the opposition liars. But he cannot deny that his own department has confirmed these figures. He refuses to respond to the direct question of what is the average increase for the 62 category 1 schools. Some category 1 schools will get less than the $820,000 a year increase, but for every one below the average there will be one above it. We know who the liar is. Only Dr Kemp, only the minister for education would believe—EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr Stone—I think you had better rethink your wording.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Take a point of order if you want.10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Through the chair, please.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—`We know who the liar is.' If anyone thinks that is unparliamentary, that is a new development.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to take a point of order on the unparliamentary language used by the member for Dobell.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have to rule on the point of order. The member for Moreton has expressed it. For the parliamentary secretary at the table, if you wish to express a point, you express it through the chair. The member for Moreton has asked the member for Dobell to withdraw, and I think the member for Dobell should withdraw.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—What do you want me to withdraw? That I know who the liar is?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, the fact that Dr Kemp was the liar, and I ask you to withdrew that.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I never said that Dr Kemp was the liar. If that is your conclusion, I will withdraw the implication. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The implication has been withdrawn.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Madam Deputy Speaker, on a further point of order, I think the member for Dobell is attempting to mislead the House—and certainly to misrepresent me—because the Hansard record will clearly show what he said. It is not my interpretation, it is the English language, which he obviously does not have a very good command of.10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Moreton has raised a point of order, the member for Dobell has withdrawn the remark that was offensive to the member for Moreton, and now I will call the member for Dobell back into the debate. It has been withdrawn, and I acknowledge the point of order that was expressed by the member for Moreton.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—We know who the liar is. Only Dr Kemp would think that the best way to spend $50 million a year in education is to put it into the 62 wealthiest schools—the category 1 schools. We know that $50 million a year on education would go a long way to assisting government schools. They would have much greater needs than those category 1 schools. This is the way Dr Kemp is allocating funding in schools: an average increase of $820,000 a year for the 62 category 1 schools; an average $60,000 for the 1,600 Catholic schools across the country; and an average increase of only $4,000 a year, after cost indexation, for the 7,000 government schools across the country. Only Dr Kemp would think that the greatest need is in those category 1 schools.The government have made a number of claims about the new funding system. They claim that it is simple, transparent and fair. It is so simple and so transparent that the government refuse to give us the figures before we have to vote on it. They claim that it is so fair that even Dr Kemp has been forced to admit that, if a millionaire lives in a low-income community, they are treated like a low-income earner. How can that be fair? The minister claims that the National Catholic Education Commission support his new funding system. They support it so strongly that in the Senate committee they argued not for a pure SES model but for a model that combined socioeconomic status and the resources available to a school. The National Catholic Education Commission support this so strongly, they want it to apply to everyone but themselves. That is how much they support the new funding system.The government also claimed that the new funding system is equitable and fair. We make the point that only the minister for education would argue that a fair education system would allocate the biggest increases to the wealthiest schools. We know that this minister has been on a 10-year crusade to try to switch as many students as possible from public schools to private schools. We know, from the document we produced in the parliament last week, that this minister has been on a 10-year crusade to try to cut funding for government schools, and he does that through that unfair and unjust enrolment benchmark adjustment—an EBA which many of the people involved with the non-government sector have argued to the government should be repealed—and an EBA that has already taken $60 million from government schools across the country at the same time as Dr Kemp is trying to shovel a $50 million a year increase into the category 1 wealthy schools. For these reasons, Labor will press this second reading amendment. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—We have just heard from the member for Dobell a speech written and authorised by the teachers' union, the Australian Education Union. In the short time I have before we go to our usual break in proceedings, I want to outline exactly what he is saying. I will cut right through the code. One of the things he talked about was a new bureaucracy—a new form of government control and intervention in the planning of education needs. Everybody knows that it is the state governments that plan education in its application in the public sector. In fact, the state governments are responsible for 85 per cent of the funding of government schools, and the Commonwealth contributes the remaining 15 per cent. But here we have the member for Dobell saying that the Commonwealth should have the lion's share of the say in the planning and execution of the funding that may go to the public sector from the Commonwealth. I am frightened to think about just how many people will be employed with this amount of money. Out of the current allocation of $22 billion going to the school sector, which is what the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 is all about—government and non-government—just how much of it will be soaked up with more bureaucracy: jobs for those who wrote the speech, jobs for those from the education unions in Australia. If that is the Labor Party's idea of fairness, I suspect they are keeping their record over 13 years of government intact. It is certainly a statement of fact that, after 13 years, the Australian Labor Party produced such equity for so many young people that 30 per cent of them could not read and write properly. This government have had to set about spending real money to get real results and cooperation with the states—and in some cases it was forced cooperation—and the results are now showing real improvements in the areas of literacy and numeracy.We are the party that have delivered on fairness and social justice, through school funding, for both government and non-government school parents. We are also the party which have managed to ensure that those who want to exercise choice—those who want to, if you like, subsidise those who choose not to—in the cost of educating their children can do so, with government assistance. Every government school student is funded by at least 90 per cent, when you take into account state and federal contributions from the taxpayer; whereas in non-government schools parents provide about 45 per cent of the total cost of education. So parents in non-government schools—and I am not talking about socioeconomic groups, I am just talking about parents, regardless of their income—actually do help meet the cost of the total education bill in this country. And parents in those small, poor parish schools in my electorate, who have exercised their choice to provide their school-age children with the opportunities that they believe are important for them, should be rewarded, not retarded, in their efforts. Over the past 4½ years this government have certainly set about providing a responsible level of funding to address so many of the things that the Australian Labor Party failed to do over their 13 years in government. We have ensured that there is a range of services and not simply recurrent funding but also capital works funding to assist parents in their quest to ensure that there is fairness and equity, which evaded them over the 13 years that the Australian Labor Party were in government. The contribution from the member for Dobell, written and authorised by the Australian Education Union, was short on facts and long on rhetoric, and it relied on a rewriting of the truth of the matter. I suspect that there is nobody in the non-government school sector who is supporting the Australian Labor Party. They are alone and without friends on this issue.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.CK6Lee, Michael, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The coalition have had a strong and consistent position as far as choice and equity, as well as improved outcomes in the education sector, go. Over the past 4½ years we have really established a strong record in this regard. One matter that needs always to be talked about when we talk about grants to primary and secondary schools is the work that is being done on literacy and numeracy. Not one study was funded by the Australian Labor Party in their 13 years in government and yet they presided over a decline in the basic standards that Australian children need to learn. Not one study was financed in that time, and the Australian Labor Party should hang their heads in shame for their record with regard to literacy and numeracy standards—matters which have been addressed and will continue to be addressed by this government. During the time we have been in power, there have already been some remarkable improvements in this regard. Funding is not what it is all about, as all would agree; it is these outcomes which the government is aiming to get from the funding. But let us talk about the funding: over the next four years we will see a 32 per cent increase in the total school funding. This is real money where it works. It is not just funding one sector; it is funding the various sectors involved in education in this country. This year the Howard government is spending $402 million more on government schools than Labor did in its last year in office—an increase of 26 per cent. Public spending is $5,600 on average for a government school student, but for a non-government school student it is only $3,750 on average. At wealthier schools this figure can be as low as $1,500 per student. We have also increased funding by some $400 million over the past four years—an increase of 26 per cent at a time when the number of pupils in those schools had increased by 2.3 per cent. Our funding system has led to a massive increase in funding per pupil in government schools. But of course the Australian Labor Party would have people in my electorate believe it is quite the opposite of what is really happening. It is an absolute disgrace for the Australian Labor Party to try to create some sort of class warfare, although I often regard it as classless warfare because the style in which it is executed suggests that that is the case—that there should be some funding priority that is somehow or other aimed towards helping those in wealthier schools versus those who are in not so wealthy schools. They say state schools—and I am one of their products—are in fact underfunded by this government in comparison with private schools. It is this sort of divisionist nonsense that typifies the 13 years Labor were last in power but it is certainly not the approach of this government as we live and breath and practise the `for all of us' mantra of the past 4½ years. The Labor Party are running around saying we are going to cut $60 million out of government school funding when funding has increased by $400 million. That is the sort of credibility gap we saw in the deficit. Prior to the 1996 election we were told by the then finance minister, now the opposition leader, Mr Beazley, that it was in fact a surplus. There is a $460 million difference between what Labor says and what the government has actually done, and they are out there day in, day out attempting to mislead people.Parents from the poor parish schools within the Catholic systemic system—they are not the only non-government schools of course but they do often typify those schools which are the most needy in our community—make a definite decision to fund the choice that they make for their children's education, which is a choice that we on this side support not only in a rhetorical way but also in the funding with which we have backed them up. People within the parish system within my own electorate of Moreton have said to me that they have never had it so good as they have had it under this government. This government has delivered upon those who have pioneered the Catholic systemic system over so many years and have made the efforts and many sacrifices in other spending possibilities within a family to ensure that their children are in fact able to get a good Catholic education.I make that observation not as a member of that particular faith but as somebody who is a member of a government which believes strongly in the equity that it has provided. I am delighted by the observations of Father Tom Doyle of the Victorian Catholic Education Office and Deputy Chair of the National Catholic Education Commission. He said that the government's package: Is a very good and equitable package ... The new system is fair, open to scrutiny, yet doesn't drain resources away from government schools. In a caring and democratic Australia, it is vital that we recognise everyone's right to choice.Isn't that an accurate and true description of what this government is all about: freedom to choose and the wherewithal to make sure that that choice does deliver outcomes. It certainly is the first time in a very long time that fair funding formula has been introduced into the non-government school funding sector. I am proud to be part of a government that has focused on backing up those parents and schools in my own electorate that have been doing the hard yards for many years. With regard to schools in my electorate, it is worth noting that the variation in funding that this government has presided over in a total general recurrent grants sense has risen from $10.34 million in the 1997 financial year to $13½ million in this current year. In round figures—I notice the member for Blair is here, and he is normally a walking calculator—that is somewhere in the vicinity of about 28 per cent or 30 per cent increase in the Commonwealth general recurrent funding to non-government schools in the federal electorate of Moreton. Over the past four years, the Commonwealth government have contributed to the various parish schools in the electorate of Moreton some $48.76 million. Christ the King School at Graceville has received over that time $1.46 million; Clairvaux-Mackillop College at Upper Mount Gravatt, a superb college that turns out many fine Australians, has received $11.74 million in recurrent funding; Mary Immaculate Primary School at Annerley, $1.49 million; Our Lady of Lourdes School at Sunnybank, $4.98 million; Our Lady's College at Annerley, $4.62 million; Southside Christian College at Salisbury, $2.22 million; St Agnes' School at Mount Gravatt, $2.7 million; St Bernard's School at Upper Mount Gravatt, $3.8 million; St Brendan's Primary School at Moorooka, the school that managed to get those ceiling fans, which Labor never delivered for them in 13 years, within the first 18 months of my election as the member for Moreton, $1.3 million; Saint Catherine's School at Wishart, $2.19 million; St Elizabeth's School at Ekibin, $2.14 million; St Joachim's School at Holland Park, $1 million; St Pius X School at Salisbury, $1.88 million; St Sebastian's Primary School at Yeronga, $1.57 million; and St Thomas More College at Sunnybank, a bit over $5 million.They are important amounts of money to the parents in particular at those schools, because, if those opposite knew my electorate as well as they would pretend they might, they would know that the parents in those particular areas come from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds, and not one of those schools could be labelled a wealthy school. But we have an opposition in this place that pretends it would like to be the government of Australia and I guess will spend a lot of time running around telling people in the electorate of Moreton all sorts of exciting and colourful things about what they may or may not do if ever, heaven forbid, they were elected back onto the government benches in this place. I think it is important for them to realise that in the electorate of Moreton this government has delivered for parents across all socioeconomic backgrounds and that there is no such thing as a rich school, a wealthy school. But the Australian Labor Party opposition in this place do stand for one thing as far as education funding is concerned—the parents at those schools in my electorate face a real risk of losing so much of that support. This is the sort of support they did not have there when the Labor Party were in power. They had some support, but a lot of it was begrudgingly given, a lot of it was confused, a lot of it was under certain guidelines that never quite delivered the results that this government have delivered. I would say to the parents, particularly at those parish schools, the Catholic systemic schools in my electorate, `Look out. The Australian Labor Party want that recurrent funding to send somewhere else.' MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Absolute rubbish.CK6Lee, Michael, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Dobell, the shadow minister, the man who would be the education minister if, heaven forbid, a Beazley government were elected in this place, says, `Absolutely.'MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not like to take up the honourable member for Moreton's time, but he is misquoting me. I said, `Absolute rubbish.'10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—There is no point of order. The member for Dobell will resume his seat.CK6Lee, Michael, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The other thing that I think the Australian Labor Party will attempt to do over the next 14 months until the next federal election is to spend a lot of time trying to tell people in government schools in my electorate that the government of Australia, the Commonwealth government, the Howard government, are not supporting them. As I said in my earlier contribution, some 85 per cent of the cost of funding state schools in this country is met, understandably, from the state governments, not from the Commonwealth government. With the results of the new tax system, the state governments of Australia will in fact have a lot more money to spend in this regard. Despite all this, the Commonwealth government have been able to pick up a lot of the shortfall that the Queensland government have failed to meet in my electorate. Just the other week I opened a $535,000 teaching block at Kuraby State School, a teaching block funded by the Commonwealth government to the tune of $514,000. That does not sound like 15 per cent of the total equation; that sounds more like about 90 per cent of the total equation. Runcorn State High School also received over half a million dollars in capital funding to government schools. Sunnybank State High School has received $1.1 million from the Commonwealth government in the last few years. Later this week I will be opening the new manual arts block there, which was $750,000 in cost of construction. Wellers Hill State School at Wellers Hill received just under $60,000 in Commonwealth capital funding and Wishart State School was delighted to receive $291,000 in Commonwealth funding to meet the cost of a new administration block. That is a well over $2½ million of Commonwealth funding directly into capital funding of projects that the Queensland government have not bothered or have not been able to afford because of their own poor economic standards. At the same time the Commonwealth government have funded directly to non-government schools in my electorate some capital funding to assist them in various building projects. I have been pleased to be at the opening of these various projects over the last couple of years. The Clairvaux-Mackillop College at Upper Mount Gravatt received $250,000, which went into an excellent facility there; St Brendan's Primary School at Moorooka received $50,000 for, amongst other things, received $50,000 for, ceiling fans and a few other improvements; St Elizabeth School at Ekibin—the Presentation Sisters worked hard for so many years to build that school up—received $5,000 in capital funding; and St Thomas More College at Sunnybank received $75,000. A total of $380,000 in capital funding went to non-government schools in my electorate.One of the groups in our community who were so badly neglected over the 13 years the Australian Labor Party ruined and ran this country were those who never quite made it to university. They were basically left on the scrap heap. Who will forget the words of the former member for Fremantle, former education minister and one-time Treasurer, John Dawkins, who said of that 70 per cent of young people who did not go on to university, `We didn't do much for them and they joined the unemployment queues.' This government have been pleased to work with schools in my electorate such as Clairvaux-Mackillop College, Sunnybank High, Our Lady's College at Annerley and a number of other schools on the Jobs Pathways concept and also the SCIPS project, the Southside Cluster Industry Placement in Schools, which brings industry together with teachers to show students exactly why what they are learning in the classroom is important for their employment prospects down the track. These are the sorts of practical things that underline the complete failure of the Australian Labor Party's own education policies in the past and the fact that they have shown no promise to repair that failure in the future. These sorts of approaches, these sorts of industry placements and examples of school cooperation with various industries, are showing students who may not have the application to go on and get that tertiary degree that there is a point in learning, there is a point in staying at school and sticking with study and applying the skills and the lessons learnt, the lessons taught and the lessons caught, during their time at school. These are the sorts of approaches that people in the community in my electorate were demanding a few years ago. When we ran a youth jobs summit in 1997 they brought them out as ideas that needed to be acted upon. The happy news is that this government listened to the people in Moreton, they listened to the employers, they listened to the teaching professionals, they listened to the parents and they listened to the young people, the students. They provided the policies and the funding for the policies, and now we are getting the outcomes. We are building a better work force, a more clever nation, a more capable nation. We are building dignity back into the young people in this country. They have a role to play. They have opportunities that they never had under the 13 years of Labor. Labor's `spend big, tax big but get no results' policy—no check on their record, no check on their progress—is not what we are doing in government. We are all about pro-activity and delivering to the young people today and into the future.Motion (by Ms Gillard) put:That the debate be now adjourned.20:20:00The House divided.(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr K.J. Andrews) 63Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.73Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.Beazley, K.C.Howard, J.W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.20:26:0020047Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, we have just seen the government in this place—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, the member just moved in this House to adjourn the debate. She now wants to participate in it. Is this any evidence that she had any commitment to her previous motion or was she just wasting the time of the House? 10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! The honourable the minister has raised a point of order. I refer the minister to standing order 89. The honourable member for Lalor is well entitled to participate in the debate and I call her.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is no wonder the government are a bit touchy on this bill, the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000, when they have just voted to prevent scrutiny of $50 million of government money going to the 62 wealthiest schools in Australia. We know they made that vote. Why did they make that vote? They have all voted for the old school tie. We have seen those on the front bench come in and back the 62 wealthiest schools in Australia because they are the schools they attended. The Deputy Prime Minister, of course, went to Kings School, Parramatta; the Treasurer, Carey Baptist Grammar School—though I do not think he is a Baptist any morethe Minister for Foreign Affairs, Geelong Grammar. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs himself went to Scotch College, which he no doubt attended with his good friend the Minister for Health and Aged Care. 8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs Worth—On a point of order on relevance, Mr Deputy Speaker: I feel that it is quite inappropriate for any member of this House to be questioning the religious beliefs of any other member.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. 83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—As a Welsh Baptist, I felt entitled to make that comment. Just moving on in relation to the last of the 62 wealthiest schools in Australia, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, a Brighton Grammar boy, has come in and voted for his school as well. This vital piece of legislation deals with the distribution of $22 billion of funding for schools over the next quadrennium. For the minister at the table, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, that is a four-year funding period. That amount of expenditure in and of itself deserves very detailed consideration, and this piece of legislation deserves even more detailed consideration, given that it changes the nature of the funding model used for non-government schools in that it replaces the education resources index with the measure of the socioeconomic status of schools. If the government had lived up to its own rhetoric, we could have been having in this place a real and sophisticated debate—though it would have needed to change the minister at the table—about the nature of educational and locational disadvantage and the best funding mechanisms to ensure that both government and non-government schools are funded on the basis of need. And let us be clear about the government's rhetoric. The submission of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs to the Senate committee that has been considering this legislation, the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee, states:The SES approach is a more transparent and objective measure, based on independent data that are consistent for all schools.The submission goes on to describe the fact that the funding approach should be transparent and simple as one of the key principles that underlined the government's policy for Commonwealth funding of non-government schools. Indeed, the minister echoed these sentiments in his second reading speech by saying:This historic reform will provide a more transparent, objective and equitable approach to funding non-government schools.Despite all of this rhetoric about openness and transparency, this House is being required to debate this legislation in the dark. First, this House is being required to debate it prior to the Senate committee which is deliberating on it delivering its report. Secondly, and more importantly, this House is being required to debate this legislation even though there has been no public release of the 1998 simulation study that forms the empirical basis for this new SES funding system. The government simply will not release the figures. Those data are being withheld despite the Senate legally requiring the minister to produce them through a return to order.In these circumstances, we are entitled to be sceptical about what this bill truly means for the schools in our electorates. If, as the government maintain, this bill is good for all schools then, put simply, why won't they release the figures? However, given the government's furtive approach to this bill—and we have just seen that displayed in the recent division—we have no option but to debate the merits of this bill at this stage.As noted, the bill introduces a new model for funding non-government schools—the SES model. The SES model in this bill has at its core the average government school recurrent costs figure. The 1998 average government school recurrent costs figure is set at a dollar figure of $4,355 for primary students and $6,050 for secondary students. Schools are then allocated an SES score based on 1996 census data; that is, every student's address is geocoded—coded against the census collector district from which that student comes. While census collector districts vary across Australia, they are in the order of 200 to 250 households. The data of that census collector district, which deals with three dimensions—occupation, education and income—is then factored in; that is, the student's address is geocoded and the occupation, education and income data from the census collector district in which they live is factored in as part of the school's SES score. Out of this process emerges an SES calculation, the theory being that if students predominantly come from census collector districts which are disadvantaged in terms of occupation, education and income then a low SES score will emerge. Conversely, if students predominantly come from census collector districts which are advantaged in terms of occupation, education and income, a high SES score will result.After calculation of a school's SES score, funding is derived through the use of a formula. The minimum entitlement for schools is set at 13.7 per cent of the average government school recurrent costs figure and will be payable to schools with SES scores of 130 and above. The maximum entitlement for schools funded on their SES score will be set at 70 per cent of the average government school recurrent costs figure and will be payable to schools with SES scores of 85 and below. Funding for schools with SES scores between 85 and 130 will be payable on a continuum, with a difference of about $55 for primary school students and $75 for secondary school students for each single point change in the score. An SES methodology which uses effective measures of the relative advantage and disadvantage in our community could be a truly powerful tool for locating educational disadvantage and targeting funding to need. It could be—but, on the poor data available, we have every reason to fear this SES model is not the powerful tool we need. There are the following five flaws in the SES model. Firstly, it could be argued that the model is flawed, proceeding as it does on the basis of the average government school recurrent costs figure. This figure makes no allowance for the cost variation for delivering education in different parts of Australia, though we are all well aware that such costs vary considerably across the nation. It may well be that a base figure which took account of the variation in costs for remoteness and to which an SES methodology was then applied would be a better and fairer model for exposing need without discriminating against people because of their relative remoteness.Secondly, this model uses only some aspects of the census data. Of course, census data reveals more than simply occupation, education and income. It reveals home ownership statistics, the usage in the home of languages other than English, family structures and the like. It may be that some of these indicators should also be built into the SES methodology. Certainly a debate needs to be had on this, where we are provided with various simulations showing the difference that the additional subtraction of these various factors would make, so we can compare the various methodologies and select the one which is the fairest.Thirdly, the model may lose veracity the more geographically dispersed the students of a particular school are. If students live close to their school and those areas are all disadvantaged according to the census data, it makes intuitive sense that those students come from disadvantaged homes and we are dealing with a school that is working in disadvantaged circumstances. Yet for many non-government schools the catchment area is geographically large. Indeed, in some cases it is right across the face of our capital cities. In some circumstances it is conceivable that only one student comes from a particular census collector district and that the data for that census collector district is in no way representative of that student's circumstances, because their family is either more advantaged than the census collector district generally or far more disadvantaged. Either way, there is a flaw in the methodology which will be particularly acute for those schools whose catchment areas are very large and where the number of students coming from any one census collector district could be as low as one or a very small number. Fourthly, the model may lose veracity in highly differentiated areas where wealth and poverty live cheek by jowl. This can often be true of inner city areas where housing commission residences and historic slums abut wealthy gentrified suburbs, and I am sure we are all aware of that phenomenon in our capital cities. It can also be true in electorates like mine where abundant land means it is possible for new prestige developments, like Sanctuary Lakes, to emerge in the midst of what has been a long-term area of disadvantage. In such circumstances, where census collector districts wander across these lines of wealth and poverty, it is possible for the census collector district averaged data not to be very representative of the individual households involved. Therefore, of the criticisms of the SES model, three of them are of a relatively technical nature. Just because they are of a technical nature, that does not mean that they are minor, and the best way to have this debate would be to have a series of simulations where those factors are run in the simulation and then left out of the simulation so we could all see the difference that they make.The last objection to the SES model is more philosophical, that the model makes no allowance for the amassed resources of any particular school. As we are all aware, over the years many prestige schools have amassed wealth—wealth in terms of buildings and facilities, wealth in terms of the equipment available, wealth in terms of alumni funding raising, trust funds, endowment funds and the like. Obviously, just as the economic capacity of an individual is affected by his or her income and assets—a principle which is enshrined throughout our social security system and which is used for all benefit calculations for pensions and the like; there is the income test and the asset test, because we recognise throughout our social security system that both contribute to the economic capacity of an individual—it must follow as a matter of logic that the economic capacity of a school is affected by both its income generation potential—from the current class of parents whose kids are enrolled in the school—and the assets of the school. The SES funding system makes some attempt to measure the income generation potential of the parents of the kids in the school but absolutely no attempt to measure the latter, the assets of the school. This is a gaping flaw, one which the government would not allow to emerge in any other benefit distribution system. Can you imagine anybody in this parliament suggesting that social security benefits ought to be distributed with regard only to income and not assets? This government would be the first baying for that person's blood, yet that is the model that is being predicated here in terms of SES funding, where there is no regard for the question of amassed wealth by schools. That is a very big flaw, one that needs to be addressed. These five flaws in the SES model might well have been capable of being addressed if we had a less belligerent attitude by this government to this piece of legislation which is before the parliament. But, in view of the government's belligerence, we are stuck with the SES model that is in this piece of legislation and we do not even have access to the data to know how it is going to work in the real world. I now turn to the fact that, as important as the SES model is to this piece of legislation, the model is going to apply only to the minority portion of the non-government school system. In fact, the minister's much vaunted SES funding model is only one of three funding models dealt with in this bill. The three models are the SES funding model, about which I have been speaking, the fact that some schools have guarantees to have their funding kept at year 2000 levels with indexation, and the funding system used for schools in the Catholic system. This bill comprehends three models of funding which spawn 65 different levels of funding, 46 SES levels, 18 ERI levels which are kept as a result of the guarantee to make funding for some schools, and the Catholic system. So we see in this legislation 170 different payment rates for schools, yet we are told that this legislation is about simplicity and transparency, a clearly ridiculous claim.When we track what we can of the effect of this legislation on schools in our community, we find some very clear and very concerning statistics in terms of fairness. We see, as I alluded to before, that category 1 schools—the 62 wealthiest schools in Australia—have secured an extra $50 million in funding, a figure that the department itself has confirmed as a pretty good estimate. Meanwhile, the Catholic system, a system which we all know includes within its ranks many schools that are poorer and in greater need and which represents 65 per cent of non-government schools, finds that each of the schools in its system gets only an extra $60,000 a year, some 12 times less than the category 1 schools that are dealt with. The average government school gets a real increase of around $4,000 a year, some 200 times less. Those statistics ought to concern anybody in this place who is worried about fairness and equity in our school funding models.In my electorate we have the situation of no category 1 schools—of course not. My electorate is home to a number of government schools, many of which are still struggling as they fight back from the legacy of the Kennett years. It is home to a number of poor Catholic schools which enjoy a great deal of community support. Notwithstanding that community support, they struggle with income questions. It is also home to a growing number of Christian and Islamic schools, all of which struggle for resources. When one looks at that composition—no category 1 schools, state schools that need more resources and non-government schools in the Catholic system, also of a poor and struggling kind—we find that this bill provides us with no joy at all. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, in his second reading speech, says that this bill is about choice, about the right of Australian parents to choose the most appropriate schooling for their children. If he were being frank—and we would not expect that from this minister—he would say this bill and his government's approach to education are about creating an education market in which the wealthiest have the most choice because they have the ability to buy any of the options presented, any of the options on the table. They can buy a Scotch College or a PLC education product from the category 1 schools because they have that choice available to them because of their income and assets position. But that is not a genuine choice and we in the Labor Party understand that, if you genuinely want choice, you must support a properly funded government system and a properly funded non-government system with all schools funded on the basis of need. If you support that outcome, you maximise choice, because every school has the resources to be a good school, a school in which you would be happy to enrol your kids.It is only in those circumstances that people of modest or lower income or asset positions genuinely have choice. Then they have the choice of opting for the local Catholic school, the local Christian school, the local Islamic school or the local state school if that is what they want for their kids, knowing that all of those choices offer a good quality education. A funding methodology, including a socioeconomic status methodology, which leads to parents having that kind of choice—a real choice—would have the full support of the Labor Party. Unfortunately—and we should not be surprised, given the ideology and methodology of this minister and this government—this bill falls light years behind that benchmark.20:45:0020051Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—In preparing for this debate on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 tonight, my attention was drawn to a series of press releases, the first of which was prepared by Dr David Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. It referred to the other press releases, which were prepared and released by the opposition. I would like to go through these because I believe they reveal the fallacious nature of the argument we are hearing from members opposite tonight. We have heard the continuing vilification of the `62 wealthiest schools in Australia'. As the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs revealed in his press release, the opposition have done us the favour of revealing their list of the `62 richest schools in Australia'. When I look through the list of the 62 richest schools, I find 27 in New South Wales and 28 in Victoria—including the Burwood Presbyterian Ladies College, of which I understand the Labor candidate for Deakin is a member of staff—I find five of the richest schools in Australia in South Australia, I find in Western Australia just one of these 62 richest schools in Australia and in my own home state of Queensland I also find just one of the 62 richest schools in Australia, according to the ALP—schools which are being vilified by the ALP as being the elite.83VEmerson, Craig, MP84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—The member for Rankin might be interested to know which one it is. Before I went through the list, I was scratching my head too—which school would it be? Which school would be the richest school in Queensland, one of the most elite schools in the whole of Australia? I was thinking, `Could it be TSS? Could it be Churchie? Could it be Somerville House?' These are schools around Brisbane that are well respected and well known—schools that members of the teachers' unions that like to engage in class war might wave their cloth caps at and get very upset about. But the fact is that the only school in the whole of Queensland being vilified and attacked by the Australian Labor Party is the Warwick School of Total Education. Really! They are discussing the 62 wealthiest schools in Australia, and here they are picking on the poor old Warwick School of Total Education. Is that an elite school? No, it is not. Just a minute ago, we were listening to the argument of the member for Lalor. She said something like: `You can't have a situation where you talk about their income and not their assets.' According to an article that is in the Courier Mail, I understand that the very fortunate Warwick School of Total Education received a donation from some benefactor and so, as a result, they are fairly well off at the moment financially. This could happen to any private school, any struggling Catholic school—an old boy or a member of the school community might win the lotto! But under the opposition's policy, they are going to be attacked by the Labor Party as being the number ones, the elite schools, the ones that need to have their wings clipped according to the Labor Party. What did they invite people in Queensland to do? Have a look at their shell press release. The shell press release, put out by the opposition education spokesman, went something like this. He invited Labor members to put out this press release:The Howard government plans to increase funding to Australia's 62 richest private schools by around $50 million a year—blah, blah, blah—while giving government schools a real increase of less than $4,000. The member for—insert your name here, according to the member opposite. He goes on:The legislation means schools like—insert appropriate names from the attached list of the horrible 62. According to the Labor Party, we could insert the Warwick School of Total Education into that incredible formula. We could vilify them if we were the Labor Party; we could get stuck right into them. The 62 wealthiest schools according to the ALP—and what have we got? We have a total farrago. We have a mess. We have a list that would not in any way equate to any measure of which schools in Australia could, on any realistic basis, be considered the ones that are the most well off in the country.The SES system assesses need according to the capacity of parents to pay, by a measure of the socioeconomic status of the school community rather than the school's own resource levels, as measured by the ERI. It is, in effect, a measure of the relative capacity of non-government school communities to financially support their schools. It is not about which schools have a parent that might have won the lotto and is prepared to contribute to buy computers for that school. The two eldest of my children are attending, or will attend, St Mary's School in Ipswich. The first one has moved on from year 4 there, and the second one will start at that school next year. There is quite a drive on in that school to buy computers. According to the ALP, if suddenly, heaven forbid, we were to get a windfall at Ipswich—say we wrote a letter to Bill Gates and we were lucky and he was to donate all our computers—the ALP would be out there making sure that, as a result, poor old St Mary's School was lifted onto the top of the list and vilified as being needlessly rich, because we had had that little bit of good luck or that bit of good management or because we had taken that extra step. They would not be prepared to realise the genuine case of our school community and to consider the socioeconomic ability of those parents to pay or not to pay to support their school, to buy those sorts of things, to provide the resources for education to go ahead.I heard the members opposite yahooing, when they were talking about this list of the 62 richest schools, about how many members on the government benches had attended these 62 schools and how few they calculated on their side had attended the 62 schools. Very few people in Queensland have attended the Warwick School of Total Education. I understand that that is a very good school and I defend it, as I would St Mary's in Ipswich, as being an excellent school. It is not in a position to be meted out the kind of trash that has been dished out by the opposition spokesman on education. The opposition spokesman on education should apologise to that school. I am sure that there will be other ones on this list that he should apologise to. If I take the experience of the Warwick School of Total Education, there is no way that everyone else on this list deserves the kind of shellacking that they have had from the ALP in this crazy and contrived campaign that they have been running. One of the major points made by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is that every one of the 62 schools meted out this shameful punishment by the members opposite will in fact be funded by less than the average—they used the word `average' over there—of the funding increase that was calculated. I do not know how it was calculated. I think it was calculated by putting it into a washing machine and turning it onto the spin cycle. They calculated an average and they said that all of these schools were going to get this average increase. They are not. According to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, every one of those 62 schools will be funded by less than that average figure mentioned by the ALP. That does not make it much of an average, does it? It makes a total joke out of the statement.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—You have just misled the House.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Aren't you going to correct it if you are saying that it is incorrect? The members opposite are not assisting the House with their continual—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I can tell the member that in fact one school has confirmed that they get several million dollars extra—you fool.10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—There is no point of order.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—I am not the one who has singled out schools like the member opposite has for this kind of trashy treatment—this low grade, very poor standard of research. Who did your work? Was it the milkman? It is a pathetic level of performance that we are seeing from the opposition. It is lower than low. There is one school in Queensland out of 62, according to them, that should be tarred and feathered and that should be put up as being the home of all of those evil things that they like to misrepresent as being the old school tie, the buddy system. There are not that many people who are old boys of the Warwick School of Total Education, and everyone who is deserves an apology from those members over there. It is an appalling performance. That brings to mind the question as to what would be the fate of a school under Labor's system.The Labor Party are endorsing heavily the idea of this ERI, although I understand from the information I have received that they intend, at the end of all this, to support this bill. I do not understand what is causing them to promote the ERI in this debate and yet to walk away from it at the end of it all. It is a sadly familiar tactic that we have seen lately. They promote one thing and then do the opposite. It is just like the GST: they opposed the GST and then supported the GST. It is a very poor state of debate and a lack of consistency. The people in my electorate of Blair should be entitled to expect better from these noisy members opposite. All they have done by putting together this farcical press release, this shell press release—it is a shell of honesty, according to them—is to prove the very arguments that the minister has been making to the House: the SES system is fairer and it enables the assessment of a school community according to their ability to contribute to the school by way of their socioeconomic status rather than endeavouring to work out the school's own resource levels under the old system of ERI. I would like to talk about some of the responses to the government's legislation. I would like to refer to the letter sent to members of parliament by the Australian Parents Council. That group has said:The Bill recognises that every child is entitled to a base level of public funding for their school education. It provides a fairer way of giving parents at all income levels a chance of choosing the most appropriate schooling for their children.The Bill gives more equitable Commonwealth funding to non-government school students and is based on a more transparent measure of educational need.That was from Leo Dunne, the President of the Australian Parents Council. He had five points there, all of which support the government's position and make it very clear that that is the preferred position of the Australian Parents Council. The person who has been most abused by members opposite in this debate is Father Tom Doyle, who is the Deputy Chairman of the National Catholic Education Commission. The fact is that Father Tom Doyle was quoted by the Prime Minister in this House as saying:The Bill has the support of the NCEC and the State and Territory Catholic Education Commissions as it recognises that the allocation of funds is based upon need.The new funding arrangements also provide surety of funding to Catholic schools over the next quadrennium. The Bill links grants to the average cost of schooling in the government sector and will therefore promote equity and accessibility for families who wish to exercise their right of schooling choice for their child. It also promotes fairness ... and enhances the Commonwealth Government's decision in 1998 to implement the recommendation of the Non-government Schools Funding Review Committee which said that there was an unacceptable resourcing gap between Catholic schools and other schools.The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs also quoted Father Tom Doyle when speaking about the government's package. Tom Doyle said:... it is a very good and equitable package. ... The new system is fair, open to scrutiny, yet doesn't drain resources away from government schools. In a caring and democratic Australia, it is vital that we recognise everyone's right to choice.That seems fairly comprehensive to me. Father Tom Doyle has nailed his colours to the mast. He has said what his views are, and the continuing misrepresentation of his position by members opposite should not, I think, be allowed to continue. Nevertheless, the fact is that we should look across the board at the way education works in our country. As I remember the member for Moreton saying, 85 per cent of the funding for government schools comes from the states and the Commonwealth provides 15 per cent. Government schools are known as state schools for that reason. All people pay their taxes. They all contribute to the system. The difference is that parents of children in non-government schools agree to pay fees. They agree to pay a levy to the school to support the education of their children. So, even with all the government involvement in funding at all levels of education, it is still estimated that parents of children in non-government schools pay 45 per cent of the costs of their children's education.As has been said many times in this debate, this government stands for choice and equity. We want to allow all parents to choose the education that they want for their children. We stand for diversity, that is, choice between private schools and government schools, between religious and non-denominational schools. Ethnic groups and various language groups all have their own right to establish schooling systems to suit their needs. We see different structures. We see primary to year 12 structures, in some cases, or year 5 to year 12. We see co-educational or non-co-educational. It is wrong for members opposite to seek to get rid of that diversity, to seek to grind everything down, as they do continually, and to distil it all into the Australian Education Union's view of this synthesised education system based on their own—that is, the Australian Education Union's—view of the way it all should be. This government has taken several steps that deserve recognition. Since 1985, there have been some changes and different policies put forward. For example, the members opposite were very supportive of what they called the Disadvantaged Schools Program, which cost something like $1 billion. It had nice words attached to it—`disadvantaged schools'. Everyone agrees with the idea. It certainly seems like a motherhood statement that you should give money to disadvantaged schools. We would all agree with that. But, while they were doing that, what was happening in those schools? Thirty per cent of students, for example, could not read or write. That was an appalling outcome. So, while we can give $1 billion to disadvantaged schools, what could we give for people to learn to read or write? Very little apparently, according to those members opposite. They could not come up with the readies to provide people with basic literacy and numeracy. When the then education minister and now Leader of the Opposition was presented with reports warning him about the dire state of literacy and numeracy, what did he do? He did not release them. He sat on those reports.Teachers' unions have taken a certain role in this process. The ERI system, as it was, is being touted here tonight by the ALP. Even though they would never actually support the ERI themselves, they are using it here to try to make a point without physically supporting it. The ERI system, according to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, has been abandoned because over a period of 15 years the Labor Party continually adjusted, changed, altered and manipulated that system so that its transparency and fairness were destroyed. Schools at different levels of need were concentrated in the same funding category and schools with the same level of need were distributed across categories. In the end, no-one had any confidence whatever in that system. Some examples of that were the fact that the teacher unions ordered Labor to put a limit on the funding for the neediest schools at an ERI level of six. Why was that? To ensure that there would be no low fee schools being set up in opposition to the government schools preferred by the teacher unions. (Time expired)21:05:0020055Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I welcome the application of a needs based funding formula for non-government schools because funding to non-government schools should be on the basis of need. In fact, in my view, there is a lot of merit in the concept underlying the funding formula introduced in the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 because that funding formula is based on an index of socioeconomic status. But the application in this legislation of the SES funding formula is flawed. There have been manipulation of and exemptions from the SES index and that has led to unfair results. Among those results, 62 of the wealthiest non-government schools in this country are getting an average of $820,000 per annum extra, yet the Catholic schools are getting $60,000 extra. Apart from indexation for cost increases in government schools that were legislated by the previous Labor government, the government schools are each getting just $4,000 extra. Let us cover that again: $820,000 for the wealthiest schools, $60,000 for the Catholic schools and $4,000 for government schools above indexation. By way of comparison, that is $800 per student for the category 1 schools—the wealthiest schools—compared with just $157 per student for the Catholic schools.In relation to the Catholic schools, it seems to me very curious that the Catholic system has forgone $140 million that would have been available through the application of the SES funding model if they had chosen that option. Instead, in order to retain control over the allocation of funds, the Catholic system has said, `We'll forgo the $140 million in exchange for that control.' The schools that stand to lose out of that process are the disadvantaged schools—for example, disadvantaged schools in my electorate and schools in Woodridge and Kingston, where the unemployment rate is 25 per cent. I would be very keen to know from the Catholic system why they chose to forgo $140 million in order to retain full control of the allocation of funds. Perhaps they do allocate it fairly. I would like to be assured of that because it is very disturbing that the Catholic system could make a decision to forgo $140 million. The enrolment benchmark adjustment takes $60 million from government schools even though their enrolments have increased by 26,000 students across the country. This is regarded as fair—Liberal style. In a most Orwellian statement, the minister last week declared in this parliament that the enrolment benchmark adjustment is not a school funding policy. On this occasion, I am obliged to agree with him—the enrolment benchmark adjustment is not a school funding policy; it is a school defunding policy. The government's true agenda is outlined in its private policy statements. The coalition's budget cabinet committee minutes outline the government's commitment to driving students out of government schools. These minutes were released last week by the shadow education minister. The minutes record that Dr Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs:... noted that the coalition sought to encourage students to move from government to non-government schools ...and that it was agreed that Dr Kemp would report back to the budget committee on:... non-government schools, whether additional expenditure could be offset by reductions in grants to government schools and in untied grants.They are this government's private policy statements. Those private policy statements are being fulfilled through a $60 million cut from government schools through the enrolment benchmark adjustment. They are being fulfilled through untied grants to the states being abolished as from 1 July this year and replaced with the GST. They are being fulfilled by $820,000 of extra funding going to each of the 62 wealthiest non-government schools in this country. This is equity Liberal style. If this is all such good policy—if it is truly fair, as members of the government claim—why not announce it as policy? Instead, the $820,000 being allocated to each of the 62 wealthiest non-government schools was kept secret by this government. It did not want to disclose that before the legislation went through, but it was revealed by departmental officials under questioning in the Senate estimates process.Perhaps the most striking example of equity Liberal style is the treatment of disabled students in government secondary schools. The only losers from this funding formula—the only students who actually go backwards in the funding formula contained in this legislation—are disabled students in government secondary schools. Those students are being confronted with a cut in per capita funding from $126 to $102 per year. That is equity Liberal style. It is equity Liberal style to take funding from disabled students in government secondary schools and give it to the 62 wealthiest schools in this country. The government promised to increase funding for special education. It promised that at the last election, yet it is cutting funding for special education for students in government secondary schools.In another Orwellian statement, the government has been implementing all of these policies under the cover of giving families choice. The key word here is `choice'. I support the choice of parents to send their children to government or to non-government schools. I support public funding of government and non-government schools. I support funding based on need but not on entrenching privilege. I am happy for wealthy non-government schools to thrive. I am also happy for wealthy non-government schools to receive some public funding, because they do educate children, but I am not happy for wealthy non-government schools to receive preference in government funding policies over government schools and over disabled students in government secondary schools. I am not happy for a government to have a policy of using funding policies `to encourage students to move from government to non-government schools' all under the guise of choice. If this government happen to be re-elected, my fear is that government schools will come under further funding pressure in the coming years because, under the financial arrangements contained in the GST legislation, the states get all of the proceeds of the GST but inevitably there will be cuts in tied grants to the states. The Commonwealth's spending on government and non-government schools has been allocated through so-called specific purpose payments, or tied grants, since 1964, when enabling legislation was first enacted. That is when the Commonwealth really started to get into funding of schools. Specific purpose payments to schools have increased quite dramatically since 1964 to a point where, in the 1999-2000 year, a total of $4.8 billion was spent on specific purpose funding for schools. The point I am making is that the specific purpose payments for government schools are at risk under a re-elected coalition government because when the states seek increases in tied grants for government schools they will be greeted with the response from a coalition government that, since the states have a major new growth tax, the Commonwealth no longer has a responsibility to maintain the real per capita value of tied grants.At the special Premiers Conference in November 1998, which discussed the future of federal-state relations under the GST, Commonwealth Treasury officials made it abundantly clear to their state counterparts that there were no guarantees about the level of tied grants to the states beyond the so-called transition period. The actual wording adopted at the Premiers Conference, as repeated in a subsequent intergovernmental agreement, is as follows:The Commonwealth will continue to provide Specific Purpose Payments (SPPs) to the States and Territories and has no intention of cutting aggregate SPPs as part of this reform process, which would defeat the objective of the States and Territories being better off under the new arrangements.In bureaucratic language the phrase `has no intention' falls well short of guarantees. The statement `has no intention' does not indicate how long the absence of intention will last. Moreover, an undertaking not to cut aggregate specific purpose payments leaves wide open the option of simply holding tied grants constant in nominal terms, allowing their real value to be eroded by inflation and their real value per person to be eroded by population growth. The agreement between the coalition government and the states therefore allows the Commonwealth to greatly reduce its funding effort to the states over time, including in the area of funding to government schools.Already the coalition government has begun reducing tied grants to the states, as confirmed by the Prime Minister when he was asked whether the government was providing less funding. He said:No. we're, well we're providing, we're providing less dollars, but because the costs of operating will fall, the real financial position will be the same.He said that during an interview on radio 3AW on 11 February this year. These decisions that the Prime Minister was talking about were taken unilaterally by the federal government, not as part of the intergovernmental agreement with the states. Former coalition leader Professor John Hewson, who proposed a GST in the early 1990s, has raised the prospect of a coalition government clawing back payments to the states. He said:The real question is just how long the intergovernmental agreement will last and how long before the Government breaks another `core promise'. I don't think it will be too long before the Commonwealth starts to try to claw back some of the GST revenue from the States or to seek other arrangements.Professor Hewson said that in an article in the Australian Financial Review of 30 June this year. Tied grants to the states would be an easy target for an expenditure review committee, the same committee the minutes from which I quoted Dr Kemp a little while ago. They would be an easy target for the expenditure review committee of a coalition government in seeking to finance the other main item on its agenda, which is further reductions in income tax for high income earners. Treasurer Costello articulated the coalition's agenda when he declared himself to be `an income tax cut man' who would want to move the top marginal rate out to `multiples of average weekly earnings'. Further election promises of reductions in income tax could be financed by cuts to real per capita tied grants to the states. That is my fear: that this legislation would not last very long under a re-elected coalition government because they would say, `You, the states, have the big GST growth tax. We're in a bit of a tight fiscal position because we've just offered a new round of income tax cuts to the highest income earners in this country. Therefore, we need the revenue and we're going to take it off government schools.' They will take it off government schools in the guise of choice, in the guise of giving parents and families the choice to send their students to non-government schools. They will implement their agenda of pushing students out of government schools and into non-government schools, make no mistake about that. In the information age it is crucial that a national government invest in education. These are some of the problems that this country confronts: the proportion of the Australian work force with post-school qualifications has slipped back to about the same level as in the early 1990s. So the proportion of our students with post-school qualifications has not gone forward in the last few years; it has slipped backwards to about the same level as in the early 1990s. High school completion rates are lower now than in the early 1990s. In government schools, one-third of students fail to finish high school; 40 per cent of boys in government schools fail to finish high school. The total federal and state government spending on education as a share of gross domestic product has declined since the mid-1990s.Under the coalition, our education system is actually going backwards while most other countries are surging forward. While countries like the United States and most countries in Europe know that we are now in the information age, where education is critical, the lifetime prospects of our children are not good. This government is taking Australia backwards, not forwards. We are not even holding ground; we are going backwards while these countries are surging forward. Most young people who drop out of high school in this information age will confront a lifetime of insecure jobs and unemployment. That is hardly a recipe for a strong, happy family and a safe, secure community. But that is the prospect this country faces. Boys are doing particularly badly, and many actually go backwards in the middle school years with the onset of adolescence.A living standards education subcommittee task force, of which I am a member, visited Melbourne recently. Professor Peter Hill, a renowned expert in this area, showed us very disturbing graphs indicating that boys who are not doing well by the time they arrive in the middle school years actually fall backwards. Those children, after another year or two, are worse off than when they entered high school because of the onset of adolescence combined with initial poor literacy and numeracy skills. Professor Hill told us that $1 spent on early intervention in early literacy and numeracy is worth $2 spent in the middle years. The researchers and the schools are finding it very difficult to find the right teaching formulas and methods to make sure that these kids are re-engaged in the process.In Victoria they are trying new approaches to middle schooling. One of the biggest problems is that it is typical for a high school student to have more than 40 teachers, so that student going through high school believes that his or her teachers do not know them. There is no close engagement, they do not feel part of the school system and they do not feel part of society. They do not feel that anyone really knows them. These are the sorts of problems that need to be addressed, but they are not being addressed in this legislation. Because the problems in the middle schooling years emanate from the very early years, what is desperately needed in this country is a set of early intervention programs—a set of programs that starts with home visiting while a mother is still in hospital, particularly in areas where children are typically at risk. Home visiting programs would start when mum is in hospital, before giving birth to the child, with immediate follow-ups after she has gone home. It is very important that we have positive parenting programs implemented to make sure that the parenting skills are there and that they get the encouragement and support from people they can rely on.When the kids arrive at school, they need to be ready to learn, and therefore we need a decent, high quality preschool program. In the early years of schooling, there is a need for reading recovery programs for children who have been identified as having reading difficulties. These are the formulas for success. In disadvantaged areas, Labor has already announced that it will be implementing a set of education priority zones to make sure that these kids really do have every possible chance in life. Labor has also announced scholarships and professional development programs for teachers to make sure that they lift their horizons and lift their hopes and plans for the kids going through the schools. Labor has also announced its intention to abolish the divisive and iniquitous enrolment benchmark adjustment. To me, equality of opportunity means affordable access to an excellent education for all. That is what we should be aiming for. If Australia is to become the knowledge nation and the land of opportunity, we need a government that will invest in its people instead of offering more income tax cuts for the highest income earners and huge funding increases for the wealthiest schools. What a marvellous ideal—that every child has an equal chance in life, whether he or she comes from Vaucluse or Mount Druitt, Double Bay or Moree, Toorak or Sunshine, Norwood or Elizabeth, Ascot or Woodridge, Toowong or Doomadgee. This is achievable with a far-sighted government committed to true equality of opportunity, not to entrenching privilege and rewarding the wealthiest schools under the guise of choice. I support choice, but real choice and real equality of opportunity. This is an ideal that is as old as the Whitlam government, but it is further away today than it was 30 years ago. It is an ideal which is ever more elusive under the Howard government and its ideologue of a minister, Minister Kemp. With the election of a Beazley Labor government—with the member for Dobell as the education minister—and their commitment to making this nation truly a knowledge nation in the knowledge millennium, we can journey towards that ideal again.21:25:0020059Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—The member for Rankin periodically makes a useful contribution to discussions in the House, but I suspect that that particular contribution will not be regarded as being among them. It is regrettable that certain subjects present themselves to the opposition as an opportunity to sharpen the historical and, thankfully, increasingly anachronistic rhetoric of class division. I regret to say that that is what we have been listening to for the last 15 minutes or so. If I take just a couple of examples, I can demonstrate without any difficulty the inconsistency of the argument being advanced. For example, the member for Rankin referred to the Catholic systemic schools as evidence of the failure of the model being proposed—that the Catholic systemic schools were not going to be included in it. In fact, the Catholic systemic schools requested the treatment which they are currently receiving, in fulfilment of a specific election promise given by the government in 1998—with a fair bit of lobbying, I must admit, by the Catholic Education Office in the diocese of Parramatta, which provided quite a bit of the leadership in the Catholic systemic schools. They sought to have their schools across the nation recategorised, with the exception of those in Western Australia and the ACT, for specific historical reasons, under the old funding system. They were recategorised to a category 11, which was a lift in the funding levels they were to receive. The Catholic education leadership indicated to the government that certainty of funding was their principal criterion. They were taking a long-term view of the financing arrangements for this very vast school system, and they simply wanted certainty. They had been very pleased with the reception they had received from the government in 1998, and they requested that they be able to preserve those arrangements. That request was acceded to by the minister on the commonsense grounds that it would provide them with exactly what they requested, and so that was the track we went down. Most illuminating of all is the fact that, in spite of everything we have just heard from the member for Rankin, the explicit promise of the Australian Labor Party at the 1998 election was that they would do exactly as the government has just done in relation to the Catholic systemic school system. If we try to extract and distil out some of the class rhetoric and ask ourselves why the government is introducing this new legislation, I would suggest that it is analogous with the whole area of tax reform. We recognised that the system we had was imploding. It had lost credibility as a fair, simple, transparent system. It was failing the constituents whom we are elected to serve, so we took the decision to do something about them. Those factors were equally evident to preceding governments, but no action was taken. This government believes that when difficult problems present themselves, the response should be to tackle them and to do something about them. As the Prime Minister is fond of saying, there is no virtue in power for its own sake. The virtue is in doing something good with the power entrusted to us by our constituents. This is a classic example, with the minister for education recognising that the system was falling apart and that it was riddled with problems of complexity, inefficiency and, in particular, unfairness. It was producing capricious, unpredictable results for schools, and students were the people who were suffering in the long run. Because we are committed to providing access to a quality education for all Australians, wherever they are in the income spectrum, we resolved to do something and to provide a fairer, simpler, more transparent system. That is exactly what the so-called SES funding model is all about.I apologise to our few listeners on the Parliamentary News Network for the constant use of bureaucratic language such as ERS, SES and so forth. In simple terms, the former model sought to measure a school's capacity to access funding resources from its own means. A school was ranked according to its ability to raise funds from its own sources, in particular from parents, and from government sources. In effect, the greater the access to own-source funding—that is, the greater the amount of money that a school raised itself—the higher it was pushed in the categorisation and the less money it was given by the Commonwealth. The difficulty with that system has been that it specifically discouraged schools from raising their own funds; it specifically discouraged schools from competing for that dollar of discretionary funding which might come from parents or other discretionary sources.So what we saw was a system of funding that was denuding schools of income and reducing the opportunities available to students as a result—even so, there is $2 billion worth of funding which is attracted to public and private schools from non-government sources. We want to lift that amount. We want to see more and more. As the member for Rankin rightly said, we are now grappling with the knowledge century, with information as the key commodity and with learning as a central value of public policy in this country. The question is: how do we achieve the most appropriate incentive based, fair funding arrangements? We have moved away from the previous model as a consequence of a very long running review of the so-called ERI. That system was put in place in 1985 and has been largely unchanged since then. The reality is that it came to lack credibility as a fair measure of need, largely because it did not reflect the socioeconomic circumstances of the surrounding school communities. When we look at these assertions of class interest and class based rhetoric, I just want to refer to a very illuminating statistic that demonstrates that there are many parents in the non-government school system who are what we would call battlers, who are making enormous sacrifices on low incomes to give their kids access to the school of their choice. I note that 21 per cent of school students throughout Australia come from families with incomes of less than $26,000. So over one-fifth of all students are coming from families with really quite low incomes—less than $26,000. Of those 20 per cent, one out of every five is attending a non-government school. So what we see is parents making decisions to make very considerable sacrifices to give their kids access to the non-government school of their choice. I just want to dispel this myth that every kid in a non-government school comes from a family that can afford high fees. It is certainly not the case in practice.The new instrument measures the socioeconomic status, in particular the occupations, the levels of education and the income most prevalent within a very small geographical area called the census collector district. Australia is divided up by the Australian Bureau of Statistics into 34,000 census collector districts, and each one of those 34,000 districts provides information on occupation, education, income and a range of other factors, including the land value of houses, to build up a profile of what is really a collection of streets. That collection of streets gives a pretty accurate picture. While it is imperfect, it is the most accurate statistical picture of objective evidence available to any government or public authority. It gives us a feel for what the income level or the level of disposable income is in that specific, small aggregation of streets.This model elicits information from schools. It does not require the names of the students but simply provides the addresses of up to 95 per cent of students at a particular school. Those addresses are then matched against the data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics with the income levels in the census collector districts from which they come. That gives us a picture of the income available to individual schools. It is a much more accurate gauge of the availability of non-government funding to schools. The truth is that many non-government schools are drawing students from far-flung areas. They are not all coming from the streets and suburbs immediately surrounding the school. So it gives the government, as a matter of fairness, access to a much more accurate picture of the actual circumstances of every school in this country. That is why the measure has been so widely welcomed. In fact, about the only group in the country which is consistently hostile to the new measure is the federal opposition. It particularly benefits those struggling, smaller new schools, and every one of us in this place would have them in our electorates. For example, in my electorate there is the inspiring educational effort, presided over by Sister Irene and the Sisters of the Holy Family, which takes place at Our Lady of Lebanon in Harris Park. When you walk into this school there is a buzz, an energy, an atmosphere about the place; there is fundamentally an ethic which is transmitted by these sisters which is contagious. You feel it. You see it in the faces of the students when you walk in the school gate.A school like that, drawing many students from the toughest suburbs in my electorate, from Harris Park and Wentworthville, and from suburbs in the electorate of Reid, Granville and Clyde, has many parents who are relatively new migrants to Australia but who are insisting on a certain corpus of values being transmitted in the educational process, and so they are sending their kids to Our Lady of Lebanon, Harris Park. These are not wealthy families. In many cases these families are struggling. But they are making a choice. What this policy is upholding is their fundamental human right and freedom to make that choice. The socioeconomic status of the parent body, of the community from which the kids are drawn, is linked to another completely objective measure, and that is the average recurrent cost of educating a young Australian in a public school. So we get a sliding scale of funding which starts at around 14 per cent for the wealthiest non-government schools. They will receive 14 per cent of the average government school recurrent cost of funding a student. At the moment for a primary school student the average is $4,355, and it is $6,050 for a secondary school student. That is the average cost of educating a kid for a year in a government primary or secondary school. So we have locked that in as the objective test, and then we give Commonwealth funding to non-government schools from a scale starting with the wealthiest schools getting just under 14 per cent of the cost of educating a child at a government school as a subsidy from the Commonwealth up to a subsidy of 70 per cent of the cost of a primary or secondary school student for the poorest non-government schools. The member for Rankin suggested that this system was going to disadvantage students in the disability sector. The absolute opposite is the case. Every non-government school specialising in educating children with disabilities is automatically categorised at the top level of Commonwealth assistance, which is 70 per cent of the cost of a public school place.There are a couple points in this class rhetoric which need to be pointed out. Firstly, some may say, and some have argued, that there should be no Commonwealth funding at all for private schools, for non-government schools. I note the fact that parents from non-government schools are paying taxes for public education services which they will never use. They are actually assisting to generate the tax revenue to fund the public education system in the full knowledge that their children will never have access to those services. Secondly, I note that we heard the same sort of language in relation to private health and the efforts of this government to build a strong private health insurance system. The rationale for it is exactly that we want to free up the resources in the public sector, that we want to free up the availability of public health services to those who need it most. The way we do that is by providing incentives for those who can afford it to look after to the greatest extent possible their own health. Exactly the same arguments operate in the education sectorthat we want to provide some encouragement. If parents are prepared to privately invest in their kids' education and by doing so are creating another place in the public education system, that reduces the stress and strain on public education and allows for greater access to quality education for a greater number of students. I note, for example, that on average parents of children in government schools provide six per cent of the cost of schooling, with state and federal governments providing roughly 93 per cent of the cost of that child's education. The parents of non-government school students are providing roughly 43 per cent of the cost of educating those kids, with the Commonwealth providing 38 per cent and state governments 19 per cent. So what you see is this reduction on the burden of public education. I make those points as someone who is an avowed supporter of public education in this country and a member of the school council of one of the public primary schools in my electorate. It is a function that I discharge with relish. I think all of us who spend time among young people, as every member of this House of Representatives does, get an infectious sort of buzz from spending time among young Australians. You feel instinctively the importance of providing them with a quality educational environment. The debate taking place today is not about those fundamental objectives but purely about the most equitable method of getting there. I happily endorse this legislation as a step towards that outcome of excellence in education. This measure will encourage private investment in education throughout the country. It will provide non-government schools with a financial incentive to attract students from low income families. It involves increased funding of $561 million over the next four years. I note that this measure is a four-year funding cycle and that the Commonwealth is again providing leadership in this area where so many of the state governments around the country are not prepared to give this kind of four-year commitment. We believe in certainty in funding. We believe in letting school principals and school parent bodies know what their funding position is so that they can plan adequately for the future.I conclude by touching on this issue of funding for public education, because this has been raised repeatedly. I just note that this year this coalition government will spend $402 million more on non-government schools than the Labor government did in its last year, 1995-96. That is an increase of 26 per cent. On top of that current very significant increase in funding, the forward projection for the next four years involves Commonwealth funding to public schools rising by a further 21 per cent. This is a balanced, practical, commonsense measure. It is founded on the principle of equity. It will be much simpler for schools to administer. It will involve another step towards excellence in Australian education. (Time expired)21:45:0020063Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—This is an important debate on an important piece of national legislation, the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. It goes to a central element of economic policy—education—and the way we skill the next generation for the demands of the new economy of the new century. It is also a central element of social policy, of social justice, and that is our commitment as a nation—to skill our children on an equitable basis so that there are no excessively unfair starts in the competitive business of life. Core and central to both those objectives is how we go about funding the nation's future education requirements, the adequacy of that funding, the direction of that funding and the use of that funding. Arguably, there is no more important legislation before the nation's parliament than what we have before us this evening. The scope of the legislation covers government and non-government schools. In my area of Brisbane, I have a large number of both in my electorate, some 42 schools in all. In my time as member for Griffith I have visited each and every one of those schools. They do an excellent job, given the resource constraints under which each of them operate. Each of these school communities is actively interested in the outcome of the debate before the parliament at present. This is not just an important area of public policy; it is also an exceptionally sensitive area of public policy, one requiring even-handed treatment. Regrettably, we have had less than even-handed treatment of this most sensitive subject. What we have had instead, I fear, is the ideologue from central casting, the Dr Strangelove of education, the one for whom the Australian Education Union is some sort of cocktail of the beast, the Antichrist with `666' stamped on his forehead and the source of all evil. I refer to our very own Dr Kemp. It was up there in the minister's office, next to the test tubes, the beakers and the Bunsen burners, and just by all those sealed bottles which contain all the leftover exhibits from previous social experiments we found a dusty old manual entitled `Dr Kemp's secret recipe for schools'. That manual is subtitled `The ERC's submission for education' and dated 3-4 June 1991. As the shadow parliamentary secretary reminds me, it was probably the era of the feral abacus, but I cannot quite recall its particular point in history. What do we read in that document—Dr Kemp's submission to the ERC of 1991 entitled `Education, David Kemp'? It states as follows: Necessary changes to education included industrial relations reforms in schools and tertiary institutions.It goes on: He noted that the coalition sought to encourage students to move from government to non-government schools and was committed to the funding of non-government schools. That is fairly clear. Dr Kemp's submission goes on: Issues for further consideration. It was agreed that Dr Kemp would report back to the committee—the ERC—on:1. Non-government schools—whether additional expenditure could be offset by reductions in grants to government schools and reductions in untied grants; and 2. Government schools—administrative savings in devolving responsibility for those schools to the states. That document represents the clearest articulation of a strategy for the future of the country's school system which has at its core the non-government school system and says that the future role of the Commonwealth is to remove itself from financial support for government schools—a clear, resounding statement of where this minister would take us in the years ahead. Of course, that was only volume 1 of the social engineering strategy of the century. Volume 2 up there on Dr Kemp's work bench next to the smoking, steaming test tubes and beakers was that other little document that we saw tabled mysteriously in this parliament last year, on his proposals for reform of the university sector. That one bit the dust rather badly after the shadow minister, Michael Lee, mysteriously produced that document here in the parliament. On the face of the minister, Dr Kemp, was what I can only describe as the stunned mullet of the year award expression as he saw his proposed reforms for higher education go up in flames before him. But that was only volume 2. We then move on to volume 3. Volume 3 is alive in a large slice of the legislation which we have before the parliament this evening. This bill deals with government and non-government school funding for the next quadrennium and introduces a new allocation methodology entitled the SES, or socioeconomic status funding model. The details of this methodology have been expounded by other speakers in the debate. It would be tedious and repetitious of me to repeat those formulations and their explanation in my presentation to the parliament this evening. The key issue alive in the debate is the special treatment which is afforded to the 62 category 1 schools around the country. Before this new system was introduced, 17 per cent of average government school recurrent costs, AGSRC, went to these category 1 schools. But after the new system is introduced, after the Dr Strangelove initiative finally becomes reality, what happens? Thirty per cent of AGSRC will go to those 62 category 1 schools across the country—what could be described in any person's language as a windfall. Our calculations, largely supported by evidence to the Senate estimates committee by DETYA, are that category 1 schools, as a consequence of Dr Kemp's initiative, will achieve on average an additional $800,000 a year—not a bad addition to the pocket for those schools. This stands in somewhat stark contrast to the additional allocation which is proposed for Catholic systemic schools. Rather than the $800,000 offered to category 1 schools, how much do the Catholic systemic schools get? An average of, we estimate, $60,000 extra per year, some 12 times less than the amount offered to category 1 schools. And what of government schools? How much extra will they be getting? It is $800,000 extra each for the category 1 schools, $60,000 per school for the Catholic systemic schools. `But how much for the government schools' do I hear you ask? Our calculation is $4,000 that each government school will be better off per year—some 200 times less than what has been offered on average to category 1 schools. Have we heard in the parliament any words of denial from the minister when presented with these claims by the shadow minister, Michael Lee? No. Do we have any authoritative figures from the minister at all to either refute or substantiate our claims? No. In fact, he would rather we take this entire piece of legislation on trust. When you do not have any evidence and you do not have any refutation from the minister about these core claims about the allocation of funding between these categories of schools, something is truly rotten in the state of Denmark.We on this side of the House welcome and support increased funding for those other schools which are part of this overall new funding scheme, especially for low fee Christian schools, low fee independent schools and our marvellous Catholic systemic schools. I have many of these schools in my own electorate: Christian Outreach College, Brisbane Adventist College, Cannon Hill Anglican College and the convent schools right across the electorate of Griffith. But we have grave problems with this misallocation, this windfall allocation, to category 1 schools, which are that category of school that does not need this money at the end of the day. That is why the proposal put forward by the shadow minister for education, Michael Lee, to instead dedicate this funding to special needs education is in fact a wise way to go. I think all members of this House, including those opposite, would agree that the special needs sector is a sector of education which is in particular need of additional government support. We do not just have an issue of general equity here in terms of category 1 schools and non-category 1 schools. There is also a question of geographical equity. When we put together the 62 category 1 schools, how many, for example, come from my own state of Queensland? One, in Warwick. And I gather that that particular school has achieved its category 1 status as a result of a particular funding anomaly over the last several years. So, in the entire state of Queensland, with the exception of that school in Warwick, we have zero, zilch, none—not a single school which falls into this category. The other 61 are all south of the Tweed. We talk about equity in terms of category 1 schools and non-category 1 schools. I would suggest there are some geographical equity issues alive in this proposal as well. Appropriate levels of funding for our schools are one thing. The uniformity and quality of our curriculum are another. That forms a core part of what our funding goes to support. The move in recent years towards a genuinely national curriculum is to be welcomed, not least because of the increasing mobility of our national work force. Parents are tiring—and rightly so—of the practical impact on their children's education if they have to move interstate because of employment. The reality that we all face as a result of the changing nature of work is that the average worker will change jobs many times during their working life, and an increasing number of these jobs will involve moving around the country. In many respects, this remains one of the last frontiers of microeconomic reform—to ensure that education does not become an impediment to a flexible work force and an efficient economy. One of the manifestations of the emerging national curriculum has been the decision to develop eight national key learning areas, or KLAs. One of these is the so-called SOSE KLA—the study of society and the environment. In recent weeks, this has been the subject of an important and, it seems, increasingly heated public debate in my own state of Queensland. I have had a longstanding interest in curriculum questions, not just as a parent with three children currently at school—one at our local state school, the other two at non-government schools—and not just as a periodic member of our local school P&C and school advisory council, but also as someone who in a previous life was instrumental in initiating a comprehensive review of the Queensland curriculum in the early to mid 1990s. In fact, so concerned was I about the current state of the proposed new SOSE curriculum for Queensland schools that I recently wrote to the state education minister about it; I hope soon to be able to have a discussion with him about it. Many people are critical of the new proposed curriculum because they argue that it is ideologically biased. I do not subscribe to this view and I do not believe this type of criticism is relevant to the key deficiencies of the document. Those deficiencies relate to what I describe as the triumph of process over content, particularly as it relates to the treatment of traditional disciplines such as history and geography. It strikes me—and to some it may seem a slightly reactionary view—that one of the principal deficiencies we have with a large number of secondary and tertiary graduates is the absence of even a rudimentary historical framework within which interpretative analysis can occur. I find the paucity of the most basic chronological frameworks for understanding the history of Australia—both pre and post European settlement—not to mention the histories of Britain, France, Germany, the United States, China, Japan, India and Indonesia, to be nothing short of lamentable. I am not in this sense talking about the need for every year 10 graduate in Queensland to be able to name every premier of Queensland since 1860. Nor is it necessary to go back to the rote learning of the English public school system of some time ago whereby students were required to be able to name every king and queen of England since William of Normandy. But I would argue that a broad chronological framework which has, as a testable element, that the Tudors preceded the Stuarts, who in turn preceded Cromwell, is a fairly useful piece of knowledge in terms of students subsequently being able to debate effectively, for example, the evolution of political power and the role of parliament in a cultural tradition which directly informs our own. On a similar score, it might not be such a bad idea if our year 10 graduates were able to know the rough sequence of the various prime ministers that this country has had since Federation and the principal political movements that they have represented.My critique of the geographical component of the new SOSE syllabus is of a similar nature. Whereas the history syllabus is now entitled `Time, Continuity and Change'—otherwise known as `History'—geography has now been entitled `Space and Place'. Once again, we need to see the reassertion of content over process, of knowledge of where the principal countries of our particular region lie on the map, their principal river systems, their mountain systems, et cetera, as well as, within that framework, an ability to interpret and apply that knowledge in debate and argument.As I have indicated to the state education minister, I have offered my observations on these questions of deficiency, in relation to history and geography in particular, not as a trained educator but as one with a longstanding professional and personal interest in curriculum quality. I believe I am not Robinson Crusoe in my articulation of these concerns, as all parents and all teachers that I know have a deep concern for the quality of the curriculum product that our schools are delivering. Of course, I may be wrong in the observations I have made. At the end of the day, that is why it is important to have a public discussion and debate about these issues. I was puzzled to pick up my Courier Mail last Saturday and read that, in the view of the Director of the Queensland School Curriculum Council, I am not properly qualified to participate in this debate at all because `he'—that is, Rudd—`is not an educator, and he's never even been a teacher.' Well, I regret to report that I am guilty as charged on both counts—I am neither an educator nor a teacher. However, I find it extraordinarily arrogant, not to say elitist, to claim that this debate should somehow be restricted to educators and teachers alone or, more specifically, I suspect, the professional curriculum industry alone. What about parents? Don't they have a legitimate point of view? What about employers? Don't they have a point of view? And what about people such as yours truly? We have a professional interest in the quality of our education system, both as an instrument of national economic policy as this country faces more and more international competition, not less, and as a fundamental instrument of social justice as the education system is the best means available to us to provide each child in this country with an equitable and competitive start in life as is possible. If the best the Curriculum Council can do is to try and shut the debate on SOSE down because in its view the rest of us are dolts, then I think the time has come to review the role of the council itself. I don't mind for a minute having my arguments debated and, after due consideration, rejected. That is an open process. But I do reject vehemently the view that the council is some `holy of holies' that is not open to the possibility of external criticism and change. Furthermore, if the quality of the current SOSE document released in Queensland is a reflection of the quality of the council itself, then the time has come for somebody to have a look at just how this council is put together, what its powers are and how it goes about its business. For example, shouldn't we consider having at least a couple of senior business persons on the council, with both national and international experience, given that they are the ones who are in part going to be the `consumers' of the education product at the end of the day? How about having a few more, in this case, non-Queensland or non-state educators who can appropriately internationally benchmark what is going on in Queensland with other parts of the country and other developed economies?I know many teachers and principals in my part of Brisbane. And all of them that I know are not only dedicated and hardworking but also committed to delivering the absolute best for their students at the chalkface. I fear, however, that what is being provided for them in this particular curriculum exercise is something which does not serve them well. I fear in particular that they may be being let down by what could broadly be described as the `professional curriculum industry'. These are important issues for the nation. They cover and go to the heart of how we go about funding the school system, both government and non-government. They also go to the heart of how that system is used and the quality of the curriculum that is delivered through it.Last weekend I ran into a constituent of mine, Mr Koch, down at the local shops. Mr Koch was upset because he saw that there had been a diminution in the fairness of the education system. He said he was preparing a bumper sticker entitled `Fairness in education'. I said, `Mr Koch, paste it on your bumper. Let the world know that in fact we do have a problem of equity and fairness in this country's education system and we do need to have something done about it.' That is why the proposals put to this House by the government do not in our view reflect a fair outcome for this nation's future funding of the school system and need to be redressed consistent with the remarks of the shadow minister. (Time expired)22:05:0020067Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—This States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 expresses an educational vision of the Howard coalition government. It is a vision to provide a quality education not only for the wealthy few but for all Australian children. It is a vision to lift education standards for those at the bottom of the scale because it is a vision that welcomes the raising of standards from bottom to top. As such, it is a vision embedded in fundamental democratic values. I do not wish to dwell too much on the flawed system inherited from previous governments, but essentially their policies were based upon a myth. It was an education myth constructed upon a Marxist, class based ideology that has disenchanted traditional Labor voters since the 1990s. Under successive Labor governments fuelled by the education unions, government schooling was travelling on the road to nowhere. The winners were centralised bureaucracy and monolithic education. Over the past four years, there has been a major change of direction in education, and as a result all Australian children and their parents are the winners. It is nothing short of a mischief to suggest that this has been done at the expense of government schools. On the contrary, government schools are more competitive and more focused on lifting quality as a result of this changed direction. What encourages me is that under this government the interests of all Australian children have been put first and parents, who bear the major responsibility for the care and upbringing of their children, have been given a real choice in the kind of education that their child receives. This choice means that the very wealthy parents can choose to send their children to government schools, and a great number do, and low income parents can now afford to send their children to non-government schools if they so choose, and many do this also. This is a big achievement for any government and it is what separates the government that stands for choice between quality schools in all sectors and an opposition that stands for envy and division in education.Because the issue of class and envy has been raised by the opposition in regard to this bill, I want to draw attention to the value and extent of diversity in primary and secondary education that all parents now enjoy in Australia. If the rainbow colours of multiculturalism, with its diversity of values and outlooks, enriches our community—and it does—so too does educational diversity with its range of values and outlooks. I cannot understand why, given that diversity is championed by the members on the opposite side of the House across a whole range of issues, when it comes to diversity in education, their diversity armbands disappear from are replaced by the divisive armbands of class and envy.Australian freedom and democracy go hand in hand and have shown the world that while we are many we also stand together as one. Australians are citizens of many different backgrounds and outlooks and we face our shared future working together to educate our children so that they may secure their future financial independence and happiness. This is one important vision shared by all Australian parents, no matter what their heritage. Educational policies exist to serve visions such as these and our educational institutions are the means by which the development of children into educated adults is achieved.In a democratic society the institutions should reflect what the people want. They should not force people into a uniform mould. Collective sameness was tried by the Soviet Union and by Chairman Mao. The rank stupidity of forced uniformity and centralised bureaucracy should be clear to all those who have eyes to learn the lessons of history. In our gold plated Australian democracy there are different values and different world views which are held dearly within the national psyche. If all Australians are to have the very best opportunities available to their children, they should rightly enjoy the widest possible choice in the way they live their lives, and this includes the widest possible choice of education models.There are still many people who will ask, `But doesn't Christian schooling pass on Christian values?' Of course it does. But the question implies that government school education is somehow value neutral. The truth is that all educational programs, whether government or non-government, are developed within, and presented from, a particular philosophical view of life. A quick glance at textbooks and courses taught in government schools reveals that educational institutions are not value neutral but interpret life based on what can be described as the religion of relativistic humanism. The body of thought that comprises relativistic humanism is not value free. For example, one of the values it holds is to deny the relevance of God in today's world. One of the big problems this causes, in my view, is that it guides students to make choices based not upon the principle of right or wrong but upon feelings, which are all too ephemeral, and circumstances, which are all too transient. So I, as a parent, chose to send my children to Catholic schools—to the friendly little village school of St Catherine's at Gymea and to the excellent St Patrick's College at Sutherland—because I valued dearly the strong Christian ethics taught in those schools. In Australia the choice of school is the province of parents and our government wants to ensure that all Australian parents have the best possible choice when it comes to the education of their children. This bill is about non-government schools and we need to be clear that we are not talking about some monolithic or anachronistic entity. It is worth while to take a few minutes to remind ourselves of the growth in the diversity and history of the many non-government schools in Australia in recent years.Christian schooling has its roots in the Jewish tradition which holds that parents are ultimately responsible before God for the education of their young. In biblical times, it contrasted with the Greek tradition where, in wealthy Greek families, household slaves acted as teachers of the children. After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD and in the course of centuries in exile, Jewish schools increased in number. The focus of education was on the education of character and was seen to be not extraneous to life but, rather, synonymous with life. In the early centuries of the Christian era, ancient literature shows a tension between the Christian family and the Hellenistic pagan schools. As an example, Augustine had a very pious mother but his thinking as a young person was moulded by the secular Roman culture of his day. From such an example grew the realisation that Christian family education had to be complemented by Christian school education. Christians became involved in schooling when the Roman Empire declined and was replaced by the Christian state. Gradually the Hellenistic concept of human-centred education was replaced by the Christian concept of God-centred education. There followed a period of monastic education, but by the 11th century such education by monks had gradually lessened and town schools developed.Around the 16th century the Renaissance and the Reformation brought further revolutionary changes to both streams of education. As the Renaissance was influenced by the Greek and Roman golden ages, so the Reformation searched for roots in the early Christian era. Both stressed the individual and personal element, in opposition to tradition and collective thinking. A major influence that can be traced to the first Australian school was in Geneva in the mid-1500s, when John Calvin invited the city council to open a college for the training of children. He recognised the importance of education for the future and saw education as necessary to secure public administration, to sustain the church unharmed and to maintain humanity among men. It influenced the development of schooling in many parts of Europe. In England and Scotland it led to the establishment of church parish grammar schools to educate all children, whether wealthy or poor. It was this model that came to Australia with the chaplain to the First Fleet and penal garrison, Reverend Richard Johnson.A little later in Europe, the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution intensified pressure for a separation of church and state. It is interesting to note that today, after 40 years of Communist rule and suppression of Christian schooling in many of the non-Orthodox countries of the former Eastern Bloc, Christian schools are again reestablishing themselves. In fact, Christian schools can be found in many countries around the world. They are diverse in their cultural and national backgrounds, their historical backgrounds and in their relationships with church and state and they form a very varied and colourful world family.Back in the colony of New South Wales, the Reverend Richard Johnson was the first to begin recruitment to establish schools for the illiterate convicts of New South Wales. It is significant that the building that contained the first school in Australia in 1793, located just a short distance up the hill from Circular Quay, was also the first church building in Australia, serving both as a place of learning and as a place of public worship. It is not widely known that by far the majority of schools established in the infant colony were started by clergymen and supported by small grants from religious bodies and missionary societies. My paternal grandmother was Elsie Anne Walker Ward, the eldest daughter of George Walker, a Methodist lay preacher of the Richmond-Windsor district in New South Wales. His father was a Methodist preacher, and he opened the earliest Methodist schools in this area during the early 1800s. The majority of early Australian education, like that of America and a number of other countries, was initiated not by government legislation but by the Christian church. There is no doubt that this vanguard of church schools contributed to the high level of literacy among the local born and to their general moral behaviour, which was said to have been held in higher regard by the colonial authorities than the moral behaviour of emancipists and even the free immigrants. Government education did not officially begin until 1880, and so for almost a century Bible based, church related education met the academic, spiritual and moral needs of the children of the colony—and did so with remarkable success. While the churches could cope with schooling in the cities and towns, they had difficulty in providing education for children in rural areas where the population was sparse. By 1891, with the passing of education acts in the six colonies, almost four students in five were attending government schools.In 1960, the dual system of government and non-government schools was recognised by the Commonwealth government, when funding was provided for libraries and science laboratories in both systems. Since then, a dramatic change has taken place. In the period 1975 to 1983, whilst the established Anglican and Catholic schools grew in size rather than number, there was a 41 per cent explosion in the number of other non-government schools, most of which were Christian schools. These non-government schools are not just Anglican and Catholic schools; there is a myriad other denominational and non-denominational Christian schools, plus schools for Jewish children and schools for the children of Muslims, Hare Krishnas and supporters of Rudolf Steiner and Maria Montessori. The newest school in my electorate is the highly regarded St Marks Christian Coptic School in the delightful and desirable new suburb of Wattle Grove. This school offers education for children from kindergarten to year 12, and although it opened only two years ago it already has 800 students and is seeking an additional campus.Much of the stereotyping of the non-government schools is that of a few long-established and well-appointed denominational schools or the little Catholic parish schools which appear in nearly every suburb. I was able to benefit from a varied education, attending infants at Sylvania Public School, primary at a Catholic parish school, the Star of the Sea at Miranda, and secondary at St Patrick's Convent School at Kogarah. There is a very broad spectrum of non-government schools, and one of the less understood segments in the spectrum is the Christian parent controlled schools, which have grown exponentially in the last few years. These schools encourage individual school autonomy and diversity. It is not well known that many of these schools have their origins in Dutch immigrants who came to Australia in the 1950s and found that Christian schools similar to those that they knew in the Netherlands did not exist here. Many of the new Dutch arrivals were unskilled or their qualifications were not recognised in Australia, and they could not afford to send their children to high-fee denominational schools. Consequently, they began to form schools similar to those in their home country, and from such grassroots beginnings a significant number of new Christian schools developed, and they continue to adapt and to redefine their educational aims and practice in the modern Australian context. As I said before, it is important not to stereotype non-government schools, particularly along the lines that existed in the 1960s. I keep coming back to this point because it is important to understand the diversity and educational richness of the non-government school sector. It is an important factor in making Australia a clever country. All up, this one segment of the non-government school spectrum that can be described as alternative Christian schools includes about 330 schools, 4,500 teachers and 60,000 students. Many of these are located in regional areas.The ratio of non-government schools, teachers and students to the government sector is rising from about one in four to about one in three. We are talking about nearly one million students in non-government schools altogether, compared to just over two million students in government schools. From a government policy perspective, it makes sound economic sense to encourage non-government schools. It costs the government about $5,000 per year to educate a child in a government school but only about $3,000 per child in a non--government school. In most cases, the shortfall of $2,000 is met by parents from the family budget and in most cases represents a considerable personal sacrifice. My fellow Australians should be aware that, in gross terms, the significant contribution of these families saves the Australian taxpayer about $120 million each year.The formula that establishes the basis of funding under this bill is known as the SES or the socioeconomic status. It replaces the discredited education resources index, otherwise known as the ERI, because the ERI was not transparent and it did not deliver equity. The SES will introduce a new level of fairness, equity and social justice into school funding. The vast proportion of the funding that will flow to schools under the SES over the next quadrennium will go to the neediest schools. The SES is based on need. For example, under this arrangement little Catholic parish schools will receive about 76 per cent of the total funding. The schools serving the wealthiest families in Australia will receive no funding increase. Those schools will be funded at about 13.7 per cent of the average government school recurrent cost, and that is essentially the funding level those schools get under the present system, the ERI. There is no increase in the level of funding for these schools. From the point of no increase for the wealthiest schools through to the funding for the neediest schools, there is a progression in funding according to need—according to need and based on equity, justice and fairness. That is what the SES will achieve. I support the introduction of the SES based funding mechanism to non-government schools, and I congratulate Minister Kemp on this important initiative, which will leverage the future wealth of our nation upon the high quality of education for our children. I commend the bill to the House.22:21:0020070Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 provides the bulk of Commonwealth school funding for the four years 2001-04 of $7.6 billion for government schools and $14 billion for non-government schools. To this bill, the opposition has moved:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes that the preliminary data available suggest that the proposed distribution of funding among non-government schools is profoundly unfair;(2) is of the opinion that, before the bill is debated, the Government must provide detailed, final figures on the cost of the policy changes contained in the bill and the new funding figures for each non-government school; and (3) condemns the Government for: (a) failing to provide a matching increase in funding for government schools; and (b) continuing its unfair Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment policy”.The bill introduces two additional models of funding for non-government schools—the SES model and one for the Catholic systemic schools—and a mechanism to ensure that the schools are placed on the model that is most beneficial to them. It locks all grants into an index based upon the average government school's recurrent costs. It introduces establishment grants for new non-government schools and increases emergency assistance grants. It provides for non-government schools to receive recurrent funding for distance education students. It makes some changes to target programs. It makes signing up to performance targets a condition of funding for all school sectors. The major initiative in this bill is the implementation of a new funding system for non-government schools, with the measure of a school's needs changing from the current education resources index, or ERI, which assesses a school's total resources level, to an index which measures the socioeconomic status, or SES—that is, occupation, education and income—of all parents who send their children to the school. Catholic systemic schools will not be funded through the new system but will be funded at a level the government claims is equivalent to the ERI category 11. The remainder of the non-government schools will either move to the new SES funding system or retain, in real terms, their year 2000 level of funding, whichever is the more beneficial.There will, therefore, be three categories of school funding: schools with SES funding levels, schools with the year 2000 funding levels—that is, the old ERI model—and schools in the Catholic school system. There will be some 65 different levels of funding—46 SES and 18 ERI—with a separate rate in primary and secondary, plus special rates for special education and distance education. All up there will be 170 different payment rates. About 95 per cent of non-government schools will receive an increase in funding. Government schools will receive no increase, apart from indexation and enrolment adjustment. In fact, the 62 wealthier schools in Australia, the present category 1 schools, will receive some $50 million a year in extra funding under this bill—almost $1 million each. I make this point as an economic fact of life rather than to create any friction between the wealthier and the not so wealthy schools in this country. This drain on finances for state schools is showing up in a serious lack of resources. Julia Baird, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 August, stated:Students in public schools lack equipment vital to the new HSC science syllabus six months after it was launched. Most private schools have bought thousands of data loggers, which are used in all of the new HSC science courses to measure and record data electronically. But public schools are still waiting for the government-recommended suppliers, Q Stores, to stock them.The Australian Education Union has estimated that the increase per student in the non-government sector will range from $170 for Catholic students and will be about $335 per student for other students in the first year, reaching about $1,000 per student per year at the end of a four-year period.I would like to examine in more detail the new SES funding model compared to the old ERI model. The new model is based on the socioeconomic status of the parents of the students who attend the school. The school supplies the residential addresses of all its students. These addresses are then matched to the census collection district, or CCD, from which they come. A census collection district is usually about 250 households in a metropolitan area. Each CCD will be given an index based on occupation, income and education levels. The school is then given an overall score for funding based on the CCD index of the students. The areas with a high SES level of 130 and above receive the base rate of funding, and those with a low SES level of 85 and below receive the maximum amount of funding, with a sliding scale in between of about $55 per primary student and $75 per secondary student per SES point. This model supposedly gives a more accurate assessment of the individual needs of each school. There is an anomaly, however, in the implementation of this scheme. The old ERI scheme was based on the school's total resource capacity. While this system was not perfect—no system really is—it took into account the school's resource base: how much money it had in the bank, in shares, in investments, et cetera. The minister claims that using this system was a disincentive for schools to raise private capital as their government funding was in jeopardy if they raised private moneys. What we see in the change to the SES, however, is that the richest schools in the country—schools like Kings, Knox and PLC—which all have large investments and a strong resource base, no longer have that taken into account. As a result, we see the anomaly in funding appear. Because the schools' resources are no longer examined, these wealthier schools which have large investments and a strong resource base are now in line for a massive increase in funding.Wealthier parents living in low income rural areas will attract more funding if they are classified as living in the low socioeconomic areas, which will mean that wealthier schools will obtain more funding if they have large numbers of students from rural areas. The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs confirms the shadow minister's claim that the wealthiest 62 schools will receive of the order of $50 million extra each year. In the Australian on Monday, 28 August, an estimation was made that Knox Grammar and Sydney Grammar would each receive about $1.3 million in extra funding under this scheme. How can the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs possibly justify increases in funding to these schools of that magnitude when needier non-government schools in Blacktown, in my electorate, will not receive anything near that amount?We do not know the extent of the funding windfall to wealthier schools because there are no figures available as yet. At this stage, all of the figures are based on supposition, although, as I have said, the department has said that the figures offered by the shadow minister are essentially correct. This piece of legislation is currently being examined by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee due to report at the end of next week. The figures of how each school will benefit will not be known for another month, yet we are supposed to pass this bill as soon as possible.Debate interrupted. Adjournment2007210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2007222:30:0020072Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—Tonight I want to address the issue of unfair breaches that are being imposed on the unemployed by this government under the Job Network. I was interested when Minister Abbott claimed in the House on 16 August that:We do not breach anyone who has a reasonable excuse.Obviously, a lot of unemployed people watch question time. My office received many phone calls and I have since had lots of letters and emails from people who do feel they have been very unfairly breached. I thought I might put some of these on the record over coming weeks. I am sure that many people listening will agree with me that they do seem to be unfair breaches.The first instance is of a young man in a regional area who had been instructed to attend a Jobsearch training course at a Job Network site. This man attended for all the days of the course except one. On that particular day, flooding had caused his car to bog. This had trapped him at home. He did not have alternative transport and so was prevented from attending the course that one day. He attempted to explain, but despite his explanations he was still breached and suffered a reduction in income for six months. For somebody on unemployment benefits, budgets are very strict. To think that an 18 per cent reduction was imposed for six months means that things like food and other necessities are simply forgone. What was his crime? Being bogged and having no other transport. For that, he received a fine which is more than people often receive for drink driving. A second man who contacted my office had a reduction in income imposed through a breach under the government's new preparing for work agreements. Under his agreement, this man agreed to look on a touch screen every week. In an interview with his Job Network provider, he explained honestly, in response to questioning, that in fact he had looked on the touch screen for only three out of four weeks. He too received a six-month reduction in his income.This approach is not genuinely about helping the unemployed move from welfare to work. It is still about punishment. In the estimates committee, in relation to the new preparing for work agreements, I note that Mr Abbott's department, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, told senators that the budgeted $212 million in saving would come as a result of more people finding work. However, the Department of Family and Community Services let the cat out of the bag when they told Senate estimates that the savings were based largely on the expectation that 48,000 people would be fined under the agreements, with many losing their benefits altogether. This conflicting evidence from the two departments shows that the savings were not going to be made by people gaining work; in fact, they were going to be made by people being breached. Something is seriously wrong when a government sets out to save money very often by fining the unemployed for what were demonstrable, extenuating circumstances.To add insult to injury, it was recently revealed that the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has an agreement with Centrelink whereby Centrelink's funding is dependent on its upholding a minimum quota of the breaches imposed under the Job Network. Labor does support the concept that there is an obligation on the unemployed to search for work and to undertake activities to further their chances of finding that work, but we agree with the McClure report when it says that financial penalties should be sanctions of the last resort.2007322:35:0020073Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—With the AFL Grand Final last weekend and the Olympic Games just over a week away, it is perhaps natural that our thoughts will turn to sport this week. This evening I will speak on a sport which does not receive the widespread recognition it deserves—netball. In Australia, our women's national netball team enjoy the title of world champions. In fact, our netballers have been world champions for this past decade. In the last Commonwealth Games, our women's netball team won the gold medal. Netball has considerable public significance in Australia—the participation levels across the country are enormous.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Do you play?83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—Absolutely. There are 350,00 affiliated players. It is the highest organised participatory sport—in other words, team sport—in the country. In my state of Western Australia, netball is played in every primary and secondary school. It is not exclusively a women's sport. It is played by either sex, in a number of formats and by all ages. In fact, Member for Hunter, I do speak from experience, having taken up netball at the age of seven when Dunlop volleys were de rigeur. In fact, I played it long after I should have known better. In Western Australia alone, there are over 34,500 affiliated members of WA Netball. That does not include the estimated 12,000 players currently playing indoor netball. We have developed strong followings in boy's, men's, mixed, master's and disabled netball. My lifelong enthusiasm for netball was heightened even further this year. I had the honour of being the number one ticket holder for the Perth Orioles—our state team in the national competition. The team plays home games at Challenge Stadium, which is within my electorate of Curtin. This year, I and the huge following of fans that the Orioles attract were treated to some thrilling displays of sporting talent and ability as the Orioles competed in the national competition. The standard was exceptional. It must be one of the most exciting spectator sports around when you can see it played at national or international standard. TV coverage just does not do justice to the atmosphere and excitement that can be generated by elite sport played at this level.Given the crowd reaction I observed at our home games, it is surprising that more media coverage is not given to netball played at competition level. Every game I attended was before a capacity crowd, including many young boys and girls. The Orioles cheer squad is made up of hundreds of young girls who squeal at every goal and every play in between. The cheer squad is called the Aviary and, given the decibel level, Mr Speaker, I think you would understand why.The national and international netballers Australia has produced over the past decade have all been fine role models for younger people. Young women today are in particular need of role models. Given the incidence of eating disorders and other social pressures, it is heartening to know that the message from the Orioles to their following of young women is that it is good to be athletic, fit, toned, healthy, part of a team and successful. The Orioles advocate health, fitness, teamwork and cooperation as well as individual purpose and a commitment to goals and leadership. The full title of the WA netball team is the Smokefree Perth Orioles, which underscores the team's commitment to a smoke free environment as well as their own commitment not to smoke or indeed to give any encouragement to younger people to smoke. Only two weeks ago we debated the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000, the last phase in the banning of cigarette advertising at sporting and cultural events of international significance. The Perth Orioles are well ahead of the game, being overtly antismoking in the naming of the team the Smokefree Perth Orioles.This is a sport that is deserving of prime time in media coverage of sport. In recent times a report indicated the very low incidence of women's sport coverage in non-Olympic years. Only about 7.5 per cent of all media sports coverage was devoted to women's sport in 1997. This is surprising, given the participation levels domestically and the sheer excitement of international netball championships—for example in New Zealand last year, when Australia beat New Zealand by one goal, it was as exciting and as skilful a sporting event as anyone would be likely to see anywhere.Media coverage can have an impact in a number of ways. It can create and maintain the positive role model image that our netballers provide. It can also assist in attracting corporate sponsorship. At a national level, the Orioles have to travel from Perth in their own time so they can compete in national games on Friday nights and Saturday nights. Corporate sponsorship is very difficult to come by. They all hold down jobs, and their participation in a national sport has to be juggled with their employment commitments. (Time expired)2007422:40:0020074Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to resist the urge to be parochial. I have no intention of telling the House that the women's Olympic softball is in my electorate and that I am absolutely delighted to be going to a couple of games and to the final. I will resist the urge to tell you that the baseball is headquartered in my electorate. Having avoided parochialism, there are a couple of things I want to add about the report that was tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade today. My purpose is to clear up a bit of confusion, and I am in no way wishing to anticipate any further debate. I think all members of the committee and other members of parliament would welcome the opportunity to comment. Firstly, there seems to have been some confusion about the costs that the committee was putting forward. The figure of $4.5 billion would be to get all nine brigades fully equipped and fully manned. What the committee proposes is not an addition to the existing nine brigades but to collapse nine brigades into four effective brigades. As our chairman explained, these brigades would be on a four-month readiness notice so that they could move within four months fully manned—whether they be reserves or regular—and fully equipped.The other thing I would like to clear up is the lack of understanding of the way we have developed five categories of employment for soldiers. I regret I was not able to explain that today because of a shortness of time. Category A is for full-time service for an agreed tenure. Category B is for initial full-time service followed by an agreed commitment for part-time service for a set tenure. This part-time service would require regular attendance at a local unit. Category C is for part-time service for an agreed tenure. This part-time service would require regular attendance at a local unit. Category D is for part-time service for an agreed tenure. This part-time service would be done in a local or remote location at irregular intervals which best suit the individual. A completely new category E—and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business would be interested in this—is for non-active service by fully trained personnel, who remain on recall databases to support special projects or force expansion.I have talked about collapsing the nine brigades down to four, but critical to understanding the report is the surge capability of a further eight brigades. That does not mean that they are staffed or equipped but, within two years if required, would need to have the surge capability of a further eight fully equipped brigades. This is cascading. A situation may develop where only one or two extra brigades may be required rather than the full eight brigades. Our report encompasses that concept. Some reports, unfortunately, have talked about an expansion of the existing Army. On figures, it is around 50,000—from memory, about 23,000 regulars and 27,000 reservists—but in reality there are about 16,000 reservists and the numbers are coming down because there are more leaving the reserves than are actually joining them.I think this is great news for the reservists because it gives them such flexibility. They can actually join and learn a trade full time and then take on a commitment to part-time service. For other soldiers, of course, it offers huge mobility and the choice at different points in their career of being full time, part time or almost irregular under category D and perhaps to be learning a new skill or trade in the work force that Defence cannot teach them. Mr Speaker, I promised that I would not anticipate the debate, and I look forward to the debate that will occur in the Main Committee. Other committee members will have a chance to speak, as will other honourable members. (Time expired)2007522:45:0020075Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I thank the member for Chifley for not being parochial, but I fully intend to be. In the last few weeks there have been a number of announcements of great note in my electorate. I could, for instance, dwell on the recent opening of a classroom at Fairview Heights State School in my electorate, to which the federal government contributed over a quarter of a million dollars. I could talk for a moment or two, and probably for half an hour, about the wonderful contributions, again approaching a quarter of a million dollars, that the federal government has made to St Francis de Sales school in Clifton or to the Sacred Heart School in Toowoomba. I could talk about a joint program between the state and federal governments in the Eastern Downs Turnaround Project, in which they have embarked on a course whereby the local community will have Internet access. Or I could talk about the opening recently of the new seed cleaning plant at Pacific Seeds—an investment of $750,000. 2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—What are you going to talk about, Ian?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—I'm supposed to say that.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—These things happen in my electorate. The member for Hunter may be envious but the list goes on. I had the pleasure of opening an expansion worth $110,00 at the Darling Downs Aero Club. Off the top of my head, I think the total contributions come to a little less than $2 million, certainly a figure that I am well proud of. One thing I am going to talk about—and the member for Hunter will certainly be envious of this—is the presentation last Thursday of the University of the Year Award to the University of Southern Queensland, a university based in my electorate. It won against all comers, including universities in New South Wales. I have to say that this award to the University of Southern Queensland was exceptionally well deserved. It is a university that, of course, has already been recognised a number of times internationally. The International Council of Open and Distance Education awarded USQ its two top prizes in 1999. In the same year the USQ was judged best exporter and highly commended in the government section of the New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Commission National Multicultural Marketing Awards. I see the member for Hunter is scratching his head. One day his state's universities will be as good as ours.USQ, of course, is one of the `new age' universities. It is a university built on `clicks and mortar': it is a university that uses the latest in Internet technology to enable it to take education to all parts of the globe. I must acknowledge the work of Professor Swannell, who has done an enormous job in building up the university, with the very able support of his staff. In receiving the University of the Year Award, I believe USQ has now received due recognition for the place it holds in our education system. I have spoken before in the House of the pride I have for this university, and I must admit that visitors such as the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts have also taken a great deal of pleasure in their visits to the university.USQ is a university that is perhaps smaller by Australian standards. It has some 19,000 students. But the outstanding significance of that figure is that a very large proportion of those students are not based on campus. It is a university that has led the move to the e-age and has used, as I say, every available option in Internet capability to ensure that it will again win, I am sure, the University of the Year Award in the very near future.2007622:50:0020076Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—Tonight I want to raise the issue of banks and banking services, something I am sure is of concern to every member of the House. We have all witnessed the continuing strategies adopted by banks to maximise their profits by closing branches and increasing fees. We know that it is having a serious effect on the lives of the people living in our electorates. In order to recommend some action that would help the people of Canning, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the effects of a little-known piece of American legislation, the Community Reinvestment Act.This act was introduced in 1977 to make sure that banks provide services in the areas that need them, not just the ones that are profitable. The act was introduced because banks were pulling out of unprofitable areas and thereby hurting the people who lived in them. It all sounds very familiar. The purpose of this act is to make sure that banks meet the needs of the entire community, regardless of income levels or hardship. Since 1989, federal regulators in the United States have been required to report publicly on how well individual banks are meeting the responsibilities imposed on them by the act. For a good rating, banks must pass a series of tests, which include involvement in the community and the availability and effectiveness of its systems in delivering retail banking services. Each bank's performance against these tests is taken into account when it applies for permission to expand or change its activities. For example, a bank wishing to merge with or take over another bank would have its performance against the act assessed before the intended changes were approved. Needless to say, this ensures that banks take their compliance responsibilities very seriously. The open reporting system also allows community groups to challenge a proposed merger or acquisition on the grounds that a bank has a record of providing inadequate services to minorities or low income households. Compare this with the situation in Australia where bank closures cause flow-on effects, including further loss of services and increased unemployment for struggling communities. Compare it with the recent decision by one bank to recover its GST costs by forcing pensioners to pay higher fees, despite the bank's record profits. The introduction in Australia of measures with the same intent as the Community Reinvestment Act would certainly benefit people in my electorate, in both country and urban communities. Maureen Bickley lives in Dwellingup, a small community about an hour's drive from Perth. There is no bank in Dwellingup. Maureen can use the post office for some banking transactions but has to pay a fee of $3 every time she makes a transaction. Cyril Slater is the local post office agent, and he does an excellent job trying to maintain services to his customers, but he can do very little about the service that he receives from the banks. Maureen cannot pay her credit card at the post office, because the computer system failed in October 1997. The bank hasn't fixed it yet. So Maureen has to make a round trip of 50 kilometres to do that at a rival bank's outlet—and of course she has to pay another fee. If Maureen needs to visit the nearest branch of her own bank, she has to make a round trip of 90 kilometres. She is fortunate in some ways, though. She has her own transport. Consider the position of those people who live in communities like Dwellingup who are elderly, infirm or who do not have a car. There is no public transport in Dwellingup. One of the most insidious effects of not having a bank in Dwellingup is that people have to go to other towns to do their banking. But then, of course, they tend to do their shopping in that other town, and Dwellingup misses out again. This is happening across Australia. The economy of small country towns is collapsing because banking services have been withdrawn. Australian consumers already benefit from regulatory structures that provide consumers with protection of their access to services such as electricity and some guarantees as to quality. There is no doubt that banking is just as essential as electricity. People need bank accounts to survive. It is interesting to note that one bank in Australia, the National Australia Bank, already meets these services. But, oddly, it meets them only in America, through its American subsidiary. We can only assume that it does so because it has no choice.Australians desperately need the government to make it clear to the banks that they are part of the community, that they do have responsibilities, and that they must take those responsibilities seriously. 2007722:55:0020077Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I rise tonight to alert the House to the most recent excursion into public debate by Mary Robinson's Australian holiday shack—the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This gang of autodidacts has had the gall to issue guidelines on religious criteria in employment for organisations that provide community services on behalf of the Commonwealth. I have read these guidelines and I can say quite bluntly that they are based on a warped and, I believe, deliberately deceptive interpretation of certain human rights treaties to which Australia is a party—chiefly the covenant on civil and political rights. The officials in this commission seem to me to be crazed with a lust to imprison Australians inside their pseudo-legal framework; and in doing so they have conveniently ignored two basic freedoms expressed in the covenant—freedom of expression and freedom of association—in favour of a particular and, I think, far too concentrated view of rights of nondiscrimination. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, arguably the most authoritative judicial body on earth—or at least one that is equal to the House of Lords in London. In the case of James Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, the court held that the rights of the Boy Scouts to what they called `expressive association', that is, a combination of the freedom of expression and the freedom of association, are paramount to those rights that people in the United States enjoy to nondiscrimination. In particular, it is written into the constitution of the Boy Scouts that they oppose homosexuality. When one of their members was denied the right to participate in their activities because he was an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist, he sued and the case eventually led to the Supreme Court, where the Boy Scouts won—that is, their rights to associate on terms that they deemed proper were held to be paramount to a state law that provided that you should not discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.This is a remarkable decision. It is a long way from the rights mania of the 1970s, a particular disease that infected a lot of legislatures. You hear it expressed from time to time, by Jimmy Carter, for example, and even by some of our own statesmen—Malcolm Fraser, for one. Oil prices may be high again, but we do not have to go back to the sorts of stupidities that the 1970s witnessed. We Australians do not want to hate ourselves. I think we actually like ourselves, and we are comfortable with the way we are, the way we think, and the way we behave. There is a basic question here: why do you have to substitute legislation for the commonsense of Australian men and women? We are not a naturally discriminatory people; in fact, we are the opposite. I think we are a very fair people. Yet these people in these commissions, in issuing these sorts of guidelines, are bent on curbing what little freedom modern legislators seem to have forgotten to extinguish. They are answerable to no-one. We vote them money every year and we plunder the pockets of ordinary Australians to pay for this sort of stupidity—this Whitlamite, Orwellian rubbish—from these people who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the individual.I think these people have a lot to explain. Why in these guidelines do they concentrate on certain rights and, it seems to me, deliberately ignore rights that, under these treaties, should accrue to Australians—those of freedom of association and freedom of expression? When it comes to guidelines on religious criteria in employment for organisations that provide community services on behalf of the Commonwealth, I think we need a response from the executive. In particular, my friend the Minister for Employment Services ought to say something about whether or not this kind of interference in the rights of individual Australians is legitimate or not. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0020078House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices20078The following notices were given:83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards to move:That this House calls on the Government of Burma to cease infringing the right of Aung San Suu Kyi to conduct her democratic activities with freedom and in safety and further calls on the Burmese Government to involve itself in a substantive political dialogue with her National League for Democracy.Answers to Questions in Writing20079The following answers to questions were circulated:20079(Question No. 1172)117220079Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) Has his attention been drawn to concerns raised by Bass Strait Oil Management Limited about the likely impact of the proposed entity taxation system on investors in the Bass Strait Oil Trust a widely held, listed public trust which distributes all its income to unit holders.(2) Is he aware that people who have invested in the Bass Strait Oil Trust have done so on the basis of an entitlement to receive a return of their capital over 10 years and that all income and capital gains which they may derive from the investment is fully taxed in their hands.(3) Were investments like the Bass Strait Oil Trust intended to be caught by the entity taxation system; if so, why.(4) Will the Government expand the collective investment vehicle criteria so that investments like the Bass Strait Oil Trust will be excluded from the entity tax regime; if not, why not.20079Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The basis of investment decisions is a matter for individual investors to consider.(3) and (4) The Government is consulting on its business tax reforms. Concerns raised during consultations, including by the Bass Strait Oil Trust, are being considered as part of that process.20079(Question No. 1209)120920079McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay4I4WatsonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:(1) Which Ministers, Members and Senators have additional office space provided by the Commonwealth other than their allocation for an electorate office.(2) Where is the additional office space located.20079Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The following Ministers and Office holders have a separate Ministerial/Office holder office provided by the Department of Finance and Administration. (1) Minister, Member, Senator(2) Location of additional office spaceThe Hon John Anderson MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, SydneyThe Hon Kim Beazley MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, PerthThe Hon Bronwyn Bishop MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, SydneyThe Hon Peter Costello MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, MelbourneSenator the Hon Peter CookCommonwealth Parliament Offices, PerthThe Hon Simon Crean MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, MelbourneThe Hon Alexander Downer MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, AdelaideThe Hon John Fahey MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, SydneySenator the Hon John HerronCommonwealth Parliament Offices, BrisbaneThe Hon John HowardCommonwealth Parliament Offices MelbourneThe Hon Jackie Kelly MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, SydneyThe Hon Dr David Kemp MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, MelbourneSenator the Hon Rod KempCommonwealth Parliament Offices, MelbourneThe Hon Peter McGauran MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, MelbourneSenator the Hon Nick MinchinCommonwealth Parliament Offices, AdelaideThe Hon John Moore MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, BrisbaneSenator the Hon Kay PattersonCommonwealth Parliament Offices, MelbourneThe Hon Peter Reith MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, Melbourne*The Hon Philip Ruddock MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, SydneyThe Hon Mark Vaile MPCommonwealth Parliament Offices, SydneyThe Hon Dr Michael Wooldridge MPBurke Road, Glen Irisin addition a workstation is provided in the Commonwealth Parliament Offices, Adelaide20080(Question No. 1242)124220080Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 2000:(1) Is the Ombudsman able to disregard the provisions and requirements of Commonwealth legislation, including the provisions and requirements of the National Health Act at paragraph 39B(1)(c); if so, when and in what circumstances is it appropriate to do so.(2) Did the Ombudsman disregard a mistake of fact on departmental files regarding the site or location of 16 additional beds transferred from Balwyn to Glen Waverley by means of an Approval-in-Principle to transfer beds, dated 27 July 1988; if so, why.20080Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Under the Ombudsman Act 1976, the Ombudsman is able to form an opinion about whether an action was lawful, and, in respect of a lawful action, whether the law operates in an unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory way.(2) I am advised that the Ombudsman was aware of the error of fact referred to, but consider that the error was immaterial, and that it was adequately rectified by the subsequent inclusion of correct information on departmental files.20080(Question No. 1503)150320080Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 May 2000:(1) Did the Governor-General recently accept an invitation from the Council for National Reconciliation to be officially presented with its national reconciliation policy statement.(2) Is this statement the product of a 10 year process initiated and sponsored by the Australian Government.(3) Does the Government intend to have the Head of State accept such documents rather than the head of government or relevant ministers.(4) Was the Governor-General acting on the advice of ministers in accepting this invitation.(5) What advice has he or his ministers given the Governor-General in relation to this matter.20080Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (4) I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the media statement issued by the Official Secretary to the Governor-General on 27 April 2000.(2) The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991 was passed unanimously by the Parliament and amongst other matters, asked the Council to “report to the Minister on the views of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and of the wider Australian community as to whether such a document or documents would benefit the Australian community as a whole, and if the Council considers there would be such a benefit, to make recommendations to the Minister on the nature and content of, and manner of giving effect to, such a document or documents;”.(3) It was a matter for the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation to decide whom to invite to participate in the ceremony.(5) Consistent with longstanding practice, the content of the communications between the Governor-General and the government is private to them.20081(Question No. 1515)151520081Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 2000:(1) In relation to the $500m GST Start-Up Assistance program, what proportion of the $130m to assist industry and professional organisations deliver GST related information was directed to industry or professional organisations of Non-English speaking background.(2) What proportion of the $130m was directed to the provision of information in languages other than English.(3) What proportion of the $7m allocated to “Train the Trainer” program was directed to the provision of training in languages other than English.(4) What proportion of the advertising funded by the GST Start-Up Assistance Office has been provided in languages other than English.(5) Have any videos or other publications been produced in languages other than English; if so, what are they.20081Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) All industry and professional organisations provided funding ($130m) from the $500m GST Start-Up Assistance Program were required to take into account Non-English speaking backgrounds of people who were part of the industry or professional organisation's target audience.(2) A number of industry and professional organisations provided seminar materials and information booklets in a range of languages other than English.(3) The GST Start-Up Assistance Office sponsored 21 Non-English GST Business Skills information seminars across Australia. Seminars targeted key business and community leaders within the ethnic business community. These seminars were presented in Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, Arabic, Thai and Japanese. The cost of these seminars was $315,000.00. Videos of these seminars were produced and provided to ethnic television who screened these videos a number of times.(4) The GST Start-Up Assistance Office commissioned advertising in the ethnic press, radio and television. This advertising was conducted in 25 languages at a cost of $341,937.00. Additionally, the Office provided seminars and briefings to the ethnic media in each State capital at a cost of $90,000.00. In total the Office has spent approximately $3.8m on print advertising. (5) The GST Start-Up Assistance Office has produced a GST Business Skills video in 6 languages; Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, Arabic, Thai and Japanese. Publications produced by the Office and translated are:GST Information Brochure for small, medium enterprises25 languagesGST Information Brochure for community sector17 languagesRe-pricing and The New Tax System25 languagesGST Quick Guide25 languagesPAYG and BAS Guide25 languages20082(Question No. 1622)162220082Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 June 2000:(1) What is the location of each of Defence's Civilian Personnel Administration Centres and when was each centre established.(2) What are the specific functions carried out by the centres.(3) Which areas in Defence were previously responsible for these functions prior to the establishment of these centres.(4) For each centre, what is the (a) current average staffing level and (b) States or regions for which it is responsible.(5) Are contract employees used by these centres; if so, (a) how many contract employees are there at present and (b) what are the names of the employment agencies involved.20082Scott, 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) The centres locations and establishment dates are:Canberra-established September 1999Sydney-established February 1999 (CPAC trial), September 1999 official launchMelbourne-established September 1999(2) The functions preformed by the services centres are:Leave administration Pay variations and payroll Maintenance of personal particulars Fitness for duty compensation Separations Relocation payments Miscellaneous payroll functions(3) Prior to the establishment of the centralised CPAC's, civilian pay administration was conducted by Defence Corporate Support at the regional level, and by Branch Administrative Officers at unit level.(4) (a) and (b) The numbers of staff of each centre, and their responsibilities are listed below:Canberra-66 staff responsible for - Canberra Region - Riverina/Murray Valley - Western Australia - Overseas based personnelSydney-63.6 staff responsible for - New South Wales - Queensland - Northern TerritoryMelbourne-40 staff responsible for - Southern Victoria - South Australia - Tasmania - DSTO nationally(5) Six contract employees are engaged at the Canberra CPAC at the present time. Only one of these employees was engaged through an employment agency. That employment agency was `All Staff'. No contract employees are presently engaged at the Sydney CPAC.No contract employees are presently engaged at the Melbourne CPAC.20083(Question No. 1637)163720083Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 June 2000:(1) Are there any plans to privatise Defence recruiting.(2) What are the rental arrangements for Defence recruiting in Perth.(3) How many staff are employed in Perth in Defence recruiting and where are they located.20083Scott, 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) In March 1997, the Defence Efficiency Review indicated that there was room for operational efficiencies to be gained in market testing identified Defence Force Recruiting (DFRO) activities. It recommended `a significant number of recruiting processes should be market tested'. In 1998, Coopers & Lybrand Consulting was engaged to review the recruiting function to identify activities and processes that could be market tested to achieve those efficiencies. The consultancy identified certain parts of the operational process that could, and should, be market tested. The tender closed on 28 February 2000 and the successful Recruiting Service Provider, Manpower Services Australia Pty Limited, will participate in a 12 month limited `pilot' contract in Victoria and Tasmania. It is anticipated that the `pilot' will commence in September 2000. The `pilot' contract will provide the ADF with the opportunity to: . ascertain if Manpower Services Australia Pty Limited is able to deliver recruiting services at the agreed contractual standard prior to the full transfer of responsibility for recruiting services by the Service Provider; . gain confidence in the delivery of recruiting services by Manpower Services Australia Pty Limited; . determine Manpower Services Australia Pty Limited capacity to work with the DFRO, the ADF and stakeholders to improve the efficiency of the recruiting function. Subject to a successful pilot trial, it is anticipated that Manpower will commence Australia-wide operations in financial year 2001/02. The rental arrangements for Defence recruiting in Perth are as follows: ADF Recruiting Unit -Floor 3 and 5, 45 Frances Street, Perth. Rental value is $663,577 per annum. -Car spaces, 45 Frances Street Perth. Rental value $13,440 per annum. ADF Careers Reference Centre (shopfront) -Ground Floor, 124 William Street. Rental value $127,668 per annum. (2) Under the command of Commanding Officer of ADF Recruiting Unit Perth are 83 personnel and their locations are as follows: 45 Francis Street37 Career Reference Centre-Karrakatta24 Career Reference Centre-William Street16 Unit Recruiting Team-Kalgoorlie2 Unit Recruiting Team-Karratha2 Unit Recruiting Team-Albany1 Unit Recruiting Team-Geraldton1 Not under the command of Commanding Officer ADF Recruiting Unit-Perth are four personnel from Psychology Support Section-Perth, three Australian Regular Army and 23 Reserves (including three on inactive list) from 15 Psych Unit. They are all located at 45 Francis Street.20084(Question No. 1678 and 1683)1678 and 168320084Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade, 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) 2003-04.20084Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There is no centralised collection in DFAT of data on all individual transactions with members of the public. Data is recorded for statutory accrual accounting purposes on key departmental outputs such as the number of passports enquiries and passports issued, the number of consular cases handled, the volume of ministerial correspondence processed, and the number of media and public enquiries answered. Detailed data on these outputs is provided in the DFAT Annual Report. DFAT considers it would be an inappropriate diversion of departmental resources to record and collate every individual transaction with members of the public.(2) As this data is not collected, DFAT does not define the term “transaction” as it relates to individual dealings with members of the public.(3) DFAT does not differentiate between contact with the public online (either through the Departmental website, by e-mail to individual missions or officers or other) or by more traditional means such as postal correspondence, telephone contact, face-to-face meetings and over-the-counter dealings. The data on some aspects of the Department's online activities are, however, recorded with, for example, statistics on the number of hits on the DFAT website published in the DFAT Annual Report.(4) Not known. Data not compiled.(5) Not known. Data not compiled.20084(Question No. 1688)168820084Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 26 June 2000:(1) How many individual transactions with individual members of the public were conducted by each agency in the Ministers portfolio in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000, and if available, what are the forecast figures for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.(2) What definition of transaction is used to determine these figures.(3) What proportion of these transactions were or are expected to be conducted online.(4) What was the total cost of administering these transactions for each agency in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.(5) What was the total cost of administering the online transactions in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04. 20085Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Financial systems in the department and most agencies in the portfolio are unable to differentiate between transactions with individuals and other bodies. To obtain the information sought would require a search of original documents at a large number of different sites.The administrative effort required to undertake these investigations represents an unwarranted diversion of staff resources across the portfolio. Even then, the information might not be comprehensive nor accurate.As for the questions involving future projections and cost, the department and agencies cannot provide meaningful figures.Business units in the portfolio which interface with individuals as clients, and whose financial systems differentiate such transactions are IP Australia, the Australian Surveying and Land Information Group, the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. Responses from each follow:IP Australia(1) (a) In the financial year ending 30 June 1999, there were approximately 13,100 sales transactions with individual members of the public. These transactions had a value of approximately $2,367,600. It should be noted that these figures:(i) are based on extrapolated figures for the last eight months of the 1998 - 1999 financial year. In November 1998 IP Australia replaced its financial management system with SAP/3. The information required for the four months leading up to November cannot be identified from the data available in the previous financial system; and (ii) only refer to transactions with customers and not vendors, as it is not possible to identify individuals from the vendor transactions.(b) In the financial year ending 30 June 2000, IP Australia recorded 14,105 sales transactions with individual members of the public. These transactions had a value of $2,688,927. These figures do not include transactions with individual vendors, as this data cannot be identified from the information currently available. (c to f) Based on the data currently available, it is not possible to accurately identify the number of transactions that IP Australia will have with individual members of the public over the next four financial years.Using extrapolated data from the last two years, sales transactions have shown an increase of 8% over the last two years. Based on this crude measurement, sales transactions can be estimated at 15,180; 16,340; 17,580; and 18,900 respectively. These figures do not take into consideration the impact of changes in world intellectual property rights or transactions where IP Australia makes a purchase from an individual. An 'individual transaction' was defined as a financial transaction between a member of the public and IP Australia. The figures are based on receipts received from customers at state offices and the central office, and were taken from the IP Australia financial management system.An 'individual member of the public' was defined as someone other than a company, partnership, attorney or solicitor, annuity service firm, non-incorporated body, or government organisation.The number of transactions where IP Australia purchased goods or services from an individual could not be identified from the data available, but it is believed to be a very small proportion of total purchases.Based on the data currently available, it is not possible to identify the number of online transactions lodged by individuals.(4) and (5) IP Australia does not have ready access to data to provide this information and would require the diversion of very considerable resources to obtain an estimate. Australian Surveying and Land Information Group(1) (a) 2314 (b) 2310:(c) 2320(d) to (f) Not available(2) A transaction is defined as a single order placed by a customer. Each order may contain several items. A transaction is a purchase of an AUSLIG digital or paper map, or satellite imagery by an individual customer.Given that the bulk of AUSLIG sales go though distributors, resellers or directly to government agencies these individual transactions represent only a small fraction of overall sales of AUSLIG products.(3) E-commerce is being established in 2000-01. There is insufficient evidence to enable a reasonable prediction of future online transactions.(4) (a) to 4(f) $2.4 million each year.(5) (a) and (b) 0 (c) to (f) $0.5 million each year.Australian Government Analytical Laoratories(1) (a) 160 (b) 250 (c) 300 (d) 350 (e) 400 (f) 450(2) A transaction is defined as an exchange of goods and services for a consideration.(3) None.(4) Unable to identify the requested information from the overall cost of administration.(5) N/A.Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation(1) (a) 32 (b) 42 (c) to (f) Unable to estimate.(2) A transaction is defined as payment made to or received from a member of the public.(3) Unable to estimate.(4) Unable to identify the requested information from the overall cost of administration. (5) Unable to identify the requested information from the overall cost of administration.20086(Question No. 1690)169020086Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 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) 2003-04.20087Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:My response addresses the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT). For the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) Forecast Figures1988-19991999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-2004An application, whether or not a fee is charged, or a request for service- for a visa3,880,0924,071,3934,522,0004,751,0004,998,0005,260,000- for Citizenship89,30081,50081,70081,70081,70081,700- for a TIS service318,000296,000327,000327,000327,000327,000Approaches to the Department by an individual client- in person (at Regional Office counters in Australia) 1969,1511,110,8411,200,0001,200,0001,200,0001,200,000- bye telephone (via 131880, 131881 and 131450) 11,358,5001,714,1001,800,0001,800,0001,800,0001,800,000- via the internet, including website visits 1708,0001,396,0001,400,0001,400,0001,400,0001,400,000TOTAL7,323,0438,669,8349,330,7009,559,7009,806,70010,068,7001 To allow analysis, the figures for future years have been rounded up and held steady. Given recent trend information, this is likely to be conservative.For the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) Forecast Figures 11988-19991999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-2004Applications received5,6356,0933,500Reception queries - in person19,30022,80013,300Switch/telephone queries 265,00065,00038,000Hearings held3,3783,5032,050Handings down attended381,097640Website visits 310,00010,0005,8001 Forecast figures are to 31/01/2001 when the RRT is to become part of the ART.2 Rough estimate only, based on an estimated average of approximately 10 telephone calls per case (8 incoming, 2 outgoing).3 Estimate only based on total number of hits since inception of Home Page-yearly figures not kept For the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) Forecast figures 11988-991999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-2004Applications received3,324/3636,4813,800Applications finalised2,835/664,1444,2001 Forecast figures are to 31/01/2001 when the MRT is to become part of the ART.The second figure for 1998-1999 relates to the Migration Review Tribunal for the period 1 June 1999 to 30 June 1999.(2) A transaction has been defined as one where a client seeks a direct service from the agency, such as: . An application for a visa, whether or not a fee is charged; . An application for Citizenship; . An application for Review; . A request for a TIS service; . Direct approaches to the Department by an individual client either: .. in person; .. by telephone; or .. via the Internet, including website visits.This definition excludes:. Ministerial representation;. Transactions with vendors;. Transactions with or by third parties delivering services on the agency's behalf eg Community Refugee Support Scheme settlement services;. Compliance activity; and. Passenger movements in and out of Australia.In relation to the processing of an application, some individual applications can be decided on the spot; others require multiple contacts and may take months, involving numerous “individual” transactions with the agency, including: . Payment of the prescribed fee; . Advice of change of address; . Application for permission to work; . Payment of Assurance of Support bond; . Attendance at an interview or hearing; . Provision of documents; and . Grant and evidence of the visa.The capacity does not exist within individual agencies systems to provide a break-up of these individual transactions.Some differences in data exist between agencies, given individual operating environments and availability of data.(3) For the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA)We have defined an online transaction as one where the person is not physically present in our office when the transaction occurs. Proportion ofonline transactions1998-199955.6%1999-200063.9%2000-200164.2%2001-200265.0%2002-200365.8%2003-200466.7%The projections may be conservative given the increasing use of electronic services, including the Internet, and the Department's efforts to respond to the Government's Online agenda.For the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT)Based on the figures in (1) above, approximately 8% of transactions have been conducted online.For the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT)At this time, there is no facility for transactions to be conducted on-line. However, work is underway to upgrade the Tribunal's case management system which will allow the development of a facility for on-line lodgement of review applications via the Tribunal's home page.Given the background of the Tribunal's clientele, it is not expected that a significant proportion of applications will be lodged electronically, though the proportion is expected to increase over time.(4) For the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA)These figures are not available. We do not have data that isolates costs relative to transactions with individual clients.For the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT)These figures are not available.(5) For the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT)These figures are not available.20089(Question No. 1693)169320089Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on the 26 June 2000:(1) How many firms or consortia submitted expressions of interest for the market testing exercise for Defence recruitment.(2) Was an in-house bid submitted as part of the market testing exercise.(3) How many firms or consortia were short-listed and on what date was the short listing finalised.(4) Did the short list include any in-house bid.(5) What was the nature of the disclosures that short-listed firms were required to make regarding their assets, liabilities and financial contingencies.(6) Did the Government announce on 23 November that Manpower Services Australia Pty Ltd (Manpower) and Employment National would be invited to participate in a 3 month national trial to assist Defence meet its recruitment needs.(7) Did Employment National agree to participate in this trial; if not, why not.(8) On what date did Manpower commence its involvement in the national trial and when is the trial due to end.(9) Did the Government announce on 29 May 2000 that Manpower was the preferred tenderer for a twelve month contract, with a five year option, to provide Defence recruitment services in Victoria, Tasmania and southern New South Wales.(10) Has the contract referred in part (9) been signed; if so, on what date did this occur.(11) Has his attention been drawn to media reports alleging that a former senior executive of Manpower is under investigation for serious fraud.(12) Was he or his Department aware of these allegations before they were reported in the media; if so, when was this information received.(13) Is he satisfied that Manpower has at all times made all necessary disclosures to his Department.(14) In terms of the contracts referred to in parts (8) (9) and (10), what systems are in place to protect taxpayers' funds and to ensure that value for money is obtained.20090Scott, 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) 170 consortia submitted expressions of interest for the market testing exercise for Defence recruitment, of which 12 were assessed and short-listed.(2) Yes.(3) 4 plus the In House Option team. The process was finalised on 9 September 1999.(4) Yes.(5) Participating firms were asked to disclose information about their financial viability and financial capacity, more specifically: . copies of audited profit and loss accounts, balance sheets and statements of cash flows for the preceding three (3) financial years; . annual reports to shareholders (if applicable); and . particulars of any petition, claim, action, judgement or decision, which may adversely affect the respondent's financial position.(6) Yes.(7) No. The reasons are commercial-in-confidence.(8) Manpower is on schedule to commence contractual involvement in the national trial on 1 September 2000, for a period of twelve months.(9) Yes, however, the announcement was for a twelve-month trial. Manpower are to provide Recruiting Services in Victoria, Tasmania and southern New South Wales for a period of 12 months. Should this trial be assessed as successful, Manpower will be allowed to complete a 6 year contract, including the 12 month trial, to provide National Recruiting Services.(10) No.(11) Yes, however, the member of Manpower staff involved in the alleged incident had been removed from the organisation in July 1999, four months previous to Defence requesting tenders for provision of recruiting services.(12) No. (13) Yes.(14) The Department has ensured that every effort has been made to guarantee greater efficiency and make the best possible use of the taxpayers' dollar. Manpower will be asked to sign a standard Commonwealth contract, incorporating indemnity, insurance and escape clauses. Defence will also utilise consolidated task outcome mechanisms, key performance indicators and output-based payment systems. Defence will compare every facet of the service provider's expected outputs and can tangibly compare these to current processes to ascertain enhancement of service. For example, the service provider will only receive a percentage of payment for a recruit entering basic training, another percentage if the recruit completes basic training and the remaining percentage when the recruit completes training for a trade.20091(Question No. 1705)170520091Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice, on 28 June 2000:(1) Is RAAF Base Amberley being used for any civilian purposes; if so, by whom and for what purpose.(2) Does the Minister's Department have plans or proposals to use the site for other than RAAF uses; if so what are the plans.(3) Is the Minister's Department investigating or developing an alternative use for the site; if so, what are the projects.20091Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) Defence is currently in discussions with Boeing Pty Ltd in relation to the establishment of a facility to modify and maintain Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft at Amberley. Part of the Boeing proposal includes using excess capacity in the proposed facility for modification and maintenance of civilian aircraft.In addition, all Defence Commercial Support Program (CSP) licenses have provision for excess capacity to be used for civilian contracts after consultation with and agreement by Defence. There are a number of CSP contracts relating to RAAF Base Amberley currently under negotiation between Defence and industry.(3) No. However, the prospect of establishing a civil terminal has been raised in discussions with local authorities in the past. A site has been identified on the base should the proposal proceed.20091(Question No. 1719)171920091Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 June 2000:(1) What (a) in-patient, (b) accident and emergency and (c) outpatient services are currently provided at Kapooka Medical Centre.(2) How many staff are employed at the Centre.(3) Is the Government considering any reduction in services at the Centre; if so, what are the details.20091Scott, 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) 24-hours in-patient services for upwards of 30 patients.(b) 24-hours accident and emergency services.(c) Sick parade attendances between 0700 and 1600 hours each day, and referral of patients to medical specialists in Wagga Wagga as and when required.(2) 39; 28 military and 11 civilian personnel.(3) No.20091(Question No. 1721)172120091Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 June 2000:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1363 (Hansard, 5 June 2000), page 16005), how many in-patient beds were operational at Puckapunyal Medical Centre when the original contract was let with Serco Gardner Merchant Pty Ltd.(2) How many in-patient beds are currently operational at the Centre.(3) Is the Government considering transferring the responsibility for (a) in-patient services and (b) accident and emergency services from the Puckapunyal Medical Centre to Seymour Hospital. (4) If the Government is considering transferring some responsibilities to Seymour Hospital, does that hospital currently have (a) any residential medical staff or (b) a designated accident and emergency centre.(5) How many on-call doctors are currently available at (a) Seymour Hospital and (b) Puckapunyal Medical Centre.(6) Has the Director-General of Defence Health Service, Brigadier Ramsey, suggested that Puckapunyal personnel could also utilise hospital services in the northern suburbs of Melbourne; if so, (a) which specific hospitals does Defence have in mind and (b) what is the distance from Puckapunyal to these hospitals.(7) Did the Prime Minister make certain undertakings at Nyngan on 30 January 2000 regarding the continuation of Commonwealth Services and Defence functions in regional areas; if so, will he maintain current services at the Puckapunyal Medical Centre; if not, why not.20092Scott, 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) 28.(2) 28.(3) No.(4) See above answer to (3).(5) (a) Details of Seymour District Memorial Hospital rostered medical staff are not known.(b) Serco Gardner Merchant has advised that one doctor is rostered to provide on-call services outside normal business hours.(6) Puckapunyal Medical Centre has only ever been a low dependency health care facility with no surgical capability. Defence has always accessed a wide range of both private and public hospitals throughout the Greater Melbourne area to provide specialist services. The choice of hospital is always based upon best clinical practice and patient needs.(7) On 31 January 2000 the Prime Minister addressed a community luncheon at Nyngan, NSW. At that function, the Prime Minister said “I don't want to see any further services, government service levels withdrawn or taken away from the bush. I indicated yesterday and again this morning in Bourke that one of the things that I've asked all of my Ministers to do - and I'm in the process of writing to each of them - ... that in any future Government decisions that, in effect, a red light flashes if that Government decision involves a reduction in the delivery or an existing Commonwealth service. It doesn't mean to say you can't find different ways of delivering the same service level”.The Prime Minister has made clear, on numerous occasions, that proposals to close down significant Defence facilities in rural and regional Australia would also be subject to the same process.20092(Question No. 1729)172920092Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 June 2000:(1) What was the allocation of funds under the ADF Spouse Employment Assistance Program for (a) 1998-99, (b) 1999-00 and (c) 2000-01.(2) What was the actual expenditure in (a) 1998-99, (b) 1999-00 and (c) estimated expenditure in 2000-01.(3) How many support networks have been established under the Program.(4) How many employment information seminars have been conducted under the Program and how many spouses have attended.(5) How many spouses have been provided with assistance through (a) Defence-specific Job Clubs, and (b) general community Job Clubs. (6) What initiatives has the Defence Community Organisation taken to highlight the employment needs of Defence spouses to employers and how has the success or otherwise of these been measured.(7) What services does the Job Network provide to Defence spouses and what evaluation, if any has the Defence Community Organisation conducted of those services.(8) Has Defence conducted an evaluation of the Spouse Employment Assistance Program; if so, what were the findings and recommendations of the evaluation.(9) What further measures has the Government subsequently adopted to improve the employment position of Defence spouses and what funding has been allocated for this purpose.20093Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's questions are as follows:(1) (a) $518 000(b) $518 000(c) $518 000(2) (a) $444 269(b) $190 000(c) $518 000(3) 42(4) 40 employment seminars have been conducted. A precise count of the number of Defence spouses who have attended has not been kept but it is estimated over 1000 spouses have done so.(5) (a) and (b) This data has not been collected.(6) (a) In 1998/99 and 1999/00 the Defence Community Organisation:. Established the spouse employment website. . Provided access to a SEAP personal computer, printer and scanner in 42 locations for resume preparation and job seeking activities for individual spouses.. Wrote to large employers in each DCO area to raise awareness of ADF spouses as potential employees and to advertise the existence of the website. Employers are encouraged to advertise vacancies in the employment section of the DCO web site and to access this site to obtain details of spouses who are seeking employment.. Sponsored and arranged employment information seminars for Defence spouses in most areas. Invitations to these seminars are extended to local employment agencies, including Job Network Members, local Chambers of Commerce and other participants who are appropriate to local conditions and requirement.. Sponsored limited `work readiness training where a need was established.. Produced the employment assistance booklet Jobs on the Move. . Commenced the expansion of the website to incorporate a wider information database.(b) A reporting framework is currently being developed from the web site server which will provide comprehensive detail of the web site usage, this will provide very valuable detail for both planning and reporting purposes. The server has the capacity to record where usage of the Internet site is emanating from such as individual homes, community facilities (such as libraries) or DCO Internet computer locations. The DCO web site was recently revised and during the first month recorded almost 9000 hits across the individual pages on the site, this type of data will be effectively captured. This quantitative information, balanced with a mix of qualitative data will effectively assess the viability and value of the initiatives over time.(7) In 2000/01 the Defence Community Organisation will continue the previously detailed services and will fully implement a recently approved enhancement, a referral service to established Job Network Members who can assist with work readiness training/job search assistance. Defence will fund this type of assistance for those ADF spouses who are not otherwise eligible under Centrelink provisions. The DCO will survey the ADF spouses who use the Job Network services.(8) No.(9) It is not intended to introduce further initiatives relating to the employment of Defence spouses until the evaluation of current strategies is completed.20094(Question No. 1732)173220094Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, upon notice, on 29 June 2000:(1) How many investigations of alleged breaches of s45D or 45E of the Trade Practices Act have been undertaken since March 1996.(2) What was the nature of each allegation and who were the parties investigated.(3) How many investigations have resulted in (a) withdrawal of the allegation or (b) settlement of the allegation prior to court action being concluded.(4) How many court actions under sections 45D or 45E of the Trade Practices Act have been commenced since March 1996.(5) Of the court actions commenced, how many of these court actions have been successful.(6) What penalty has been levied in each successful prosecution under ss 45D or 45E of the Trade Practices Act.20094Hockey, Joe, MPMr HockeyDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Forty six investigations have been undertaken.(2) It is inappropriate to identify parties that have been investigated but where no contravention has been identified by the ACCC, or to identify matters that are currently under investigation. The five following actions brought before the Court have been concluded: Parties InvestigatedNature of AllegationOutcomeMaritime Union of Australia (MUA)Boycott action.Damages fund up to $7.5m available for small businesses damaged by the boycotts during the dispute. The MUA provided undertaking to Federal Court not to repeat boycotts alleged.Transport Workers' Union of Australia (TWU)Secondary boycott conductConsent orders, injunctions, compliance program and contribution to the ACCC's costs, against, of and by the TWU.Transport Workers Workers Union of Australia (TWUSecondary boycott conduct.Consent orders, injunctions, compliance program and contribution to the ACCC's costs, against, of and by the TWU.Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union (CEPU)secondary boycott conduct.Consent orders against the CEPU.Construction Foresty Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU)Secondary boycott conductConsent orders and contribution to the ACCC's costs against and by CEPU.(3)One investigation resulted in the withdrawal of the allegation and one investigation resulted in a settlement prior to court action being concluded. In four instances informal undertakings were accepted, whilst in another instance Court-enforceable undertakings (given under section 87B of the Act) were accepted.(4) Six actions have been commenced since March 1996 under sections 45D or 45E of the Trade Practices Act - the five listed in (2) above and one matter still before the Court.(5) Of the six actions commenced, five have been successfully concluded and the other matter has not yet been resolved. (6) There have been no penalties levied in these actions. The outcomes of the matters include the granting of consent orders, undertakings, injunctions, implementation of compliance programs, payment of ACCC costs and compensation orders.